Categories » ‘Democracy’
October 20th, 2014 by olddog
By Michael Gaddy
Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.~Frantz Fannon
All who believe in individual Liberty and that sovereignty lies with the individual rather than any form of government, have all seen it: that look of incredulity when we provide factual cognitive evidence that someone strongly held belief, based on pure emotion, is incorrect. We watch as that belief transforms the person into attack mode. Intellectual discussion suddenly reverts to name calling and other behavior commonly found in the second grade classroom. Instead of an intellectual equal, we are maliciously transformed into anarchists, Conspiracy nuts, racists, homophobes or some other derogatory term. When one’s intellectual capabilities have been exceeded or sacred cow attacked, retaliation by derision is the favored mode of regress. When the emotional side of the brain takes command, cognitive discourse must yield.
Sometimes the person whose core beliefs have been subjected to facts that challenge those beliefs finds themselves so bereft of logic they are forced into making totally irrational statements. A great example would be the Republican Party shill, who, when faced with the fact many Republicans had voted to fund the hated Obamacare, stated that regardless, Republicans who voted to fund Obamacare are still one hundred times better than Democrats who did the same thing. Remember that thing about Second Grade?
Recently, our Board of County Commissioners voted to force a land owner and the Federal Government to abide by the US Constitution when it came to the feds purchasing private property in our county. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of our Constitution requires the approval by the State Legislature of any purchase of private property in a state by the fed gov. Of course, both the godvernment and its worshippers have seen the Constitution ignored so often they become offended when anyone points out the unconstitutionality of their actions. The weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth from local worshipers of Godverment has been something to behold. Comments to our local bird cage liner abound.
As previously mentioned, all cognitive discourse disappears like snowballs in Hades when those ignorant of the limitations of government and common sense are presented to the federal godvernment’s cult worshippers. Complicating the thinking process is the fact the government is always willing to pay much more than market value for the private property it seeks to control and remove from the tax rolls of the county, creating of course a larger tax burden on those who are forced to make up the difference.
Completely missing from the discussion are some very relevant questions. First, how does a godvernment that is 18 Trillion dollars in debt afford to purchase private property at premium prices? Should any extra money our godvernment has not go toward the paying down of this huge indebtedness? How does a godvernment agency that states it does not have enough money to perform grazing allotment studies afford to pay premium prices for private property? What would be your reaction to a neighbor/relative who owed you lots of money purchasing a new truck, at sticker price, when you can’t afford to get your old truck repaired?
Secondly, if our godvernment has all this extra money to purchase private property in many of our Western States, could it be that we are paying too much in taxes? Would money that we as taxpayers get to keep, rather than surrender to the godvernment’s real estate ventures, not contribute more to the economy and economic growth than godvernment purchase of private property that removes it from the tax rolls of the individual counties?
Why is it that worship of Godverment, cognitive discourse and common sense are always at odds? The sad fact remains that most of us who still believe in our Bill of Rights, Individual Liberty and the sovereignty of the individual over godvernment, constitute less than 10% of the population while Godverment’s congregation is well over 90% due to many factors, not the least of which is the public fool system. This congregation insists on singing hymns of ignorance and worship of godvernment to any who will listen. Cognitive disconnect is the major theme of their catechism.
“Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, and materialism. The only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to become comfortable.”
“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day . . . . I believe it [human condition] susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is effected.” Thomas Jefferson, April 24, 1816 . (to Dupont de Nemours)
October 6th, 2014 by olddog
Summary of False Flag Operations and False Flag Terrorism
Definition of False Flag
“False flag terrorism” occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag was hung instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, it was called a “false flag” attack.
9/11 Note: For those wanting to explore the possibility of 9/11 as a false flag operation, click here.
Historical False Flag Attacks
There are many examples of false flag attacks throughout history. For example, it is widely known that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. And it has now been persuasively argued — as shown, for example, in this History Channel video — that Nazis set fire to their own parliament, the Reichstag, and blamed that fire on others. The Reichstag fire was the watershed event which justified Hitler’s seizure of power and suspension of liberties.
And in the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers). Israel’s Defense Minister was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government.Click here for verification.
The Russian KGB apparently conducted a wave of bombings in Russia in order to justify war against Chechnya and put Vladimir Putin into power (see also this essay and this report). And the Turkish government has been caught bombing its own and blaming it on a rebel group to justify a crackdown on that group. Muslim governments also play this game. For example, the well-respected former Indonesian president claimed that their government had a role in the Bali bombings.
This sounds nuts, right? You’ve never heard of this “false flag terrorism,” where a government attacks its own people then blames others in order to justify its goals, right? And you are skeptical of the statements discussed above? Please take a look at these historical quotes:
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – U.S. President James Madison
“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
What about the U.S.?
Is it logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so? Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950′s posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).
And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO carried out terror bombings in Italy with the help of the Pentagon and CIA and blamed communists in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
Moreover, declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. The operation was not carried out only because the Kennedy administration refused to implement these Pentagon plans.
For lots more on the astonishing Operation Northwoods, see the ABC news report; the official declassified documents; and watch this interview with James Bamford, the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. One quote from the the declassified Northwoods documents states: “A ‘Remember the Maine’ incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
What about Al-Qaeda?
You might think Al-Qaeda is different. It is very powerful, organized, and out to get us, right?Consider this Los Angeles Times article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled The Power of Nightmares, which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). And former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testified to the Senate that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative.”
And did you know that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but had – at the last minute – cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake powder for real explosives, against the infiltrator’s strong wishes? See also this TV news report.
Have you heard that the CIA is alleged to have met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11? Did you know that years after 9/11 the FBI first stated that it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11? (See also this partial confirmation by the Washington Post) And did you see the statement in Newsweek by the CIA commander in charge of the capture that the U.S.let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan?
Have you heard that the anthrax attacks – which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists – used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility? Indeed,top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test “gone wrong.” For more on this, see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert (and this one).
It is also interesting that the only Congress members mailed anthrax letters were key Democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing PATRIOT Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of Congress into passing that act without even reading it. And though it may be a coincidence, White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred.
Even General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, said “By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism, yet in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation” (the audio is here).
Why Does This Matter?
Please read what the following highly respected people are saying:
Former prominent Republican U.S. Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that elements in government are using fear to try to bring this about.
Republican U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated that the government “is determined to have martial law.” He also said a contrived “Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.” Former National Security Adviser Brzezinski told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify yet another war.
The former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, Paul Craig Roberts, who is called the “Father of Reaganomics” and is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, and Scripps Howard News Service, has said:
“Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging ‘terrorist’ attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?
Retired 27-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:
“We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation – big violent explosions of some kind – we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocationallowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want.”
The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to “play fast and loose” with terror alerts and warnings and even terrorist events in order to rally people behind the flag.
General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States “the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.” Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government. And British Parliament Member George Galloway stated that “there is a very real danger” that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.
The abundance of reliable information in this essay suggests that not only has the U.S. in the past conducted false flag operations, but there is a possibility that 9/11 involved some element of this deceit, and a future false flag operation cannot be ruled out. Let us spread this news to all who care so that we might build the critical mass necessary to stop these secret operations and work together for a more caring civil society.
Special Note: For a collection of reliable, verifiable information suggesting that 9/11 may have been a form of false flag operation, please see the 9/11 Information Center available at this link.
What you can do:
- Inform your media and political representatives of this vital information on false flag operations. To contact those close to you, click here. Urge them also to join in calling for the release of secret documents related to such operations and for a new, impartial investigation of 9/11.
- Learn more about 9/11 and the secret societies which may have been involved in this powerful lesson from the free Insight Course.
- Read concise summaries of revealing major media reports available here suggesting elements of government either allowed or facilitated the 9/11 attacks.
- Spread this news to your friends and colleagues, and recommend this article on key news websites so that we can fill the role at which the major media is sadly failing. Together, we can make a difference.
- We need your support. Please help our work to grow and thrive by donating at this link.
Finding Balance: WantToKnow.info Inspiration Center
WantToKnow.info believes it is important to balance disturbing cover-up information with inspirational writings which call us to be all that we can be and to work together for positive change. For an abundance of uplifting material, please visit our Inspiration Center.
See our exceptional archive of revealing news articles.
Explore the mind and heart expanding websites managed by the nonprofit PEERS network:
www.peerservice.org - PEERS websites: Spreading inspiration, education, & empowerment
www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart
www.personalgrowthcourses.net - Dynamic online courses powerfully expand your horizons
www.WantToKnow.info - Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
October 4th, 2014 by olddog
By Warren B. Causey
Spanish/American philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) left two quotes that seem to sum up quite well the current state of affairs in the United States of America. They are: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, and, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”
The problem with most so-called “progressives” (I still call them liberals) is that they don’t seem to believe those two observations by Santayana. They seem to live in some kind of dream world where mankind is “progressive” and becoming something he is not–peaceful, wise, loving, generous. Yes, you can find some people like that, especially among Christians, but that is not the vast majority in the world. The majority of people in this country no longer are Christian, they are some kind of hybrid humanists/atheists/socialists who don’t have much grounding in history or common sense, not to mention the Word of God. That was taken out of schools. They also don’t act much like the “progressive” myth of people released from the restraints of religion and God.
I had occasion to peruse a book of quotations recently and was impressed to find many that fit the circumstances in which the United States finds itself so well that it’s obvious no one on the left is paying attention. For example Edward Gibbon, author of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” attributed that fall to:
1. The rapid increase of divorce; the undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society.
2. Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.
3. The mad craze for pleasure; sports becoming every year more exciting and more brutal.
4. The building of gigantic armaments when the real enemy was within, the decadence of the people.
5. The decay of religion, faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life and becoming impotent to warn and guide the people.
Obviously every one of those five fit the U.S. exactly today. The last note, the decline of religion, in our case Christianity the same as it also was at the time of the fall of the Roman empire, also brings to mind the writing of Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville after he visited America in 1831. He said: “I sought for the greatness of the United States in her commodious harbors, her ample rivers, her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there. I sought for it in her rich mines, her vast world commerce, her public school system and in her institutions of higher learning and it was not there. I looked for it in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!”
America ceased to be good when large portions of academia became socialist and began attacking the church and other foundations of democracy. America ceased to be good within my lifetime, which spans from the end of World War II until today. The real leftward/humanist lurch began in the 1960s and has enfeebled our institutions of education, hijacked Hollywood to make it a cesspool of evil, and driven churches out of public life and inward to become mere shadows of their former selves. America ceased to be “great” during that same period.
American colonists, before the revolution against England, grew in their resilience and confidence in God, to the point where one Crown-appointed governor wrote of the condition to the Board of Trade back in England: “If you ask an American who is his master, he will tell you he has none, nor any governor, but Jesus Christ.” The Committees of Correspondence soon began sounding the cry across the colonies: “No King but King Jesus!”
Gen. Omar Bradley said, “America today is running on the momentum of a Godly ancestry, and when that momentum runs down, God help America.” We have reached that point. Bradley also said, “We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
John Quincy Adams wrote, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
No less than George Washington wrote; “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” His successor, John Adams, said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Our democracy is in the process of committing that suicide. We have a government of money and special interests–most of them far-left special interests–not of the people. The media of television and movies have given people the circuses–ever more decadent and vile ones–and Congress has provided the bread in terms of cradle-to-grave handouts.
All the great thinkers of the past warned us against these days in which we find ourselves. What is the average, responsible, Christian citizen to do? Hunker down, it’s going to get a lot worse, soon.
I spent fifteen years of my life studying Biblical theology, and I left the Church due to every pastors revisionism preaching. The liberal left and right now believe in humanity instead of Christianity due to an infestation of theological ignorance. America has followed the same path by disregarding the Constitution. Those who believe they have the right to believe what ever makes them feel good about their-self are selling their soul and their country to destruction. Believing you are a good person is contagious and destroys your acceptance of a supreme being, or a fixed set of rules. The Bible and the Constitution are considered out dated, from this destructive self confidence. We all may soon be experiencing hell before death, due to the people’s ignorance, and disrespect of our Lord and Master. If you love your life you will loose it is rejected, from being theologically ignorant and self centered.
September 26th, 2014 by olddog
The Veterans Affairs scandal of falsified waiting lists is the latest of a never-ending stream of government ineptitude. Every season brings a new headline of failures: the botched roll-out of Obamacare involved 55 uncoordinated IT vendors; a White House report in February found that barely 3 percent of the $800 billion stimulus plan went to rebuild transportation infrastructure; and a March Washington Post report describes how federal pensions are processed by hand in a deep cave in Pennsylvania.
The reflexive reaction is to demand detailed laws and rules to make sure things don’t go wrong again. But shackling public choices with ironclad rules, ironically, is a main cause of the problems. Dictating correctness in advance supplants the one factor that is indispensable to all successful endeavors—human responsibility. “Nothing that’s good works by itself,” as Thomas Edison put it. “You’ve got to make the damn thing work.”
Responsibility is nowhere in modern government. Who’s responsible for the budget deficits? Nobody: Program budgets are set in legal concrete. Who’s responsible for failing to fix America’s decrepit infrastructure? Nobody. Who’s responsible for not managing civil servants sensibly? You get the idea.
Modern government is organized on “clear law,” the false premise that by making laws detailed enough to take in all possible circumstances, we can avoid human error. And so over the last few decades, law has gotten ever more granular. But all that regulatory detail, like sediment in a harbor, makes it hard to get anywhere. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act was 29 pages and succeeded in getting 41,000 miles of roads built by 1970. The 2012 transportation bill was 584 pages, and years will pass before workers can start fixing many of those same roads. Health-care regulators have devised 140,000 reimbursement categories for Medicare—including 12 categories for bee stings and 21 categories for “spacecraft accidents.” This is the tip of a bureaucratic iceberg—administration consumes 30 percent of health-care costs.
Legal detail skews behavior in ways that are usually counterproductive. Why did VA officials regularly falsify waiting times? Bureaucratic metrics required them to meet waiting time deadlines—or else they would forfeit a portion of their pay. Why didn’t they just do a better job? Compliance was basically impossible: Congress had mandated more VA services but only modestly expanded resources. Undoubtedly, better efficiency could have been squeezed out of available resources, but that would require liberating VA officials from civil-service straitjackets so they could manage other civil servants. Rigid bureaucracy, not the inexcusable dishonesty of VA officials, was the underlying cause of the VA scandal.
“Clear law” turns out to be a myth. Modern law is too dense to be knowable. “It will be of little avail to the people,” James Madison observed, “if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” The quest for “clear law” is futile also because most regulatory language is inherently ambiguous. Dense rulebooks do not avoid disputes—they just divert the dispute to the parsing of legal words instead of arguing over what’s right. Indeed, legal detail often undermines the regulatory goal. “The more exact and detailed a rule, the more likely it is to open up loopholes, to permit by implication conduct that the rule was intended to avoid,” Judge Richard Posner observed.
What’s the alternative? Put humans back in charge. Law should generally be an open framework, mainly principles and goals, leaving room for responsible people to make decisions and be held accountable for results. Law based on principles leaves room for the decision-maker always to act on this question: What’s the right thing to do here?
“The more exact and detailed a rule, the more likely it is to open up loopholes, to permit by implication conduct that the rule was intended to avoid.”
Until recent decades, law based on principles was the structure of most public law. The Constitution is 10 pages long and provides basic precepts—say, the Fourth Amendment prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures”—without trying to define every situation. The recent Volcker Rule regulating proprietary trading, by contrast, is 950 pages, and, in the words of one banker, is “incoherent any way you look at it.”
Legal principles have the supreme virtue of activating individual responsibility. Law is still supreme. The goals of law are centralized, but implementation is decentralized. Every successful regulatory program works this way. New airplanes, for example, must be certified as “airworthy” by the FAA. There are no detailed regulations that set forth how many rivets per square foot are required. It’s up to the judgment of FAA officials. This system works pretty well. Which would you trust more, a plane approved by experts at the FAA or a plane that was allowed to fly merely because it satisfied a bunch of rules, many outdated?
Simplifying regulation—replacing thick volumes of rules with guiding principles —has two more virtues as well. First, democracy is effective only when there’s someone to hold accountable. Second, principles are coherent. People generally know what’s expected of them. Doctrines such as “unreasonable risk” or a “nutritious meal” or “industry standards” have practical meaning and can be enforced by reference to social norms. “Standards that capture lay intuitions about right behavior,” Posner notes, “may produce greater legal certainty than a network of precise … non-intuitive rules.”
Potentially, simplifying regulation can appeal to both sides: to liberals because it offers regulators more leeway, and to conservatives because it simplifies government and avoids mindless compliance costs.
Here are three examples of how regulation could be simplified:
Oversight of social services: Today, nursing homes, day-care centers, and similar social-service providers are regulated with a maze of input-oriented regulations. “Food shall be stored not less than 15 cm above the floor”; “there shall be .09 recreational workers per resident”—about a thousand rules in most states for nursing homes.
Australia had a similar regulatory structure. But in the wake of scandalous revelations of poor nursing homes in the late 1980s, it abandoned the thick rule book and replaced it with 31 general principles, for example to provide “a homelike environment” and to honor residents’ “privacy and dignity.” The result was an almost immediate transformation for the better. Nursing-home employees started acting on their instincts of right and wrong, instead of trudging through dreary bureaucratic checklists. Regulators and family members engaged in regular dialogues with nursing homes on how to improve things. Nursing homes became nice.
They abandoned the thick rule book and replaced it with 31 general principles. Nursing home became nice.
Environmental review: Environmental review and other infrastructure approvals can last a decade or longer in America. Even projects with virtually no environmental impact can last years, as project sponsors jump through scores of bureaucratic hoops.
The benefits of streamlining approvals would be enormous: several million new jobs, a greener environmental footprint, and enhanced global competitiveness. Replacing America’s antiquated power grid, for example, would save at least 7 percent of electricity—equivalent to the output of 200 coal-burning power plants.
Today the process is interminable, because any naysayer can complain that some pebble was left unturned—and who knows what will happen in court? Far better to give an environmental official responsibility to decide when important facts have been set forth instead of letting the process spin its wheels for a decade and then end up in court. For other permits—for instance, for land-use regulations, navigable-waters approval, landmarks review, and the like—there should also be a “one-stop shop”—a lead agency with the job of coordinating all regulatory concerns. That’s how other greener countries such as Germany are able to approve new infrastructure projects in a fraction of the time it takes in the United States.
Civil Service: More than 20 million people work for federal, state, and local government. Most of them perform needed services. But the accretion of antiquated and unjustifiable work rules has rendered them practically unmanageable.
Hiring and promotion is largely based on written tests, not demonstrated competence. Promoting an exemplary employee is often impossible. Work rules can prevent supervisors from asking workers to pitch in. In New York City, how to use a new copying machine and who can use it is subject to collective bargaining. Firing an incompetent employee under civil-service bureaucracy is almost impossible.
Any critique of this regulatory jungle is met with sanctimonious remonstrations about workers’ rights and the return of the spoils system. But the only relevant criterion for any regulatory structure should be whether it is in the public interest. By that standard, the current civil-service system is indefensible.
The solution is straightforward. Scrap the system and replace it with principles designed to achieve the original goal of a merit system. Avoiding spoils is not hard: Funnel hiring through an independent agency. Work rules should be replaced by general principles, overseen by a neutral review board. Eliminate the presumption of lifetime service, as recommended by the Partnership for Public Service. Terminating a public employee should trigger a safety net, not years of litigation.
Principles, ironically, are less susceptible to abuse of state power and gamesmanship than precise rules. One of the many paradoxes of “clear law” is that no one can comply with thousands of rules. With principles, a citizen can stand his ground to an unreasonable demand and have a good chance of being supported up the chain of authority.
In the civil service, promoting an exemplary employee is often impossible.
There is still a place for precise rules. Rules are effective in situations where the protocol is more important than context and balance—say, with age limits or effluent discharges. Management expert Brenda Zimmerman makes the distinction between the legal framework for “complicated” activities—such as engineering or rocket launches, where a small error might have disastrous results—and “complex” activities, such as running a health-care system or regulating nursing homes. For “complicated” activities, rules and checklists can impose the discipline to avoid disastrous error. For “complex” activities, general principles are far superior, because they allow people to adapt to many moving parts. The more complex the area of oversight the simpler and more flexible the regulatory framework must be.
But what about human error and venality? Does law based on principles mean we must trust people? Of course not. That’s why accountability is still important. Moreover, for important decisions, a structure can require approval of several people. Nothing can get done sensibly or fairly, however, until we reconstruct government with a legal framework which liberates people to roll up their sleeves and make things happen
September 9th, 2014 by olddog
By Richard Ebeling
Proud to be an American: What Should It Mean?
September 09, 2014
Editorial By Richard Ebeling
America! For more than two hundred years the word has represented hope, opportunity, a second chance and freedom. In America the accident of a man’s birth did not serve as an inescapable weight that dictated a person’s fate or that of his family. The individual owned his own life and was free to shape it as his own mind guided him.
Once a newcomer stepped on American soil he left the political tyrannies and economic barriers of the “old world” behind. A willingness to work hard and to bear the risks of one’s own decisions, the possession of a spirit of enterprise and a little bit of luck were the keys to the doors of success in their “new world” home.
American Spirit of Independence, Innovation and Benevolence
Visitors from Europe traveling to America in the 19th century, Frenchmen like Alexis de Tocqueville and Michel Chevalier, marveled at the energy and adaptability of the ordinary American. An American paid his own way, took responsibility for his actions and showed versatility in the face of change, often switching his occupation, profession, or trade several times during his life and frequently moving about from one part of the country to another.
What’s more, individual Americans demonstrated a generous spirit of benevolence and voluntary effort to assist those who had fallen upon hard times, as well as to deal with a wide variety of common community services in their cities, towns and villages.
Those foreign observers of American life noted that no man bowed to another because of the hereditary accident of birth. Each man viewed himself as good as any other, to be judged on the basis of his talents and abilities as well as his character and conduct as an individual human being.
Even the scar of slavery that blemished the American landscape through more than half of the 19th century stood out as something inherently inconsistent and untrue to the vision and conception of a society of free men laid down by the Founding Fathers. The logic of liberty meant that slavery would eventually have to end, in one way or another, if the claim of freedom for all was not to remain confronted with a cruel hypocrisy to the ideal.
A Land of Free, Self-Made Citizens
What a glorious country this America was. Here was a land of free men who were able to pursue their dreams and fulfill their peaceful desires. They were free men who could put their own labor to work, acquire property, accumulate wealth and fashion their own lives. They associated on the basis of freedom of exchange, and benefited each other by trading their talents through a network of division of labor that was kept in order through the competitive processes of market-guided supply and demand.
In this competitive marketplace, the creative entrepreneurial spirit was set free. Every American was at liberty to try his hand, if he chose, to start his own business and devise innovative ways to offer new and better products to others in the market, through which he hoped to earn his living. No man was bond to the soil upon which he was born or tied to an occupation or profession inherited from his ancestors. Every individual had an opportunity to be the master of his own fate, with the freedom to move where inclination led him and choose the work that seemed most profitable and attractive.
The Turn Toward Collectivism
Then something began to happen in America. The socialist and collectivist ideas that were growing in influence in Europe during the last decades of the 19th century began to spread over to the United States. Two generations of young American scholars went off to study in Europe, particularly in Imperial Germany, in the 1880s, 1890s and early 1900s. They became imbued with socialist and state paternalistic conceptions, especially the interventionist and welfare statist ideas that were being taught at the universities in Bismarck’s Germany.
These scholars came back to the United States enthusiastic about their newly learned ideas, convinced that the “negative” idea of freedom dominant in America – an idea of freedom that argued that government’s role was only to secure each person in his individual right to life, liberty and property – needed to be replaced by a more “positive” notion of freedom.
Government should not merely protect citizens from violence and fraud. It should guarantee their health care and retirement pensions; it should regulate their industry and trade, including their wages and conditions of work. The government needed to secure the members of society from all the uncertainties of life, “from cradle to grave” – a phrase that was first popularized during this time.
These European-trained students and academics soon filled the teaching positions in the colleges and universities around the country; they occupied a growing number of jobs in the federal and state bureaucracies; they became the fashionable and “progressive” forward- looking authors of books and magazine articles; they came to dominate the culture of ideas in America.
The Rationale of Relativist Change
How did they sway an increasing number of Americans? They asked people to look around them and observe the radical changes in technologies and styles of life. They pointed to the rapid shift from the countryside to growing urban areas. And they asked, how could such a transformed and transforming society remain wedded to the ideas of men who had lived so long ago, in the 18th century? How could a great and growing country be tied down to a Constitution written for a bygone era?
The Constitution, these “progressives” argued, had to reflect the changing times – it had to be a “living” and “evolving” document. Progress, for these proselytizers of Prussian paternalism, required a new political elite who would guide and lead the nation into a more collectivist future.
The Fruits of Collectivism in America
The fruits of their work are, now, after well over a century, all around us. At the beginning of the 20th century all levels of government in the United States took in taxes around 8 percent of the people’s wealth and income. Now all levels of government extract in many cases over fifty percent of our earnings, in one way or another.
One hundred years ago, government hardly regulated and controlled any of the personal and commercial affairs of the American citizenry. Now, government’s hand intrudes into every corner of our private, business and social affairs. Indeed, it is hard to find one area of our daily lives that does not pass through the interventionist sieve of state management, oversight, restriction and command.
Perhaps worst of all, too many of our fellow Americans have become accustomed to and, indeed, demanding of government protection or subsidy of their personal and economic affairs. We are increasingly no longer free, self-supporting individuals who solely make our own ways through the peaceful transactions and exchanges of the marketplace.
We have become collective “interest groups” who lobby and pressure those in political office for favors and privileges at the expense of our neighbors. And the political officeholders are only too happy to grant these political gifts to those who supply campaign contributions and votes as the avenue to their own desires for power and control over those whom they claim to serve.
It is sometimes said: “But we are still the freest country in the world. Our wealth and standard of living are the envy of tens of millions all around the globe. We should be proud of what and who we are.”
The Standard for Judging America
Our present greatness in terms of these things, however, is only relative to how much farther other countries have gone down the path of government paternalism and regulation during these past one hundred years.
The benchmark of comparison should not be America in relation to other countries in the contemporary world. The standard by which we should judge our freedom should be how much freer the American people were from the stranglehold of government more than one hundred years ago, before those proselytizers of paternalism began to change the political and cultural character of the United States.
By this standard, today’s American people are extremely unfree in many aspects of their life. Of course, there have been important, valuable and even essential economic, social and cultural improvements for many individuals and groups in American society, who one hundred years ago still suffered from various degrees of racial, social or ethic bigotry and politically enforced discrimination. Many of these wrongs are now gone, or at least far less than in that earlier time.
But the fact remains that over many areas of our personal, social and especially economic activities we have all become increasingly wards of the state. And like the convict who has spent so many years in prison that he is afraid of being released and no longer having his jail keepers to tell him what to do and how to live, we are fearful of even the thought of a life without government caring for us, protecting us, subsidizing us, guiding us and educating us.
Loss of Understanding Liberty
Too many in the older generation in America have lost their understanding of what freedom means and why constitutionally limited government is both necessary and desirable. And the vast majority of the young have never been taught in our government-run schools the ideas, ideals and political institutional foundations upon which this country of ours was created. They have been taught to think that there are no absolute truths or any important insights from long human experience concerning why individual freedom is a valuable and precious thing.
What those earlier German-trained political and cultural relativists set out to do in America at the beginning of the 20th century has been to a great extent accomplished. We are threatened with becoming a people who have no sense of an invariant nature of man and who possess no idea of those values and attitudes in the human character so necessary for preserving freedom and prosperity.
Most especially, there has been lost among too many any understanding or appreciation of the concept of individual rights, without which a free society is not sustainable in the long run. The collectivist mindsets of our time have weakened the most fundamental concept underlying the idea of individual rights:
That the individual has a right to live for himself, guided by his own reasoning and judgment, and that he should not be considered and treated as a physical or financial beast of burden expected to sacrifice his life and its potentials for a tribe, whether it is called “the nation,” the “social class,” the “race,” the “democratic majority,” or “mankind.”
Individual Rights are Changeless in a Changing World
The Founding Fathers were not unaware that “times change.” But in the whirlwind of life they saw that reason and experience could and had demonstrated that there were unchanging qualities to the human condition, grounded in the fundamental political idea of individual rights.
They understood the various mantles that tyranny could take on – including the cloak of false benevolence in the form of compulsory redistribution of wealth. They established a constitutional order that was meant to guard us from the plunder of violent and greedy men, while leaving each of us that wide latitude of personal and economic freedom in which we could find our own meanings for life, and adapt to new circumstances consistent with our conscience and concerns.
This is what made America great. This is what made a country in which individuals could say without embarrassment or conceit that they were “proud to be Americans.”
The task for those of us who have not yet lost that true sense of the meaning of freedom is to dedicate ourselves to restoring and refining that noble American ideal of individual rights and liberty. Let us work together to be the stewards of liberty so that freedom may, once again, rekindle its consistent and bright torch in the America of the 21st century.
Back when men were real men
By Chuck Yeager
Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy
Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st
Airborne Infantry. If you’ve seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the
History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10
episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.
I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn’t
know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having
trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was
at the right gate, and noticed the “Screaming Eagle,” the symbol of
the 101st Airborne, on his hat.
Making conversation, I asked him if he’d been in the 101st Airborne
or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the
101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served,
and how many jumps he made.
Quietly and humbly, he said “Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so,
and was in until sometime in 1945 . . .” at which point my heart
At that point, again, very humbly, he said “I made the 5 training
jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . . . do you know
where Normandy is?” At this point my heart stopped.
I told him “yes, I know exactly where Normandy is, and I know what
D-Day was.” At that point he said “I also made a second jump into
Holland, into Arnhem.” I was standing with a genuine war hero …
and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of
I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France, and he said
“Yes…And it’s real sad because, these days, so few of the guys are
left, and those that are, lots of them can’t make the trip.” My heart
was in my throat and I didn’t know what to say.
I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in
coach while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to
get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came
forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have
it, that I’d take his in coach.
He said “No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are
still some who remember what we did and who still care is enough to
make an old man very happy.” His eyes were filling up as he said it.
And mine are brimming up now as I write this.
Shifty died on January l7, 2012, after fighting cancer.
There was no parade.
No big event in Staples Center.
No wall-to-wall, back-to-back 24/7 news coverage.
No weeping fans on television.
And that’s not right!
Let’s give Shifty his own memorial service, on line, in our own quiet way.
Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.
Rest in peace, Shifty.
Chuck Yeager, Maj. General [ret.]
P.S. I think that it is amazing how the “media” chooses our “heroes” these days…
Elvis, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston & the like.
“SHIFTY” – an incredible American hero.
Please do me a favor and pass this on so that untold thousands can read it.
We owe no less to our REAL heroes.
August 8th, 2014 by olddog
By Jean-Claude Paye and Tülay Umay
Global Research, July 25, 2014
Since the attacks of September 11, we are witnessing a transformation of the way the media report the news. They lock us in the unreal. They base truth not on the coherence of a presentation, but on its shocking character. Thus, the observer remains petrified and cannot establish a relation to reality.
The media are lying to us, but at the same time, they show us that they are lying. It is no longer a matter of changing our perception of facts in order to get our support, but to lock us in the spectacle of the omnipotence of power. Showing the annihilation of reason is based on images that serve to replace facts. Information no longer focuses on the ability to perceive and represent a thing, but the need to experience it, or rather to experience oneself through it.
From Bin Laden to Merah, through the “tyrant” Bashar al-Assad, media discourse has become the permanent production of fetishes, ordering surrender to what is “given to see.” The injunction does not aim, as propaganda, to convince. It simply directs the subject to give flesh to the image of the “war of civilizations”. The discursive device of “War of Good against Evil,” updating the Orwellian doublethink process must become a new reality that de-structures our entire existence, of everyday life in global political relations.
Such an approch has become ubiquitous, especially regarding the war in Syria. It consists of cancelling a statement at the same time as it is pronounced, while maintaining what has been previously given to see and hear. The individual must have the ability to accept opposing elements, without raising the existing contradiction. Language is thus reduced to communication and cannot fulfill its function of representation. The deconstruction of the faculty to symbolize prevents any protection vis-à-vis the real to which we are in submission.
Enunciating a Statement And its Opposite at the Same Time
In the reports on the conflict in Syria, the double think procedure is omnipresent. Stating at the same time a thing and its opposite produces a decay of consciousness. It is no longer possible to perceive and analyze reality. Unable to put emotion at a distance, we cannot but feel the real and thus be submitted to it.
Opponents of the regime of Bashar al-Assad are dubbed “freedom fighters” and Islamic fundamentalist enemies of democracy at the same time. It is the same with regard to the use of chemical weapons by belligerents. The media, in the absence of evidence, express certainty as to the Syrian regime’s responsibility, although they mention the use of such weapons by the “rebels”. In particular, they relayed the statements of magistrate Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN independent commission of inquiry into violence in Syria, who said, on May 5, 2013 on Swiss television, “According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.” This magistrate, who is also the former prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia can hardly be called indulgent toward the “regime of Bashar Assad.” “Our investigations should be further developed, verified and confirmed through new evidence, but according to what we have established so far, it is the opponents who used sarin,” she added. 
The White House, for its part, did not want to consider this evidence and has always expressed an opposite position. Thus, as regards the August 21 Ghouta massacre, it released a statement explaining that there is “little doubt” of the use by Syria of chemical weapons against its opposition. The statement added that the Syrian agreement to allow the UN inspectors in the area is “too late to be credible.”
Reduction of qualitative to quantitative.
Following the use, August 21, 2013, of chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus, Kerry reiterated the “strong certainty” of the United States concerning the liability of the Syrian regime. A U.S. intelligence report, released by the White House and said to rely on “multiple” sources, also said that the Syrian government used nerve gas in the attack, the use of which by the rebels is “highly unlikely”. 
The individual is placed outside the differentiating power of language. That which is qualitative, that which is certain, is reduced to that which is quantitative, to the “different degrees of certainty” expressed previously by Obama or the “high certainty” pronounced by J. Kerry. The “very little doubt”, as to the liability of the Syrian regime, also mirrors the “highly unlikely” responsibility attributed to opponents. Quality is thereby restricted to a quantitative difference. Quality, that which is, becomes at the same time, that which is not or at least that which may not be, because it no longer expresses a certainty, but a certain amount or degree of certainty or doubt. The opposites, “certainty” and “doubt” become equivalent. The qualitative difference is reduced to a quantitative gap. There is no longer any quality other than that of measurement.
This reduction of qualitative to quantitative has otherwise already invaded our daily lives. We no longer refer to the poor but to the “less fortunate”. Similarly, we no longer encounter invalids, but “less able persons”. The least skilled jobs are now given names that deny de-qualification. Thus, a cleaning woman becomes a ” housekeeper”, the cashier disappears in favour of the “sales assistant” and garbage Collector are now called « sanitation worker ».
The separating power of language is annihilated. Words are turned into verbal phrases that build a homogenized world. We are in a world in which everyone is advantaged. No more are there qualitative differences between human beings, but only quantitative differences. The vision of a world of perfect homogeneity where only equals exist, no longer differing other than quantitatively, was already foreseen by George Orwell in Animal Farm: « All are equal, but some would be more so than others » « .
Absolute Certainty in the Absence of Evidence.
The word, which describes and differentiates things, is replaced by an image, by that which is everything at the same time as being nothing. Instead of a word referring to an object, degrees of certainty concern only the feelings of the speaker. These verbal phrases are not intended to designate objective things, but to place the person who receives the message in the perspective of the speaker, to lock them in the warped meaning created by the latter.
Expressed certainty can detach itself from facts and present itself as purely subjective. It does not refer to an observation, but refers to a condition posing as objective through a quantization operation.
The certainty of U.S. and French authorities also distinguishes itself in that it is built on equivocal data, on the invocation of evidence of liability of the Syrian regime, although they recall the impossibility of knowing who struck and how chemical weapons were used. It is no longer possible to construct an objective certainty, because the observation of facts is defused and leaves room for the stupefaction of the observer. Expressed certainty no longer separates true from false, since the ability to judge is suspended.
Precisely, subjective and objective certainty is undifferentiated. It is not a matter of believing what is stated, but of believing the authority who speaks, no matter what he says. Statements of Presidents Obama and Holland are immediately given as absolute certainty, ie: they occupy the place that Descartes gives to God “as a principle guaranteeing the objective truth of subjective experience…” . The matter of going through the steps of objective verification, through the judgment of existence, does not arise to the extent that certainty is set free from all spatial and temporal constraints. It is posited in the absence of limits, in the absence of what psychoanalysis calls the “Third Person”, the place of the Other. 
Removal of the “Third Person”
Absolute certainty, posing as the be all and end all, installs a denial of reality, that which escapes us. It does not recognize loss. Constituting “we” is no longer possible because it can only be formed from that which is missing. The monad, for its part, lacks nothing because it is fused with state power. Fetishes fabricated by “the news” fill the void of reality, occupy the place of that which is missing and operate a denial of the third party.
Absolute certainty is opposed to the establishment of a symbolic order integrating the “third person” , the domain of language. The proper function of language is to signify that which is real, knowing that the word is not reality itself, but that by which it is represented. Jacques Lacan expresses this necessity with his aphorism “the thing must be lost in order to be represented”. 
On the contrary, absolute certainty attaches words to things and does not take into account their relationships. In the absence of a ’third person’, it prevents any real articulation with the symbolic. This absence of linkage is the formation of a social psychosis wherein that which is stated by power becomes reality. The deficiency also allows the emergence of a perverse structure that reverses the speech act and prevents identifying the reality of the psychosis.
Enrolling us in psychosis, the discourse of French and American authorities originates in perverse denial. It constitutes a coup against language “coup because disavowal is situated at the logical basis of language” . Denial of reality is realized by a commodification of words and a procedure of cleavage. The cynical coup is this: “pervert that by which law is articulated, make language the reasonable discourse of unreason”  as with “humanitarian war” or “counter-terrorism”.
Counter-terrorism legislation is presented as rational actions to dismantle the law in favour of the fabrication of images. U.S. law is particularly rich in these pictorial constructions, such as the “lone wolf”, a lone terrorist related to an international movement, the “enemy combatant” or “unlawful belligerent” that exist, because they are designated as such by the U.S. President. The enemy combatant, as illegal belligerent, may be a U.S. citizen who has never been on a battlefield and whose “military action” amounts to an act of protest against a military engagement. Deviation from that which is stated by the powers that be is no longer possible. Similarly, any protection against its real threat is removed. The reality manifests itself without dissimilation and can henceforth petrify us.
The suppression of the Third Person reducing the individual to a monad, no longer having an Other outside of state power, allows authority, especially as regards discourse on the war in Syria, to produce a new reality. Evidence of the guilt of the Syrian regime exists, because authority says so.
A “disturbing strangeness”.
The absence of a “third person” settles us in transparency, in a never-never land beyond language. It removes the relationship between interior and exterior. The expression of the omnipotence of the U.S. President, his will to break free from the constraints of language and of any judicial order, reveals our condition, its reduction to “naked life.” There then occurs “a special kind of scary” Freud calls Unheimliche , a term which has no equivalent in French and which can as well be translated as “disturbing strangeness” and as “disturbing familiarity.”
It would be, as defined by Schelling, something that should have remained hidden and which has reappeared. Unveiled, worldly things appear in their raw presence as Real. Where the individual believed himself at home, he suddenly feels driven from his home and becomes strangely foreign to himself. The inside of our condition, our annihilation is thrown out and appears to us as a plaything of the U.S. executive branch. The staging of our division, “disturbing strangeness”, becoming that which is most familiar to us, suppresses intimateness by replacing it.
Freud suggests a dissociation of the ego. The latter is then pulverised and can no longer display the Real, the threat that petrifies it. Freud speaks of the formation of a stranger “I” that can turn itself into moral conscience and treat the other part as an object .
This mechanism reappears as the return of the repressed archaic, that which is intended to hide the distress of the nursing child. The “disturbing strangeness”, produced by Obama’s speech is of the same order. It instrumentalises what happened in Iraq in order to prevent us from forgetting our impotence. Thus, it reinforces “the permanent return of the same” constitutive of a sense of “disturbing strangeness” or disturbing familiarity. The process of repetition presents itself as an inexorable process, like a power that we cannot confront.
Jacques Lacan confirms this reading. Echoing the work of Freud on the “disturbing strangeness”, he shows that anxiety arises when the subject is facing the “lack of lack” that is to say, an all-powerful otherness that invades the self to the point of destroying every faculty of desire. 
In fact, the two translations, the first highlighting the strangeness, the second its familiar character, make each highlight one aspect of this particular anxiety that one can also deal with thanks to the notion of transparency. Interior and exterior confusing themselves, the individual is at once struck by the strangeness of seeing his impotence, by his interior deprivation exhibited outside himself and by the colonization of his intimacy by the spectacle, become familiar, of the enjoyment of the other.
Denial and Splitting of the Ego.
Dissociation is an archaic defense attempt when faced with a power with which one cannot cope. This disintegration of the Ego allows the return of a “déjà vu”. The Superego calls one to see oneself as an infant, as one who does not speak, thus causing a feeling of “disturbing strangeness”.
Faced with the imperative need to believe in the responsibility of Bashar Assad, the individual must suspend contrary information and treat it as if it did not exist. He proceeds to a denial of all that is different, then couched in the regressive position, that of the umbilical union with the mother, a stage preceding language, before the appearance of the function of the father. 
The denial of the contradiction between a thing and its opposite, the responsibility of the Syrian government and the use of chemical weapons by the rebels, is the act of denying the reality of perception seen as dangerous because the individual would then have to face the omniscience displayed by the powers that be. To contain the anxiety produced by the “disturbing strangeness”, the subject is forced to juxtapose two opposing and parallel ways of reasoning. The individual then has two incompatible unlinked visions. The denial of the opposition between these two elements removes any confliction; because there coexists within oneself two opposing statements that are juxtaposed without influencing each other. This denial rests on what psychoanalysis calls the “splitting of the ego.”
The cleavage gives one the opportunity to live on two different levels, placing side by side, on the one hand, “knowledge”, the use of sarin gas by the rebels, and on the other hand a dodging of confrontation with a suspension of information. This is to prevent any struggle, any symbolism in order to enjoy the full omnipotence of the powers that be. In the absence of a perceived lack in what one is told, one finds oneself beneath the conflict in an annulment of any judgment.
Orwell has also highlighted this procedure in his definition of “doublethink.” It consists in the following: “to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel each other out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them,” while being able to forget, « whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed ». Then one must forget, ie: “consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you have just performed. ” 
Cleavage is recurrent in the speech surrounding the war in Syria. Things here are regularly affirmed, at the same time as that which contradicts them without a relationship being established between the different enunciations. Contrary to statements by Carla Del Ponte, Washington would first have arrived, “with varying degrees of certainty,” at the conclusion that the Syrian government forces had used sarin gas against their own people. However, Barack Obama, at the same time, said the United States didn’t know ” how [these weapons] were used, when they were used or who used them” . The operation places the subject in fragmentation, unable to react to the nonsense of what is said and shown. One cannot cope with a certainty that is claimed in the absence of evidence.
The logical reversal of language building becomes a manifestation of the power of the U.S. executive. It exhibits a capacity to overcome any language organisation and thus all symbolic order. The absurdity reclaimed by the statement is as a coup against the logical basis of language. It henceforth has a petrification effect on people and captivates them in psychosis.
This article was first published on our French language website www.mondialisation.ca
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
July 23rd, 2014 by olddog
By Kelleigh Nelson
July 16, 2014
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” -James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
American Legislative Exchange Council
Paul Weyrich also founded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and was Director/President from 1975-1978. ALEC first came into being in 1973 in Chicago as the “Conservative Caucus of State Legislators.” In 1975, with the support of the American Conservative Union, ALEC registered as a federal non-profit agency. Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws that govern your rights. These so-called “model bills” reach into almost every area of American life and, more often than not, directly benefit huge corporations. In ALEC’s own words, corporations have “a VOICE and a VOTE” on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state, and sometimes in the federal legislature.
The Madison Group, the predecessor to the State Policy Network (SPN – mini Heritage Foundation’s in each state), was “launched by ALEC,” and housed in the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, so says a 1991 report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Heartland is funded by the Koch brothers, David and Charles, the former being a member of the globalist Aspen Institute. Remember Aspen Institute’s Director was none other than Maurice Strong, author and promoter of UN Agenda 21. NCRP also reported that the Madison Group’s annual meeting was, at that time, “sponsored by Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation,” which was led by Paul Weyrich.
The NCRP report also notes that ALEC was then “housed in the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Heritage Foundation, a seven-story brick building on Capitol Hill, appointed with thick rugs, chandeliers and enormous floral arrangements. On the second floor, near the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and Amway headquarters, ALEC had a suite of offices.” Today, they are housed in Arlington, VA.
Former Amway President, and CNP charter member, Dick DeVos, and his wife Betsy DeVos, (former chair of the Michigan Republican Party and brother of Erik D. Prince, founder of Blackwater/Xe/Academi) are long-time supporters of the Heritage Foundation and SPN affiliates such as Michigan’s influential Mackinac Center for Public Policy. ALEC has a huge list of corporate donors. Here is a list of their many corporate members, and here is a partial list of politicians that are known to be involved in, or previously involved in ALEC. Not all dues-paying members of ALEC are included because ALEC does not post its full list, but the list includes politicians who have been in a leadership role in ALEC, as a member of a task force, or other publicly known role. It also includes politicians who have been featured speakers or who have accepted awards at ALEC meetings.
ALEC’s membership is 95% corporate along with 2500 of the 7500 legislators from every state. This is where state legislation originates. For you Tennesseans, remember that state Senator Mark Norris, the bagman for our neo-conservative Trotskyite governor, is a long time member of ALEC. I would bet every state has members of ALEC.
Public-Private Partnerships (P-3)
NCRP reported, “Privatization is the altar at which the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Madison Group worship. The state think tanks’ agenda includes privatization of most public services, from mass transit to health clinics to environmental protection, and even libraries; vouchers and tax credits; deregulation of business; opposition to labor-backed policies like the minimum wage and family leave; and rollback of taxes.”
In Bill Jasper’s New American Magazine article, The Not-So-Smart ALEC, of April 21, 2014, he states, “ALEC’s model legislation for states promotes a “Public-Private Partnership (P3) Authority Act,” the summary of which states:
“This Act establishes a state Partnership Committee and an Office of Public-Private Partnerships to identify and establish public-private partnerships and approve qualified bidders, requests for proposals, and template contracts. The Act is designed to improve public operational efficiency and environmental performance, promote public safety, attract private investment in the state, and minimize governmental liabilities.”
“In this area, the supposedly “conservative” ALEC is perfectly in step with the “progressive” Obama administration, which has made public-private partnerships (P3) a centrepiece of its statist program. Many of ALEC’s member corporations are also partners in Obama’s Fedgov/Big Business “Manufacturing Innovation” consortiums and other P3 endeavours. They include such well-known names as Boeing, General Electric, Microsoft, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, ALCOA, and ExxonMobil. Hillary Clinton, while Obama’s secretary of state, launched the administration’s P3 Global Partnership Initiative, spreading hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to the well-connected.”
ALEC is in the forefront of spreading the P3 gospel at the state level, along with its progressive partner, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC), which, like ALEC, talks a good game of “free markets” while actually promoting corporate subsidies and economic fascism. Please read Erica Carle’s short three part article on the Chamber of Commerce and the New World Order
ALEC’s corporate P3 members are well represented by:
• Big Pharma (Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genetech, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer);
• Big Farm (Altria Group, Archer Daniels Midland, Kraft Food, J.R. Simplot, -Monsanto);
• Big Oil (Shell, BP, Peabody, Marathon, Texaco, Tenneco, Chevron, ExxonMobil);
• Big Banking (Bank of America, Coldwell Banker, Wells Fargo, First Chicago NBD);
• Big Gambling (Hollywood Casino Corp., Argosy Gaming Co., Boyd Gaming Corp., GTECH Corp.);
• Big Media (Cox Communications, Comcast, the Wall Street Journal, News Corp., Thompson Reuters, Time Warner Cable);
• Big Insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield, Farmers Group, GEICO, Liberty Mutual, State Farm, Travelers);
• Big Tech (Yahoo, Face book, Google, AT&T, eBay, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Sony);
• Big Soda (Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group);
• Big Liquor (Seagram & Sons, Hiram Walker, Miller-Coors);
• Big Box Stores (Best Buy, Home Depot, JC Penney, Lowe’s);
• Big Auto (Ford, GM, Toyota, Chrysler).
ALEC’s critics on the Left erroneously cite these cosy corporate ties as evidence of the corruption inherent in “free market” capitalism. But the ALEC/Obama P3 “partnerships” are the antithesis of genuine free markets, in which entrepreneurs risk their own capital not that of the captive taxpayers to build businesses that provide goods and services consumers freely choose to purchase, not those determined for them by politicians and government planners. This information all came from Bill Jasper’s amazing article, check it out here.
ALEC and the Article V Convention
ALEC has long promoted an Article V Constitutional Convention using the excuse that we need a Balanced Budget Amendment. If you’ve read Publius Huldah’s articles on same, here and here, then you understand what a terrible danger the BBA actually is to our Constitution. ALEC even produced a “Resolution for Limitations on Authority of Delegates to a ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’ (Article V, United States of America Constitution).” ALEC claims this resolution will curtail and eliminate the possibility of a “runaway convention.” The resolution restricts delegates to work only on those amendments authorized in their legislative instructions and calls for the immediate recall of any delegate that works on an unauthorized amendment.” This is total balderdash! Once a Convention is opened, all is fair game!
The very reason most often cited by scholars for their opposition to an Article V Convention is because the 1787 Convention set the precedent. There is absolutely no way that a new Constitutional Convention can possibly be controlled, no matter the circumstances or restrictions set down prior to the Convention.
The precedent was set in the 1787 Convention when the states convened simply to revise the Articles of Confederation, and ended up throwing out the Articles, and writing a new Constitution. The intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fixing the existing one. This is also what exists today. George Soros and his leftist groups, along with the neo-conservative Trotskyites on the right, Michael Farris, Mike Levin, Goldwater Institute, I Am America, David Barton, Glenn Beck, etc. etc. ad nauseam, are all fomenting change to our Constitution through an Article V convention. What is waiting in the wings is the New States Constitution written over a period of 10 years, at a cost of $25 million, by the Ford Foundation, which eliminates everything after “We The People,” and that includes our God given, unalienable rights.
Countless authorities have stated that there is no Constitutional Convention that can be controlled. Once a Con-Con is opened, the entire document can be taken down and changed. There are no statesmen today like our founders, and the risk of opening a Convention for any reason, would result in the destruction of the last threads binding us to a representative Republic.
Here is ALEC’s handbook on the Constitutional Convention, and of note, the Church of Scientology is also an ALEC member.[ Link]
ALEC and Common Core
In the Washington Post article of June 7, 2014, it states what we already knew, “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.”
Gates money flowed to policy groups on the left and the right, which funded research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. None of this is new, of course. Back in the 60s, we had Mastery Learning and then Outcome Based Education, then Goals 2000, etc. ad nauseam, all of which were the same exact thing with a different name. Those fighting Communist Core have failed to realize that liberals at the Center for American Progress and so-called conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council, both accepted money from Gates to promote Communist Core. Normally these groups disagree on every issue that comes down the pike, but they found common ground on Common Core, the diversion from the danger of charters, vouchers and choice, the real Trojan Horse!
ALEC and Trade Agreements
Again, in The Not-So-Smart ALEC, Bill Jasper tells about ALEC members adopting a “Resolution Supporting the Successful Negotiation of a Comprehensive and Commercially Meaningful Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).” ALEC also adopted a “Resolution Urging Congress to Pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).”
Jasper goes on to say:
“One of the most important facts, if not the most important, to know about both the TTIP and TPP is that they would, if adopted, steadily strip away our national sovereignty, allowing the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations, as well as regional tribunals and regulatory bodies created by these agreements, to override our local, state, and federal laws. This feature alone makes them very subversive, revolutionary proposals that should be opposed by every elected or appointed official who has taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This is no longer a matter of theoretical speculation; as The New American has reported previously, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the WTO agreement have amply proved this. As a result of adopting both of those agreements, NAFTA and WTO rules and rulings increasingly trump our laws.”
This is what Paul Weyrich, the Grand Poobah of the phony right, has given us with ALEC.
Weyrich was also a Member of The Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), which amounts to a “green” Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, with many involved already having signed the ECTI or ECT II or other ecumenical ventures. Their Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, a dominionist group and effort, signed by Evangelicals, Catholics and Jews, many from the CNP, is an environmental statement of faith uniting these same groups in yet another venue.
In Part 8, we’ll discuss Weyrich’s and Morton Blackwell’s membership in The Society for the Protection of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP). Again, the name is the antithesis of TFP’s real strategy and purpose, just like many of the laws our Congress passes where the names sound so good, but the law is so unconstitutional.
Click here for part —–> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
© 2014 Kelleigh Nelson – All Rights Reserved
Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Kelleigh is presently the secretary for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign, a strong freedom advocate group.
July 20th, 2014 by olddog
From: Michael Gaddy [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
“The whole conspiracy idea is cockeyed. We had orders to obey the head of state. We weren’t a band of criminals meeting in the woods in the dead of night to plan mass murders…” ~Hermann Goering, 1 May 1946 (Committed suicide to avoid hanging)
“I was given this assignment which I could not refuse–and besides, I did everything possible to treat [the foreign slave laborers] well.” ~Fritz Saukel , 23 February 1946 (Hanged for crimes against humanity)
“I don’t see how they can fail to recognize a soldier’s obligation to obey orders. That’s the code I’ve live by all my life.” ~Alfred Jodl, 1 November 1945 (Hanged for crimes committed)
I fully understand why people get very defensive whenever any acts by supposedly good Americans are compared to Hitler and Nazi Germany, but when considering the rapid descent into abject Socialism in this country during the past 12-14 years, could it be time to take the gloves off and realize we seem to be following in the footprints of history?
Oh, we are nothing like the Nazi’s—I hear the chorus now. BUT—the president can order the death or imprisonment of an American Citizen without a trial. (National Defense Authorization Act-2012) We have socialized medicine. (Obamacare and Dubya Bush’s Part D Medicare Plan) Our Bill of Rights has been eviscerated. (Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security) Please name one of the above that in any way conflicts with the principles of Nazi Germany.
Is it just coincidence that Adolf Hitler used the term “protect the Homeland” in the speech when he created the Gestapo and George W. Bush used the exact same phrase in his news conference after 9/11? Good arguments could be made on both sides I am sure.
The crucial issue here is the failed concept prevailing among many in our country that whatever the government says, whether they say it through enacted legislation or regulation by some government bureaucracy, it is to be treated as gospel and obeyed without discussion. Whether we are like Nazi Germany or rapidly getting there, the basic premise that government is the almighty is the vehicle which leads to destruction of Liberty and Individual Sovereignty and the advent of heinous crimes by the government.
We have a local representative here in Colorado who has stated publicly that “no law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.” We also have a candidate for Sheriff who says that all laws that emanate from the government will be enforced should he become Sheriff. Both happen to be Republicans, but, for the sake of brevity, we shall skip over a broad discussion of that point in this offering.
To believe that the people who created our government through our states were to become its slaves and subject to its every whim would have been a real surprise to our ancestors who voted in the various State Ratification Conventions to approve this form of government, for they were told if they voted to ratify our Constitution, the exact opposite would be true.
The real question is: do those who advocate the government must be obeyed regardless of the law passed, or regulation written, do so from a true philosophical belief or from sheer ignorance of the Constitutional principles they have sworn to “uphold and defend from all enemies, foreign and domestic?” How does one in good conscience take a sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights and then claim they will uphold, defend and enforce any law passed by government? Another question is: do they have a working knowledge of the Constitution that would enable them to know the difference?
I will offer below, as a classic example of a person holding a very important position in government, publicly claiming they are not qualified for the job they were elected to, while all the while being too ignorant to know they are making such a confession publicly. First, though, let’s take a look at the office of Sheriff here in Colorado.
The Office of Sheriff in Colorado is created by our Constitution. Colo. Const., art. XIV, sect. 8. The Constitution does not enumerate particular duties of Sheriffs. Colorado statutes do specify various duties for Sheriffs, most of which are restatements of the Sheriffs’ traditional common law powers and duties. For example: “to keep and preserve the peace in their respective counties, and to quiet and suppress all affrays, riots, and unlawful assemblies and insurrections”; to “act as fire warden of his or her respective county”; to “appoint some proper person undersheriff”; and so on. Colorado Revised Statutes sect. 30-10-501 et seq. Nothing in the list of statutory duties requires Sheriffs to enforce every state statute or any federal law for that matter.
In Colorado, our Sheriff’s take a very simple oath of office:
“I, …….., do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Colorado, the Ordinances of …….. County and that I will faithfully perform the duties of the Office of County Sheriff, of the County of …….., State of Colorado, upon which I enter.”
This oath is in the form required by the Colorado Constitution, Article XII, sect. 8. which reads as follows:
“Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.”
There is absolutely not to be found in the Oath of Office or the Articles of the Colorado Constitution anything that states the Sheriff must uphold and defend the laws of the state of Colorado or the United States. Could it be that since the Sheriff swears to uphold and defend the Constitutions of Colorado and the US, that that covers any and all laws that are created “in pursuance” of the constitutions, and the occupant of the office of Sheriff is presumed to have a working knowledge of both in order to determine if those laws are indeed constitutional? Is not each person who takes that solemn oath not equally responsible for assuring to those whom they serve a strict adherence to the principles of those documents and to “uphold and defend” them against any unconstitutional edicts submitted by either government? Is it possible to be faithful to one’s oath while at the same time enforcing clearly unconstitutional laws?
Here are excerpts of a letter written by a sitting Sheriff of Colorado (not from our county) in January of 2013, relative to the issues of the Second Amendment; written on official county letterhead, displaying his ignorance of his sacred oath and a proud (to him) display of sufficient evidence to illustrate his incompetence for the office of public trust he holds. (My comments in italics)
“Although I have great respect and admiration for each of my colleague sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, I take exception with the handful of public servants who have suggested that they would reject enforcement of any “unconstitutional mandates,” specifically related to the Second Amendment.” (How can one have a valid, enforceable law that contradicts the Constitution?)
“If an issue were to be arbitrarily deemed “unconstitutional,” the decision to curtail further enforcement responsibilities would be in direct conflict with the concept of the balance of powers, as defined by our founders.” (Ouch! Perhaps the good sheriff has never heard of one Thomas Jefferson, who stated: “My construction of the Constitution is… that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action…” Perhaps that is why they all take an oath to uphold and defend.”)
“Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch, do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue.” (Well, Sheriff, if you do not possess the authority, responsibility or the credentials to determine the “constitutionality” of any issue, you should immediately resign, for in your statement you admit to having little to no knowledge of the documents you swore to “uphold and defend.” Such knowledge would prepare you to possess the authority, responsibility and certainly the credentials which you wear on your uniform shirt, to determine the constitutionality of any act.” Your statement is a bold admission you do not have the knowledge necessary to protect the rights of those who pay your salary.)
“The authority and responsibility to determine the legality and/or the constitutionality of a matter is to be accomplished by the judicial branch, as clearly defined in the Constitution.” (Gosh, Sheriff, sure do wish you would have cited chapter and verse on this bold but incorrect assertion. It would appear your lack of knowledge is quite extensive. Again from Mr. Jefferson: “Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them.” And “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
And finally the Sheriff’s coup de grace: – “WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS.” (Factually, our founders never intended for this to be a nation, for our decisions are made through representatives and not in the aggregate, which is the very definition of a “Nation.” So, Sheriff, you are wrong on that count, and also we are not an anything “of laws.” We are a country with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights which defines what is and what is not constitutional. Laws do not decide for themselves if they are valid.”
If you are looking for a Sheriff like the one who wrote the above, there is one available on the ballot in November; one with an (R) beside his name. If you are looking for a Sheriff who understands his obligations to protect the rights of the people and also understands the gravity of the Oath of Office, you will be forced to make another choice.
I would remind you that Nazi Germany was a nation of laws; everything that Hitler did was within the laws of Germany at the time, and offer this quote from Jeremy Locke’s “The End of All Evil.”
“Law is a weapon. It is used by evil to attack its prey. Whether in the name of duty to king, loyalty to state, or rule of law, law is the weapon used to extort and control. Culture upholds the nobility of law. Culture teaches that law is proper and good. It never questions who wrote the law; tyrant and brother are the same. Culture never questions whether or not the law is right. You are to obey no matter what it says. In this fashion, law is a powerful weapon to be used against you. All principalities create volumes of laws that take lifetimes to understand and armies of lawyers to manipulate. All of these things are weapons in the hands of the powerful, which they will use at your expense.
Law holds value only to those who create it, and only because your culture demands that you obey it. The purest invitation to tyranny is your commitment to obey law regardless of what it says. Against you, the law becomes the perfect weapon. Whomever controls the law, controls you. Your worth is measured by the extent of your obedience.” (Emphasis added)
When anyone tells you that the “Law” must be obeyed, and will be enforced, please remember that there IS a choice: Liberty, or Tyranny and blind obedience; you decide. Should you decide to support the party favorite and the candidate endorsed by the local, socialist, bird cage liner, I take this opportunity to remind you of the words of Samuel Adams: “May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.”
“Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to become comfortable.”
“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day . . . . I believe it [human condition] susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is effected.” Thomas Jefferson, April 24, 1816 (to Dupont de Nemours)
July 7th, 2014 by olddog
By Dr. Eowyn
Editor’s Note: Dr. Eowyn originally published this back in March of 2014, and http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/07/06/michelle-obama-transexual/as you will see from her comments she held it for a long time before doing so. I decided not to republish it at the time, even though I republish most of Doc’s stuff, because I was simply not convinced. I’m still not 100% convinced but I am more and more open to the possibility. And with the recent bombshell allegation dropped by Joan Rivers, I thought I would at least publish this article and let people decide for themselves. Seek your own truth.
Additionally, the video that originally went with this post has been banned by YouTube. I think I found the correct replacement video at Vimeo but I am unsure. -Dean Garrison
###Start of Dr. Eowyn’s article###
I’ve had this post in draft for MONTHS. I’ve hesitated to publish this because of the gravity of what is being asserted, and the uncertainty of the evidence to support the assertion.
The startling assertion is that the current First Lady of the United States of America, known as Michelle Robinson Obama, is a biological male posing as a woman.
That anyone would make such an assertion is a mark of how much distrust and suspicion the Obama’s have engendered, due entirely to Barack’s secretiveness concerning his Selective Service registration, school records (including even his kindergarten record!), and medical records; his refusal to explain why his Social Security number has a Connecticut prefix; and his outright deception about his birth certificate, an image of which he made public on April 27, 2011, but which forensic experts have determined to be a fake. It doesn’t help that the Hawaiian official, Loretta Fuddy, who had signed off on Obama’s purported birth certificate was the only passenger who recently died in a small plane crash.
Startlingly, even the Obamacare sign-up website healthcare.gov cannot verify Barack Obama’s identity! (See also “Investor’s Business Daily editorial asks if Obama’s entire life is a fiction.”)
So I decided to just present what I’ve found and leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions as to whether Mooch is a transexual.
Obama calls his wife “Michael”
In a speech on September 30, 2011, at the transition or change-of-office ceremony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at Fort Myer, Virginia, Obama referred to his wife not as Michelle but as Michael.
As you can verify for yourself in the video below, Obama clearly said: “Distinguished guests, men and women of the finest military in the world, most of all, Admiral Mullen, Deborah, Michael and I also want to acknowledge your son Jack who was deployed today, all of you have performed extraordinary service to our country….”
Note: Deborah is Admiral Mullen’s wife.
Bafflingly, even the text of the speech on WhiteHouse.gov says the same thing:
“Secretary Panetta, thank you for your introduction and for your extraordinary leadership. Members of Congress, Vice President Biden, members of the Joint Chiefs, service secretaries, distinguished guests, and men and women of the finest military in the world. Most of all, Admiral Mullen, Deborah, Michael and I also want to also acknowledge your son Jack, who’s deployed today. All of you have performed extraordinary service to our country.”
Admiral Mullen’s first name is Michael. However, throughout his speech, Obama referred to Mullen as “Mike,” not Michael.
Michelle’s birth name was Michael?
Even before Obama’s gaffe, there were bloggers who said Michelle’s real (birth) name is Michael.
As an example, three months before Obama publicly referred to his wife as “Michael,” blogger Matthew B. Glosser wrote on June 30, 2011 that he was contacted by “an anonymous source” who claimed to be a former White House staff member of the Obama administration, specifically “a former member of the First Lady’s personal staff.” The source claimed to have sensitive information regarding a stunning revelation about Michelle Obama and wanted to arrange a meeting with Glosser in person to present the evidence for this claim.
Though initially skeptical, Glosser nevertheless met with the “anonymous source” on June 25, 2011. The source said “the major alphabet networks … are in the tank for Obama and it is network policy to cover up any critical stories regarding the President and his family. The White House has officially created a State media.” Then the source said the following about Michelle Obama:
Michelle Obama, First Lady of the United States, was born Michael LaVaughn Robinson in Chicago, Illinois on January 17th, 1964. He was the second son born to Fraser Robinson III, a well known cocaine dealer and union thug for Crime Lord/Mayor Richard J. Daley, and Marian Shields Robinson, a transient street prostitute who was diagnosed with the HIV virus in 1998. He [Michael] was a popular high school athlete and in 1982, he accepted a scholarship to play middle linebacker for the Oregon State Beavers.
After finishing a respectable rookie season with 88 tackles and 7.5 sacks, he suddenly dropped out of the school. Fellow teammates observed that Robinson could regularly be heard lamenting over how he is a “woman trapped inside a man’s body”, and on January 13th, 1983, he underwent sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. To hide the shame of his new identity, Michael left Oregon State to attend Princeton University under his new legal name, “Michelle Robinson”. Years later, he met Barry Obama Jr. a Kenyan immigrant who later became aware of “Michelle’s” true identity. They subsequently married and adopted two children.
Writing for Examiner.com, Jan. 11, 2014, Dean Chambers says: “I have been unable to find any proof that a Michael LaVaughn Robinson even existed, and there is reasonable proof that Michelle LaVaughn Robinson (later Obama after marriage) has existed. Furthermore, there is no proof of a Michael Robinson playing linebacker for the Oregon State Beavers in 1981 or 1982.”
Pictures of Michelle’s strange crotch
Here are two pictures of Michelle Obama with a strange crotch-level protuberance suggestive of a shrunken penis. I have no way to ascertain whether the pictures are photoshopped. The sources of the pictures are Barack Ovomit and I Hate the Media.
The most recent claim that Michelle is a man is this fascinating video that systematically argues that physical traits, including her fingers, shoulders, neck muscles, head-to-body ratio and trace of an Adam’s apple, all point to her being a biological male.
Editor’s Note: I want to reiterate that the video originally embedded by Dr. Eowyn has been banned. I am not positive but I think I have found the duplicate video on Vimeo. The first video talks about the banned YouTube video and the second is what I think is a duplicate of the original. -Dean Garrison
If this is true, it certainly would explain why we’ve seen no pictures of a pregnant Michelle, nor has anyone found birth records of “her” two daughters.
H/t FOTM’s Glenn47, Miss May, and swampygirl.
I found the YouTube video of Mooch’s speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention:
A full-figure view of Mooch is at the beginning and at the end of the video. The problem is she was moving so quickly, it’s difficult to spot the weenie. I found a way to slow down the video. Click here or go to http://www.youtubeslow.com/watch?v=sTFsB09KhqI.
Here are some screenshots I took from the video. Mooch’s aqua dress is of a clingy fabric that reveals every bump and bulge. Unlike most women, Mooch has ZERO abdominal fat, but there definitely is something at crotch-level which tugs. No wonder Mooch hasn’t worn another tight clingy dress since. LOL
Dr. Eowyn’s article first appeared at Fellowship of the Minds.
Don’t forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
2 Responses to Michelle Obama is a transexual?
- July 6, 2014 at 10:59 am
I guess that the Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Muslims and Democrats in this country should be exceedingly proud. They have installed the first “Black President”, “Homosexual President”, “Communist President”, “Muslim President” along with the first “Homosexual transgender First Lady” in the entire history of this country. Boy are we happy and impressed! Now, do you think someone can find out if he is also the first “Illegal Alien President”? Shouldn’t be too difficult. England reportedly has his birth records; Kenya has a memorial describing him as the first Kenyan to become President of the United States, along with showing his birth place in Kenya; and, he is also a citizen of Indonesia, they have records there that prove that. Come on, let us not stop with just a few dumb firsts, get them all recorded for historical purposes. I wonder who has a copy of his original visa?
- Dennis Habern says:
July 6, 2014 at 10:49 am
A simple DNA test will prove if the so-called first lady is a male, and
if their two daughters, are biologically theirs. The entire planet is
patiently waiting. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Don’t hold your breath!
June 28th, 2014 by olddog
By Servando Gonzalez
Marx and Engels began their Communist Manifesto with a warning and a threat: “A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of Communism.” According to French economist Thomas Picketty, a new threatening specter is haunting the world: the specter of economic inequality.
According a reviewer, Picketty’s new book, Capital in the Twenty First Century, has almost overnight captivated “Main Street, Wall Street and the cream of Washington’s trend-minded policymakers and think tankers.”What is Picketty’s book main thesis? That the gap between the poor and the rich has reached dangerous levels. Picketty warns that the U.S. may be on the same trajectory as France before the Revolution, where the very rich ended with their heads chopped-off.
After analyzing data from the U.K., France, Germany, Japan and the U.S., Picketty proved with hard data what many people already have been talking about for many years: the rich really are getting richer, and their wealth is not trickling down. Actually, it is trickling up.
In his study, Picketty shows how the wealthy, who make their money mostly out of stock portfolios, pay less or no taxes at all and get richer, while the working middle class, who make their money out of heavily taxed paychecks, get poorer. But then, he jumps to the farfetched conclusion that the sure and only way to change this economic inequality is by modifying the current tax system. According to him, the current form of wealth tax is not adapted to the 21st century structure of wealth. The solution, according to Picketty, is adopting a more just, equitable global wealth tax.
A key to discovering the source of Picketty’s ideas is that the institution that funded his study is the Institute for New Economic Thinking, a George Soros-backed nonprofit organization. Therefore, it doesn’t come as a surprise that Picketty’s solution to the problem is exactly the one the hyper rich globalist conspirators have been pushing for many years, of lately disguised as a “carbon tax.”
But, though Picketty’s “discovery” that the one percent is getting richer and the rest of us are getting poorer is absolutely right, the solution he offers is not only simplistic but also outright naïve. Apparently Picketty believes that the hyper rich are not aware of the problem, and that, just by telling them that what they are doing is wrong (and immoral, unscrupulous, unethical, dishonest, criminal, wicked) they will change their evil ways
Unfortunately, that will not be the case. Nevertheless, whether they like it or not, the monster they have created will turn against them, because eventually a Ponzi scheme of this magnitude will end in disaster for the schemers themselves.
True Capitalism VS Monopoly Capitalism
Unknowingly, when Henry Ford decided to pay his workers twice the amount other companies were paying their workers for similar type of work, he jumpstarted the American middle class. As a result, well-paid workers were able to buy houses, cars, fridges, radio, TV sets, and many other household items that otherwise would have been available only to the rich. This unexpected economic phenomenon contributed to an expanding economic growth never seen before in the history of mankind.
This economic growth propelled the entrepreneurial spirit of many Americans to create their own private companies to provide the newly-created consumers with the products they wanted to buy. This started an upwardly expanding spiral of economic progress that extended for half a century.
Initially, these companies were individually or family-owned. Of course, the possibility of monetary gain was key in their efforts, but because they felt proud of the product they were creating, many of them gave their names to their companies.
Unfortunately, however, the bankers who illegally created the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 needed a way to fill their arks, and the easiest way to do it was by stealing other people’s money. So, to steal it “legally,” they also imposed a federal tax and created the infamous Internal Revenue Service to enforce its collection.
In theory, all citizens were supposed to pay the federal tax. But, given the fact that the idea of a national tax was one of the planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, they created a progressive or graduated income tax as Marx advised. According to this plank, the more money you made the higher percent of taxes you were supposed to pay. Most people were happy, because this tax was supposed to hurt only the very rich.
But you have to be very naïve to believe that the very ones who created the tax were really going to pay it. Actually, they created a tax code full of loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Currently, if one is to believe Rush Limbaugh and other dis-informers, the U.S. has the highest corporate rate of the industrialized countries. What he never mentions, though, is that the U.S. Tax Code also has the highest number of loopholes.
Another method the robber barons invented to avoid paying taxes was by changing their private companies into corporations, but this opened a Pandora’s box. Contrary to privately owned companies, which have an emotional connection to the products they made, corporations are impersonal entities. Despite that the Supreme Court has asserted the legal standing that corporations are people, pride is an emotion corporations lack. Despite their pervasive propaganda, the corporations’ goal is not to serve society with the products they create. Their main goal is to maximize the earnings of their executives and stockholders, and they reach these goals mostly by exploiting their workers and eliminating the competition.
Most people would agree that competition is probably one of the best characteristics of true capitalism. Competition benefits customers and fuels innovation. No wonder monopoly capitalists hate it so much. John D. Rockefeller, the inventor of the trust (a monopoly of monopolies) once said, “Competition is a sin.”
This goal —maximize earnings by exploiting their workers and destroying the competition — have been exacerbated with globalization. With the implementation of the so-called “free trade,” transnational corporations have totally lost their link to the countries where they originally were created. Proof of it this their callousness when they decided to move their production lines to Third World countries in order to increase their profit margin.
One of the main costs of any business is paying the workers who create the product. So, to minimize this cost, they moved their factories abroad to countries where they hired quasi-slave workers who are paid miserly salaries. They never gave a thought to whatever would happen to the lives of the American workers and their families they were sending into unemployment and poverty.
The corporations who pioneered the outsourcing move got an immediate economic edge over the rest. They were producing cheaper products and selling them to the still employed American consumers at the same price as before, when they were produced here in the U.S. But, as most big corporations joined the outsourcing trend, the growing mass of workers who had lost their jobs now was not able to buy the products these corporations were now producing abroad and importing to the U.S. without paying any tariffs because of the “free trade” policies.”
This has created a downward economic spiral. While the corporations’ stockholders and top executives are getting richer, the American middle class of well-paid workers is in serious trouble. Currently, 90 million Americans are unemployed. The economic crisis we are now experiencing is the direct result of a economic phenomenon known as “the tragedy of the commons.”
The Current Tragedy of the Commons
The Tragedy of the Commons is an economics theory developed in 1833 by William Foster Lloyd, according to which individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one’s self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group’s long-term best interests by depleting some common resource.
To demonstrate his theory, Lloyd used as an example a group of herders sharing a common parcel of land on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In many English and European villages, shepherds sometimes grazed their sheep in common areas, and sheep ate the grass closer to the ground than cows. Overgrazing could result when, out of greediness, each shepherd adds additional sheep, and he could receive benefits, but just for a while, because if in the long run all herders made this individually rational economic decision, the common could be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all.
In the present case, the common resource the greedy corporations are destroying is the American middle class of well-paid workers, and this is a real tragedy for everybody in America. As Lloyd predicted, eventually it will be a tragedy even for the very greedy transnational corporations that created the problem.
Unfortunately, some naïve or ill-intentioned politicians are trying to convince us that just by raising the minimum wage America’s economic problems will be solved overnight. But no. Far from solving it, rising the minimum wage would only serve to somewhat hide the true source of the problem for some time until it becomes intolerable. Actually, the minimum wage will very soon become the maximum wage for most American workers.
So, is there a right solution to this problem? Well, there is, but none of the politicians we elected allegedly to protect our interests will tackle it. The true problem is corporations, particularly the big transnational corporations, but our elected politicians will never bite the hand that feeds them.
For more than half a century, under the pretext of protecting the national security, We the People of the United States have been paying, with our blood and taxes, for a military whose only job has been to defend the spurious interests abroad of U.S.-based transnational corporations. Adding insult to outrage, most of these corporations pay no taxes at all. If they need and army to defend their billionaire enterprises abroad, the least they can do is to pay for it by hiring mercenaries to o the job.
No anti-American terrorist organization could have accomplished what U.S.-based transnational corporations are doing: destroying the middle class, America’s economic and social backbone. U.S.-based transnational corporations are the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. They are conspiring in the shadows to eliminate the sovereignty of all nations and impose a global government under their full control — a totalitarian communo-fascist government they call the New World Order.
U.S.-based transnational corporations are the true enemy of America. The choice cannot be clearer: either we get rid of them as soon as possible, or eventually they will completely destroy us.
© 2014 Servando Gonzalez – All Rights Reserved
- Rana Foroohar, “Marx 2.0: How Thomas Picketty’s Unlikely Blockbuster,Capital, Set the World’s Economists and Leaders Spinning,” Time, May 29, 2014, p.46.
2. Most big transnational corporations exhibit the characteristics associated with sociopathic behavior. They are manipulative and conning, have a grandiose sense of self, are pathological liars, lack remorse, shame or guilt, are callous and lack empathy, frequently engage in criminal behavior. This is a direct result of the fact that they are controlled by psychopaths. See, Andy McNab and Kevin Dutton, The Good Psychopath’s Guide to Success. See also, Theo Merz, “Why psychopaths are more successful. Andy McNab and Oxford psychology professor Kevin Dutton reveal how acting like psychopaths could help us in work, life and love,” Telegraph UK, May 7, 2014
3. See, Thom Hartmann, Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became “People.”
4. Big corporations spend a large amount of money in advertising campaigns whose only purpose is to convince you about how much they care for you, your family, the community and their own employees. The truth, however, is quite different. See, i.e., WalMart: The High Cost of Low Price, a documentary film by Robert Greenwald.
5. A March 23, 2013, article by Jerry Z. Muller in Foreign Affairs, “Capitalism and Inequality: What the Right and the Left Get Wrong,” expressed the idea that it is true that “inequality is indeed increasing almost everywhere in the postindustrial capitalist world. But Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it — because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords.” What the author does not say, however, is that this inequality is not the result of expansion of true capitalism, but of monopoly capitalism. And monopoly capitalism, both in its communist and fascist varieties, is not capitalism but socialism.
6. See, Thom Hartman, Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class.
Share This Article
Click Here For Mass E-mailing
Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer, historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas, all available at Amazon.com.
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro, California, both available at the author’s site at http://www.servandogonzalez.org.
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is available at Amazon.com. Or download a .pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad, Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Amazon.com. Servando’s book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, is available at Amazon.com and other bookstores online.
His most recent book, I Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the America, just appeared and is available at Amazon.com and other bookstores online.
Servando’s two most recent books in digital versions only are The Swastika and the Nazis: A Study of the Misuse of the Swastika by the Nazis and the first issue of the political satire series OBSERVANDO: American Inventors.
Mr. Gonzalez is to be congratulated for a excellent article that has only one flaw, and that is; the International Investment Banking Cartel is the true head of the Corporate Elite, with a 30% investment strangle hold on the top money earners. Governments who are beholden to those who control the Nations debt are manipulated by the corporate elite and Bankers which leaves the people sucking hind teat. This is, the NEW WORLD ORDER, AND ONLY A GLOBAL AWAKENING OF THE PEOPLE CAN STOP IT. When they wake up there will be blood shed like nothing history can match. When you see it coming, head for the mountains, as blood lust will morph into mayhem, as the underprivileged take their vengeance against all who stand in their way. May God have mercy on us.
June 27th, 2014 by olddog
By Julian Websdale
Guest Writer for Wake Up World
World politics today is governed by the Vatican, but also by the Crown Empire. The modern world of so-called Western Civilization began at the end of the 17th century with the blossoming of the British Empire. That empire actually began several hundred years earlier with the establishment of the City of London, which is now an 800-year corporation that controls finance from an entity called ‘The Crown’. This entity is the creator and controller of the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve, the World Bank (IMF – International Monetary Fund), The European Union, and various cartels and corporations across the earth.
The Crown Identity is kept most secret, and The Crown Bank of England took and assumed control of the United States during the Roosevelt Administration (1901-1909) when its agents, who were really Crown agents (J. P. Morgan), took over 25% of American business.
The Crown has never been the King or Queen of England since the establishment of the corporate body, but the British Monarchy is a figurehead for The Crown, rules parliament in Great Britain and has authority over the Prime Ministers through a Vatican knighthood called the Order of the Garter. The Crown, however, is not the King or Queen of England – they are an established monarchy of the corporate body.
The Crown is the directorate of the corporation, and Great Britain is ruled by The Crown, the City of London which controls the Bank of England – a private corporation. There is a private state existing in Britain within the centre of London. This City, located in the heart of Greater London, became a sovereign-state in 1694 when King William III of Orange privatized the Bank of England, and turned it over to the Vatican banksters who today rule the financial world.
The City/The Crown Corporation is not subject to British Law; it has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag, its own police force – exactly like the Vatican city state and Washington DC Columbia. The Crown Corporation is also separate from the Metropolitan city; its police drive red police cars and their uniforms are different from the Metropolitan Police.
Also, The Crown in London houses the privatized Bank of England and Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and all British Banks. It also houses the branch offices of 385 foreign banks, 70 US banks, as well as Fleet Street newspapers and publishing monopolies. It controls the world media and world intelligence. It is out of The Crown City of London, the headquarters of British Freemasonry overseen by the British Monarchy and the Duke of Kent, that World Freemasonry is governed. This includes the Grand Orient Masonic Order and the Washington DC Scottish Rite.
In 1945 the Bank of England was nationalized by the Labor Government, and is allegedly no longer a private bank, although it governs the US Federal Reserve. It is ruled over by the Rothschild’s, who are bankers for the Pope – guardians of the Vatican Treasury.
The City of London also has its own Lord Mayor, different from the current Mayor, who has the power in The Crown Corporation. When the Queen wishes to conduct business in the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar. Temple Bar and their associate franchises come from what is called the Four Inns of the Temples of Court – the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple. The logo of the Inner Temple is a white horse on the sunburst seal of the Jesuit Order. The white horse is a symbol of the British Empire / Order of the Garter / Crown Corporation, and is the same white horse which is the symbol of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The white horse is a Jesuit symbol – Pegasus. It is the Jesuit Order that governs the Honorable Society of the Inner Temple. The Inner Temple is the core group that governs the City of London Corporation.
The whole Earth is governed by The Crown, through Crown Colonies which belong to The City – The Crown Empire. It governs Africa and still governs China and India. The colonies of the Earth are really just Crown Colonies – The United States of America are states of The Crown.
This being said, however, it is vitally important to remember the following. The Crown Empire uses commercial law (aka international maritime law, or law of contracts) as its means of control. This law does not apply to sovereign, free men and women.
Your name, when spelt out in all capital letters – as in JULIAN WEBSDALE – is a corporation, a trust set up by the government through the treasury department at your birth. Every time a child is born, a corporation/trust is created using his or her name in all capital letters. They do this because governments are corporations and they operate under commercial law, the law of contracts. The laws passed by governments only apply to corporations and not to living, breathing, flesh and blood sovereign-free men and women spelt in upper-lower or all lower case, as with Julian Websdale, or julian websdale. The living, breathing sovereign man and woman is subject to common law, not the commercial law introduced by governments through legislation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IB15IE1JC0 [October 2013]
Previous articles by Julian:
About the author:
Julian Websdale is an independent researcher in the fields of esoterica, metaphysics, and mysticism. His interest in these subjects began in 1988, at the age of seven. Julian was born in England and received his education as an engineer from the University of Bolton. Julian served in a Vaishnava monastery, and has traveled to over 14 countries since 2012. His work creates enthusiastic responses from inquiring minds across the world.
Follow Julian on Facebook and Twitter, or visit his blog.
June 24th, 2014 by olddog
By Tyler Durden
Orighinally posted at Economic Noise blog,
A country dies slowly.
Those living during the decline of Rome were likely unaware that anything was happening. The decline took over a couple of hundred years. Anyone living during the decline only saw a small part of what was happening and likely never noticed it as anything other than ordinary.
Countries don’t have genetically determined life spans. Nor do they die quickly, unless the cataclysm of some great war does them in. Even in such extreme cases, there are usually warning signs, which are more obvious in hindsight than at the time.
Few citizens of a dying nation recognize the signs. Most are too busy trying to live their lives, sometimes not an easy task. If death occupies their mind, it is with respect to themselves, a relative or a friend. Most cannot conceive of the death of a nation.
A Country Dies Slowly First
For those interested, signs or symptoms precede death for a country often as they do for a person. There is a pattern that involves the following:
1. The Economy
Economically, people become poorer. It becomes harder to feed a family. Economic growth stalls and then reverses. Work opportunities decline. Disincentives to work rise as government tries to ease the burden on the unemployed and lower skilled. These efforts require more revenues which means higher taxes or debt financing. Disincentives to create jobs are magnified by attempts to address the problem. Higher taxes and other burdens are imposed on the productive making work less attractive.
The response should not be surprising. Capital flees first. It goes to areas where adequate returns are still available. Jobs are created but not in the host country. Finally a “brain drain” begins. Talented people leave the country for places that offer greater opportunity. In the case of the US, to escape US taxes these people must renounce their citizenship. Citizenship renouncements are currently at the highest levels in the history.
The flight of capital, both real and human, further lowers standards of living. Signs of stagnation become more apparent. They may begin as seemingly benign as roads which have too many potholes. “For rent” signs are seen more frequently. Classified job ads decrease. “Going out of Business” sales are no longer marketing gimmicks.
Initially, people dig into their savings or begin to borrow in order to retain their standard of living. Most believe it is a temporary situation. Eventually bankruptcies increase. Strip or full malls close. Large areas like Detroit become close to uninhabitable.
These conditions characterize the beginnings of the decline. As the decline continues, things get much worse.
2. The State
The State is threatened by a decline. Generally it moves into full pretend mode. Three behavioral traits characterize its behavior. The State must convince citizens:
- things are not as bad as they seem.
- the State is not responsible for the situation.
- the State must do more (grow bigger) in order to solve the problems.
Statistics issued by the State are fudged to convey a false image of well-being. Government spending soars in an effort to juice reported economic activity. Much of the spending is unproductive in terms of providing things that would have otherwise been bought. It is also counterproductive to a proper functioning economy as price discovery is disrupted and consumer and investment decisions are based on false signals.
Incentives are provided to encourage people to live beyond their means. Debt appears nearly free and readily available. Bubbles occur and then burst. New bubbles are necessary to replace old bubbles. People and businesses are encouraged to make imprudent decisions, all in the attempt to make the economy appear better.
The State has one objective and that is to remain in power. Laws and regulations multiply at ever faster rates. Tyrannical rules and legislation are passed under the pretense of protecting the people against some threat. In reality, these laws are passed to protect the leaders against the public when they finally understand what has been done to them.
“Bread and circuses” increase to divert peoples attention from the developing problems. Dependency increases reflecting an attempt to placate the masses. A “wag the dog” war or crisis is often used as a means to rally the public against some phony enemy.
Society becomes coarsens as this process progresses. People increasingly are unable to provide properly for their families. Some desperately turn to unethical behavior, even criminal acts. Common decency declines.
The regulations imposed from above reduce the sphere of voluntary interactions between people. The government decides more and more what you must do, when and how you must do it. What you can say comes under attack. Finally how you must live is increasingly determined.
Free markets are slowly replaced by a command and control ordering of society. Coercion displaces freedom as the coordinating force for society. People increasingly do what they must rather than what they want.
Interest groups, i.e. politically preferred constituents, created in good times don’t demand less when there is less available. The inability to meet their demands creates political strife and eventually civil problems. Honoring their demands divides society even more. Not honoring demands may produce rioting and civil unrest.
Societybecomes increasingly divided in terms of the “makers” and the “takers.” As the takers grow in numbers, the makers shrink in numbers. Soon the parasites overwhelm the productive. Society collapses at that point.
Are The People Aware?
The United States, the once beacon of freedom and wealth, shows advanced deterioration in all three areas above. The rate of deterioration is accelerating. To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway’s response to a bankruptcy question:
How did your country die? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.
Do people understand what is happening to them and their country? I suspect they are not aware of the full consequences. Most people are not trained to think in these terms, nor should they be. For most of us, it is a chore to get through each day. That is true of the dullards and the brilliant, for most of us end up at levels that tax our abilities.
People sense there is something wrong even though they may be unable to identify what that something might be. Many probably believe that whatever is happening is temporary, sort of like an economic slowdown that reverts back to normal. For them, it is tighten the belt until the good times return.
The results from a recent Gallup poll are interesting and illustrate the increasing dissatisfaction:
Numerous observations could be made regarding many of these institutions. All have decreased in favorability. Gallup was definitive in this regard:
The current 7% of Americans who place confidence in Congress is the lowest of the 17 institutions Gallup measured this year, and is the lowest Gallup has ever found for any of these institutions. The dearth of public confidence in their elected leaders on Capitol Hill is yet another sign of the challenges that could face incumbents in 2014′s midterm elections — as well as more broadly a challenge to the broad underpinnings of the nation’s representative democratic system.
The poll is not a direct measure of the health of the nation. However, it provides a very negative composite of public satisfaction. People know they are unhappy even if they don’t know the cause of their unhappiness.
This confusion and distrust always precedes the death of a nation.
June 21st, 2014 by olddog
By Sam Muhho
In the duration of the “revolutionary frenzy” that categorized western media coverage of the Libyan Civil War in 2011, public audiences were captivated with both tales of rebels aspiring for “democracy” and with complimenting stories of unabated brutality by Gaddafi forces.
Without any serious mainstream criticism, an imperialist mythology centered on the interventionist doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect” was cemented in public consciousness with even usually non-mainstream and “anti-imperialist” figures such as Juan Cole deliberately misrepresenting the situation in Libya. In Cole’s perspective, no reference to armed militants from the start of the conflict or the role of extremism and
western premeditation found its way into the narrative and he predicted a simplistic narrative where the overthrow of Gaddafi would lead the region into an era of unity, prosperity and freedom.
How is Libya today? If one denied the existence of hell, they need not look further than Libya to observe a case of hell on Earth. Libya as a functioning, cohesive state has virtually ceased to exist, having been replaced by a myriad of conflicting factions divided on tribal and religious lines. While mainstream media tends to obscure the identity of these factions and their connection to western imperialists, Eric Draitser in his analysis,
“Benghazi, the CIA, and the War in Libya” shows the beyond the fractious infighting, both primary factions engaging in direct combat have been beneficiaries of the NATO imperialist powers in their systematic aggression against the Libyan state.
Battling over the strategic commercial area around Benghazi is the Islamist Ansar al-Sharia led by Ahmed Abu Khattala fighting against the former leader of the CIA-backed Libyan National Salvation Front and current renegade Libyan Army General Khalifa Hifter. The conflict is more complex than merely conflagration between these two main parties and is interspersed with competing militias and gangs. As noted by Draitser, the February 17th Marytrs Brigade, seen as one of the most capable militias in the region, has received training by western forces and is seen as a reliable security force, but is recognized by its own members as having anti-American sentiments.
The Islamist Ansar al-Sharia has been implicated in the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi with its leader Khattala admitting being present but denying leading the attack. With no end in sight for the war, it appears that the primary gainers in the conflict are the western
corporate-financier interests who orchestrated the overthrow of Gaddafi because he was seen an impediment to accomplishing their geopolitical aims.
Now they Admit the Truth.
On April 24th, 2014, Washington’s Blog published a priceless and concise piece titled
“Confirmed: U.S. Armed Al Qaeda to Topple Libya’s Gaddaffi” with a very astonishing admission by “top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers” confirming theobvious truth that “conspiracy theorists” have been saying since 2011. The US backed Al Qaeda in Libya and that the Benghazi attack was a byproduct of this. Washington’s Blog notes that in 2012, it documented that:
The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was
largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:
The Hindustan Times reported last year:
“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.
It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.
Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were
flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.
What was once deemed conspiracy theory became confirmed reality when the
Daily Mail reported as Washington’s Blog subsequently pointed out:
A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.
While Wayne Simmons’ characterization of such actions by the globalist, imperialist establishment in the United States as “treason” is correct in the sense that it was a clear violation of not only the Constitution, but the public interest of America, there is a rather disingenuous factor involved when some people, especially on the Neo-Con right, attempt to play the “treason card.”
To perpetuate the false political theater of left-wing vs. right-wing designed to capitalize on myopic divisions, some Neo-Conservatives involved with the same corporate agenda as Obama have taken the time to
jettison responsibility of U.S. financing of terrorism in Syria and Libya
on “Obama the crypto-Muslim.” This charge is found among the likes of Frank Gaffney who would have you delve into partisan-driven Islamophobia blaming everything on the “liberals”, Obama’s “foreign policy”, and treasonous elements within the US government. This, of-course, is done without insight into how such figures are merely cogs within a bipartisan machine of globalist aggression.
Interestingly, while the Neo-Con right attempts to distance itself from the Libyan war, it was one of the most vocal factions, acting in concert with the Obama administration, in promoting greater US involvement in the war as
Tony Cartalucci points out in this article. He notes that, “In an
open letter to House Republicans, the Foreign Policy Initiative which consists of Gaffney’s fellow Neo-Conservatives, stated in regards to Libya (emphasis added)”:
We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted and justified this operation. The problem is not that the President has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.
Clearly the Neo-Con agenda has been coming full circle since the first Gulf War in the 1990s. The US “gun-walking” to jihadis in Syria from Libya, noted by the Washington Times and New York Times (albeit
with partisan spin and distortion), was actually planned under Bush in 2007 as noted by Seymour Hersh in
“The Redirection.” It has continued under Obama, influenced by Council on Foreign Relations figures throughout both administrations from Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton. Consider the following points from “The Redirection”:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
To dispel critics’ notions that this is passive, uncontrollable, and indirect support, consider:
[Saudi Arabia's] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.
Neo-Conservative writer Gary Gambill would ride on this wave of terrorist aggression and pen an article for the Neo-Con “Middle East Forum” titled “Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists.” As noted in the analysis of the piece by Tony Cartalucci titled
“Globalist Rag Gives ‘Two Cheers’ for Terrorism”, one can see how terrorism is a useful piece of capital of globalist imperialism that is easy to hide in the sight of inattentive masses with easy ploys of political spin and plausible deniability.
The Syria Connection
Libyan terrorists are invading Syria. They have been doing so since the influx of jihadis began, enabled by outside powers. These are not simply rogue networks operating independently but rather include state-sponsorship, especially of
NATO-member Turkey and NATO’s criminal proxy government in Tripoli, Libya. We are told by the media that the regime in Tripoli under the auspice of the National Transitional Council, and populated with puppets like Mustapha Abdul Jalil, is a moderate regime distinct from the “marginal Islamist forces.” However, even in mainstream accounts, one can note that these “official, moderate” groups are involved with funding terrorism themselves as many geopolitical analysts have noted.
Tony Cartalucci notes that, “In November 2011, the Telegraph in their article,
“Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group,” would report”:
Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”
Another Telegraph article, “Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels,” :
Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested “assistance” from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.
“There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,” said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see.”
Readers would be wise to note the heavy saturation of Al Qaeda terrorists in eastern Libya,
particularly in Darna, and whose historical role has been documented by the
US’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center. It is inconceivable that these forces would not have played a central role of the uprising. According to a October 2011 Christian Science Monitor, Mustapha Abdul Jalil has given a “nod to Islamist fighters” who fought against Gaddafi by courting Islamist interests and in permitting polygamy, formerly banned under Gaddafi. He was seen as catering to Islamists by establishing Sharia law as the foundation of Libya’s future government; under Gaddafi, Shariah had also played a role with limited, moderate interpretation and in context to Gaddafi’s own political ideology. There are fears are that Islamists, repressed under Gaddafi, would make a forceful resurgence, as they have. The article states:
Gadhafi saw militants as a threat to his authoritarian rule…Islamists are a small minority among Libya’s population of 6 million, but they were by far the largest and most powerful faction among the fighters who battled pro-Gadhafi forces in eight months of civil war. Abdul-Jalil, analysts said, was likely to have given his address an Islamic slant as a nod to those fighters who were united with other factions by the common goal of ousting Gadhafi but now are jockeying to fill the political vacuum left by his ouster.
“It may not be quite be the country that NATO thought it was fighting for (when Sharia is implemented in Libya),” said David Hartwell, a British-based Libya expert. “But the huge amounts of oil and gas in Libya will make everyone learn how to reconcile themselves with the new Libya.”
And just for the record, I don’t equate every single Libyan fighter on the ground as Islamist extremists and I believe there were individuals who felt disenfranchised and had legitimate grievances. As in any society, you have an opposition and in the case of Libya, a Library of Congress page that concedes
meddlesome US support for opposition groups, notes that the opposition is, “Divided ideologically into such groups as Baathists (see Glossary), socialists, monarchists, liberals, and Islamic fundamentalists…” Islamists, nonetheless, were one of the most critical driving forces of the conflict on the ground. Gaddafi also had popular support on the ground, especially in the west and among Black Libyans who Gaddafi had protected. One must not neglect the role of
racist elements among the opposition fighters targeting blacks under false accusations of them being “mercenaries” as well as the accomplishment of the Gaddafi regime in bringing Libya from one of the poorest countries in the world to a nation that ranked as “high” in the UNDP’s Human Development Index
Full Circle of Destruction
The globalist agenda wanted Libya out of the equation for its role in opposing the global financial order envisioned by Wall Street, namely in challenging the petrodollar by proposing a “gold dinar” currency for Africa with which to sell oil. This is explained in
“Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars
and Private Central Banking?” which notes the role of banking interests in orchestrating global aggression. Not to be missed is the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” proposed in the 1990s upon which Libya was a nation slated for regime change.
In seeking to reorient the Middle East according to its interests, the western powers have, in essence, attempted to alter the very forces of nature and reaped undue consequences. Libya is now a failed-state and a terrorist safe-haven. Regardless of one’s opinion of Gaddafi and his short-comings, no one can seriously argue that Libya is better off today. Innocent people continue to die in order to fulfill the hegemonic ambitions of the western elite. This will continue unless we collectively rise up, boycott, and replace these interests. That is real revolution.
Sam Muhho is a student of history at Florida State College (FSCJ) and an advocate of anti-imperialism and anti-globalism. He can be reached at [email protected].
June 20th, 2014 by olddog
editorial by Tony Cartalucci
Believe it or not, growing your own food or visiting your local
farmers market is more revolutionary and constructive
than burning down your own city and killing security forces.
As Washington plunges the Middle East and North Africa into chaos, and city by city collapses into the hands of globalist stooges, many have mistakenly interpreted this “change” as a positive transformation.
On the contrary, the regimes that will replace the embattled nationalistic dictators in each nation the globalists despoil will interface not with the national governments in the service of their people, but will interface with the “civil society” underlay the Western backed NGOs have meticulously built up over decades. This “civil society” will in turn answer to corporate serving globalist institutions, like the IMF, WTO, World Bank and the UN, instituting crushing economic “liberalization.”
We have been given a prepackaged ideal of what “revolution” is supposed to look like. So when we see people in the streets battling security forces, waving flags, all within the backdrop of their burning society, we are satisfied that “revolution” is taking place. But the reality is, this is not a revolution by any stretch of the imagination. It is a high-tech, high-speed invasion and subjugation, a corruption of the sovereign state similar to what Tacitus described in Roman conquered Britannia.
‘His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.’
Tacitus Annals of Imperial Rome, translated Michael Grant, Penguin 1956, 1975, page 72
As we can see, “civil society” is not a new idea, nor is the concept of lulling a population into decadence and complacency while rolling them into a corrupt, exploitative domineering empire.
Real revolution will take place when people realize what indeed is really happening, who is behind it, and then no longer paying into their corrupt system. This translates into boycotting the corporate combines behind the very policies we deplore, and replacing “their” system that benefits only them, with our own system that solely benefits ourselves.
The following lists contain the corporations and institutions that constantly turn up behind the most heinous atrocities unfolding today. From the millions murdered in the misadventure in Vietnam, to the millions dying or maimed in the global “War on Terror,” and of course the the chaos unfolding during the premeditated reordering of the Middle East and North Africa that will indefinitely affect millions of lives and their future, these are the people responsible:
CFR Corporate Membership
Chatham House Major Corporate Membership
Chatham House Standard Corporate Membership
International Crisis Group Supporters
Some may be skeptical of whether or not boycotting and replacing the elitist system that currently domineers mankind is even possible, however it is already taking place. The alternative media is one such example, where people fed up with being lied to by obnoxious propagandists have decided to turn off the TV and report the news themselves. It has become a self-sustaining industry with exponential growth, where reputation and accuracy is replacing the slick graphics and 500 dollar suits that used to represent “legitimacy.”
The alternative media offers people accurate information. Accurate information is essential when making life decisions. Hearing the truth allows us to make decisions that benefit ourselves and our community. This stands contra to the current corporate owned media who would have us living our lives to benefit their shareholders, even to our own detriment.
We can and we must translate the success of the alternate media to all aspects of our life. The globalists have this unwarranted power because we have continuously paid into the corrupt system they have created and monopolize.
If young men became local deputies instead of joining the army, if we stopped shopping at Walmart (CFR), drinking Pepsi (CFR), eating at all the corporate owned junk-food restaurants, canceled our credit cards, canceled all but our internet connections, and basically boycotted all globalist corporations in general – along with replacing them with our own local system, where would the globalists get their manpower? Their money? Their legitimacy?
They need us, we don’t need them. That’s the big secret. We get our freedom back as soon as we take back our responsibilities for food, water, security, the monetary system, power, and manufacturing; that is independence. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence. We’ll never be free as long as we depend on the Fortune 500 for our survival.
Fixing these problems unfolding overseas starts with fixing the problems in our own backyards. Boycott the globalists, cut off their support, undermine their system, and they lose their ability to commit these atrocities. That will be a real revolution and it can start today. Not burning cities and masked rebels waving flags, but communities no longer dependent and fueling a corrupt system we all know must come to an end.
Please also see: “The Founding Fathers Didn’t Drink British Tea.“
June 17th, 2014 by olddog
By Neal Ross
It has been commented that I have strayed from my purpose in writing, that instead of trying to educate and inform people that I have taken to criticizing and insulting them. I won’t deny that I have, of late, felt a deep sense of frustration and, even, anger that the things I have written have not been effective in changing the hearts and minds of the people to whom I was addressing them. Nonetheless, I have been remiss and I apologize for being so harsh and critical. With that in mind I would like to attempt to write a bit about the general thoughts and beliefs of the men who existed during the time our country fought for its independence, and established our system of government.
Although there is not a man or woman alive today who was present in the mid to late 1700′s, it was a unique time in the history of our nation, and in political thinking in general. There had always been philosophers and political thinkers throughout the ages, but there was something exceptional about the time when our nation came into existence. All through the ages most forms of government came about by many ways, most of which the people had absolutely no say in. As Thomas Paine wrote in his book The Rights of Man, “All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either….” Yet during the late 1700′s delegates from the thirteen original colonies gathered together in Philadelphia and drafted a Constitution which outlined a system of government.
You have to wonder, what guided these men? What were the beliefs they held which they introduced into the discussions on what shape, and how our system of government would function? Sure, there were some delegates who proposed another monarchy in which the executive, (the president), would hold office for his entire lifetime, and would have an absolute veto over any laws proposed by the legislative, (the Congress). But as we all know, that was not what they ended up producing. They created a perfectly balanced system in which a legislative body created law, the executive executed and ensured the laws where upheld, and a judicial which settled disputes in regards to the fundamental law of the land, i.e. the Constitution.
The Constitution itself is pretty straightforward as to how our system of government was to be established, and the powers it granted government, although today most people would be surprised to learn that most of what the government does is not among those powers.
Yet the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Again, quoting from Paine’s Rights of Man, “A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organized, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organization of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that governments are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.”
But I haven’t answered my own question yet, what was it that our Founding Fathers believed that guided them in designing this system of government. If I would have to guess, I would say that many were influenced by an Englishman named John Locke. I know for a fact that Jefferson styled much of the Declaration of Independence after Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Governments. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote, “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.”
Now take a look at what Locke said in Section 149 of his Second Treatise, “… there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them: for all power given with trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security.”
Strikingly similar, wouldn’t you say?
In the introduction to my copy of Locke’s treatise it says, “The central principles of what today is broadly known as political liberalism–individual liberty, the rule of law, government by consent of the people, and the right to private property–were made current in large part by Locke’s Second Treatise.” So if this work by an 18th century English philosopher was so influential to our Founders, don’t you think it might be a good idea to take a look to see what he said? I don’t know about you, but I found it fascinating, and I’ve read it four times already.
Locke begins at, well, the beginning, what state men are in prior to the existence of any form of government. In Section 4 he states, “TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” Again, that sounds strikingly similar to something Thomas Jefferson said. In an 1816 letter to Francis Gilmer, Jefferson wrote, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
This was the state that men were in before the existence or establishment of societies and of governments, of the perfect free will to do as they felt fit with their lives, as long as they did not interfere with others from doing the same. But what if others did interfere with the rights, or property of another? Well, Locke addressed that as well.
In Section 7 Locke states, “And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation…“
Then in Section 11 he adds,”… and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature…“
Furthermore, in Section 12 he states, “By the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of that law. It will perhaps be demanded, with death? I answer, each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like.”
And finally, in Section 17 he concludes by saying, “And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.”
This is how men dealt with offenses and violations of their right prior to their entering into civil societies, they took the law into their own hands and where judge, jury, and, if required, executioner. But not only could this be abused, it also was found to be lacking in that often one person could not provide himself adequate protection against the violations of their ‘natural rights.’ So men formed civil societies to better protect their rights.
But, as Locke would say in Section 23, “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.” So when men entered into civil societies they did not make themselves slaves unto those who would administer the law, they merely delegated them just enough power and authority to better safeguard their rights.
Or as he states in Section 123, “IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”
By entering into a civil society some authority must be granted to someone, or a body of men, to enact laws to serve the purpose for which men entered into that society, i.e. the preservation of their rights. Yet, as Locke would say, that power which was delegated to this body could not be arbitrary, nor could it usurp powers which were beyond the purpose for which it was created.
In Section 135 Locke states, “Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every common-wealth; yet, First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having in the state of nature no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind; this is all he doth, or can give up to the common-wealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power, in the utmost bounds of it, is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power, that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects.”
This is almost the same thing a Frenchman named Frederic Bastiat would say in 1850, “If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”
So, when a group enters into a civil or political society, they surrender their authority under natural law and give it to the magistrate, or servant whom is to act to preserve the rights of the people in said society. But what if your rights come under attack and you have no means of contacting the agent whose job it is to protect them? Well, in that case the right devolves back to you. In Section 87 Locke says as much, “But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto, punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it.” Although that is not explicit in saying such, I would take that to mean that if your life, or your property, is in danger, and you cannot expect an immediate response from those agents whose job it is to protect these things, then you have the right to protect them yourself, up to and including killing the person threatening you.
If you don’t believe that, just prior to the above quote from Section 87 Locke ALSO said, “Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it.”
As long as men remain in a civil or political society, and have surrendered certain of their rights to the body which they have established to preserve their rights, i.e. their life and their ability to own and enjoy property, and that said society functions as designed, the people must allow the government to do it’s job and not take the law into their own hands.
However, as is the case with human nature, people in power tend to try and amass more power unto themselves. Thus, in this instance, the legislative body has overstepped its power and is in violation of the agreement, be it a charter or a constitution, which granted them power. In our system the government we established has created numerous agencies which have the power of producing regulations which affect our lives adversely. This is done under the mistaken belief that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution authorized the government to do WHATEVER it thinks is necessary to protect us, be it from crime, the food we eat, and, even, ourselves.
Yet the government cannot delegate its legislative power to another body that is not accountable to the people. In Section 141 of Locke’s treatise he states, “Fourthly, The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. The people alone can appoint the form of the common-wealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be.”
And if the legislative acts outside its specified purpose, what authority do the people have? Well, as I previously mentioned in the similarity between our Declaration of Independence and Locke’s treatise, Section 149 states, “THOUGH in a constituted common-wealth, standing upon its own basis, and acting according to its own nature, that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them: for all power given with trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. “
I talk a lot using terms such as oppression, tyranny, and usurpation. I’m sure that many of you don’t really understand the difference between the words. In Section 199 Locke explains the difference between usurpation and tyranny, “AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”
While we may foolishly believe that simply because we have the choice of voting for those who represent us in our system of government that tyranny cannot arise in America, think again. In Section 201 Locke warns, “It is a mistake, to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”
I am always harping about violations of the Constitution, yet people seem to think that, if they even care, it is no big deal that our government does things which the Constitution does not permit. Yet it is the ONLY reason our government exists. Without it there would BE NO government. In Section 212 Locke declares, “The constitution of the legislative is the first and fundamental act of society, whereby provision is made for the continuation of their union, under the direction of persons, and bonds of laws, made by persons authorized thereunto, by the consent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them, can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws, whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without authority would impose any thing upon them.”
Finally, in Section 222 Locke states what is the peoples right when the legislative authority seeks to pass laws which are contrary to its purpose, and which would enslave them under arbitrary power, “The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.”
Yet some say that I talk of rebellion and am unpatriotic because I do not stand behind and support my government. Why should I when it does not stand behind and support the purpose for which it was created in the first place? They say that by openly disregarding laws which I feel are unconstitutional I will bring violence and death upon those who do so because our government is ready, and willing to enforce its laws at gunpoint, I have something to say.
If that happens, and blood is spilled by people who are tired of an overreaching government, then the blood will be on their hands, not ours. In Section 228 of his treatise Locke says, “But if they, who say it lays a foundation for rebellion, mean that it may occasion civil wars, or intestine broils, to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates, when they invade their properties contrary to the trust put in them; and that therefore this doctrine is not to be allowed, being so destructive to the peace of the world: they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but on him that invades his neighbours.”
We the people of this country entered into a political society by establishing a Constitution which granted the government certain defined powers. We did not create a government to babysit us and to care for us from cradle to grave. The purpose for which our government was created is explained in the Preamble to the Constitution, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Notice that it says secure the blessings of liberty and ensure justice. Now I would hope that those words are understood by my readers. But to be sure, liberty is defined as: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely; the power to do or choose what you want to. And while we may think we understand what justice is, I’m not so sure we do.
In 1841 John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, came out of retirement to argue a case before the Supreme Court. In his opening argument Mr. Adams gave what I believe to be the best explanation/definition of the word justice that I have ever read. Mr. Adams declared that “Justice, as defined in the Institutes of Justinian, nearly 2000 years ago, and as it felt and understood by all who understand human relations and human rights, is—”Constans et perpetua voluntas, jus suum cuique tribuendi.” “The constant and perpetual will to secure to every one HIS OWN right.”
While I may have overloaded you with input, these are/were the beliefs held by the men who established our system of government. They may not be popular, or politically correct in today’s society, but they were commonly held beliefs in the 1700′s.
I honestly don’t know that even if the people begin believing in these things again we can restore our country to one of limited government. It may be too late. To use a football analogy, it is the fourth quarter with two minutes remaining. You are out of time outs and are down by 35 points and your opponent is in possession of the ball. Not much you can do at this point, is there?
While I’m not giving up, I am a realist. I see society today and I don’t see much interest in returning to the values our Framers held. Sure I see a lot of people mad at the government for screwing things up. But what I don’t see is anyone looking to return to the limited government as outlined by the Constitution. As long as we continue to accept mediocrity, and even corruption, in the people we choose to represent us, as long as we meekly obey the endless laws and regulations which run contrary to the purpose for which government was established, as long as we believe that there is that big a difference between the two parties in this country, I don’t see much hope for anything changing.
Hopefully some record will remain of the writers, myself among them, who tried to warn the people about the state of affairs in this country. Maybe future generations may learn from our mistakes. But as far as us saving this country, I don’t see any hope for that.
So enjoy what is left of your liberty, for that too will soon be gone…
Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment
Send: all comments to email@example.com
Check out Neil’s books at: http://thebookshelf.us
If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told) AND don’t forget to pick up your copy of ROSS: Unmasked
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice
And American’s have chosen ignorance over the time commitment to learn. They would much rather spend their time watching the stupid mind numbing show’s on TV, sport’s, or just gazing at their toes. The price of ignorance is slavery.
June 10th, 2014 by olddog
“Why should anyone trust a government that has condoned torture, spied on at least 35 world leaders, supports indefinite detention, places bugs in thousands of computers all over the world, kills innocent people with drone attacks, promotes the post office to log mail for law enforcement agencies and arbitrarily authorizes targeted assassinations? Or, for that matter, a president that instituted the Insider Threat Program, which was designed to get government employees to spy on each other and ‘turn themselves and others in for failing to report breaches,’ which includes ‘any unauthorized disclosure of anything, not just classified materials.’” — Professor Henry Giroux
Why should anyone trust a government that kills, maims, tortures, lies, spies, cheats, and treats its own citizens like criminals? For that matter, why should anyone trust a government utterly lacking in transparency, whose actions give rise to more troubling questions than satisfactory answers, and whose domestic policies are dictated more by paranoia than need?
Unfortunately, “we the people” have become so trusting, so gullible, so easily distracted, so out-of-touch, so compliant and so indoctrinated on the idea that our government will always do the right thing by us that we have ignored the warning signs all around us, or at least failed to recognize them as potential red flags.
As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the consequences of this failure on both our parts—the citizenry’s and the government’s—to do our due diligence in asking the right questions, demanding satisfactory answers, and holding our government officials accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law has pushed us to the brink of a nearly intolerable state of affairs. Intolerable, at least, to those who remember what it was like to live in a place where freedom, due process and representative government actually meant something. (Remember that the people of Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany also failed to ask questions, demand answers, and hold their government officials accountable until it was too late, and we know how that turned out.)
There’s certainly no shortage of issues about which we should be asking questions of our government representatives, demanding truthful answers, and subsequently insisting on changes within our government. Keep in mind, however, that the government has mastered the art of evasion. Thus, it’s not enough to ask the questions. We need to demand answers, and when those answers aren’t forthcoming—either because a government official claims to not “know” or because it’s outside his or her jurisdiction—we need to demand that they find out.
To get the ball rolling, here are just a few dozen of the questions that require honest answers by those individuals and agencies that are supposed to be answering to us. For my part, I’m going to send this exact list of questions to my government representatives and see how responsive they are. I’d suggest you do the same.
To start with, what’s the rationale behind turning government agencies into military outposts? There has been a notable buildup in recent years of SWAT teams within non-security-related federal agencies such as Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department. As of 2008, “73 federal law enforcement agencies… [employ] approximately 120,000 armed full-time on-duty officers with arrest authority.” Four-fifths of those officers are under the command of either the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Department of Justice.
What’s with all of the government agencies stockpiling hollow point bullets? For example, why does the Department of Agriculture need .40 caliber semiautomatic submachine guns and 320,000 rounds of hollow point bullets? For that matter, why do its agents need ballistic vests and body armor?
Why does the Postal Service need “assorted small arms ammunition”? Why did the DHS purchase “1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, along with 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO ‘personal defense weapons’ plus a huge stash of 30-round high-capacity magazines”? That’s in addition to the FBI’s request for 100 million hollow-point rounds. The Department of Education, IRS, the Social Security Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the National Weather Service, are also among the federal agencies which have taken to purchasing ammunition and weaponry in bulk.
Why is the federal government distributing obscene amounts of military equipment, weapons and ammunition to police departments around the country? And why is DHS acquiring more than 2,500 Mine-Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles, only to pass them around to local police departments across the country? According to the New York Times:
[A]s President Obama ushers in the end of what he called America’s “long season of war,” the former tools of combat — M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers and more — are ending up in local police departments, often with little public notice. During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft. The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units.
Why is the military partnering with local police to conduct training drills around the country? And what exactly are they training for? In Richland South Carolina, for instance, U.S. army special forces are participating in joint and secretive exercises and training with local deputies. The public has been disallowed from obtaining any information about the purpose of the drills, other than that they might be loud and to not be alarmed. The Army and DHS also carried out similar drills and maneuvers involving Black Hawk helicopters in Texas, Florida, and other locations throughout the U.S., ostensibly in order to provide officers with realistic urban training.
What is being done to protect the American populace from the threat of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, being used against them? Policy analysts point to Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” (issued on Dec. 29, 2010), as justification for the government’s use of military force to put down civil unrest within the United States.
Why is FEMA stockpiling massive quantities of emergency supplies? On January 10, 2014, FEMA made a statement enlisting the service of contractors who could “supply medical biohazard disposal capabilities and 40 yard dumpsters to 1,000 tent hospitals across the United States; all required on 24-48 hour notice.” This coincides with other medical requests seeking massive amounts of supplies, such as “31,000,000 flu vaccinations,” “100,000 each of winter shirts and pants and the same for summer” and other goods and services requests as well like tarps, manufactured housing units, and beverages. And why does the TSA need $21,000 worth of potassium chlorate, a chemical compound often used in explosives?
Why is the Pentagon continuing to purchase mass amounts of ammunition while at the same time preparing to destroy more than $1 billion worth of bullets and missiles that are still viable?
Moreover, what is really being done to hold the Pentagon accountable for its doctored ledgers, fraud, waste and mismanagement, which has cost the taxpayer trillions of dollars? According to Reuters, “The Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with a law that requires annual audits of all government departments. That means that the $8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited, has never been accounted for. That sum exceeds the value of China’s economic output last year.”
Given the similarities between the government’s Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis, how much of what is being passed off as real is, in fact, being staged by DHS for the “benefit” of training law enforcement, leaving us none the wiser? These training exercises come complete with their own set of professionally trained Crisis Actors playing the parts of shooters, bystanders and victims in order to help “schools and first responders create realistic drills, full-scale exercises, high-fidelity simulations, and interactive 3D films.”
Given that Americans are 110 times more likely to die of foodborne illness than in a terrorist attack, why is the government spending trillions of dollars on “national security”? How exactly is the $75 billion given to 15 intelligence agencies annually to keep us “safe” being spent? And why is the DHS giving away millions of dollars’ worth of federal security grants to states that federal intelligence agencies ruled have “no specific foreign or domestic terrorism threat”?
Why is the government amassing names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation, and what criteria is the government using for this database? Keep in mind that this personal information is being acquired and kept without warrant or court order. It’s been suggested that in the event of nuclear war, the destruction of the US Government, and the declaration of martial law, this Main Core database, which as of 2008 contained some 8 million names of Americans, would be used by military officials to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security, a program to be carried about by the Army and FEMA.
Taken individually, these questions are alarming enough. However, when viewed collectively, they leave one wondering what exactly the U.S. government is preparing for and whether American citizens shouldn’t be preparing, as well, for that eventuality when our so-called “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is no longer answerable to “we the people.”
This commentary is also
available at www.rutherford.org.
June 9th, 2014 by olddog
By David DeGraw, AmpedStatus Report
“The conflicting propaganda of opposing parties is essentially what leads to political abstention. But this is not the abstention of the free spirit which asserts itself; it is the result of resignation, the external symptom of a series of inhibitions. Such a man has not decided to abstain; under diverse pressures, subjected to shocks and distortions, he can no longer (even if he wanted to) perform a political act. What is even more serious is that this inhibition not only is political, but also progressively takes over the whole of his being and leads to a general attitude of surrender.” — Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes
The primary reason why the Economic Elite have gained such dominance is their commitment to psychological operations that divide-and-conquer the US public. They use their overwhelming influence over mainstream media outlets and political candidates in very clever ways to divide us.
It is known among political scientists that powerful forces always seek to gain control of pre-existing social and political institutions so they can usurp their powers. The Economic Elite gained control of both the Democratic and Republican political parties because they knew that hardworking Americans loyally followed these parties, and we believed these parties were looking out for our best interests. We have, for the most part, been lifelong Republicans or lifelong Democrats, but until we see that our favored party has been seized by power and greed addicted interests, we will all continue to lose. These are extremely hard truths to face, but until we face them, we will continue our decline.
With half the US population loyal to Democrats and the other half loyal to Republicans, gaining control of both these parties meant total control for them. The past decade is testament to their total control of both parties.
In manufactured public opinion, Obama represented a far left swing in US politics, and Bush represented a far right swing, and these two supposed polar opposites also had a Congress overwhelmingly run by members of their own party. Did we get drastically different policies? In what matters most, in both cases, the results were the same: more money and power for the Economic Elite and the continued decline of the US middle class. This fact is now undeniable.
Yes, there are definite differences in their rhetoric and on some social issues, but this is the key to the psychological operations, to the divide-and-conquer strategy that they use so effectively.
To distract and divide us, they use rhetoric on social issues like religion, gay marriage, abortion, etc., all serious and significant issues that we bitterly disagree on, but in the overall picture, these issues are secondary to the larger, more fundamental political and economic issues that lead to our wealth being stolen from us, and ultimately, our lives being increasingly dominated by a small few.
Bush appealed to conservative Republicans and then ran up the deficit to record levels. Obama appealed to liberal Democrats, but increased war spending and support for Wall Street billionaires. In both cases, the candidates severely divided the US middle class, but in the policy decisions that mattered most, they both sided with the economic top one percent at the expense of hardworking Americans.
Just look at the last few election cycles. In 2006 and 2008 US citizens rose up in record-breaking numbers to kick out the Republicans in power, whom they felt had betrayed them. Now, with the Democrats in power, the consensus seems to be that in the 2010 mid-term elections we will vote for Republicans and kick out the Democrats who have failed to deliver on the much needed and promised changes.
Do you not see the ridiculous nature of this divide-and-conquer strategy? This is a vicious cycle that will continue to lead to our destruction.
Psychological Operations 101: Obama Vs. Fox News
For those of us who are strong enough to see beyond our propaganda-induced preconceptions and prejudices, the insidious nature of the Economic Elite’s divide-and-conquer strategy is on full display in the feud between Obama and Fox News. About half of the country loves Obama and hates Fox News, and the other half loves Fox News but hates Obama. They both use very effective propaganda to seduce their followers. However, as hard as it is for people who love one of them to admit, they both serve the same masters.
Once again, let’s look at Goldman Sachs. They financed Obama’s campaign and he has rewarded them with policies that have led to them making record-breaking profits, instead of investigating them for the many illegal activities they participated in and continue to take part in.
On the other side of this psychological operation, you have Fox News. When was the last time you saw Fox News doing an investigation into the illegal practices of Goldman Sachs? Even the Obama-appointed Tim Geithner, the Economic Elite’s main man on the economy, escapes the significant focus of Fox News’ powerful attack force.
Looking at the Business Roundtable, a significant majority of Obama’s campaign funding came from Roundtable members and, as mentioned earlier, he frequently meets with Roundtable members. On the other hand, Fox News is owned by Roundtable member Rupert Murdoch, and Fox relies heavily on advertising money from Roundtable members. Rupert Murdoch even supported Obama over McCain. As someone who monitors Fox News, I can’t recall the last time I heard Fox reporting on the activities of the Business Roundtable, not that any mainstream “news” companies do.
The list of similarities between the two, when it comes to exposing and holding the Economic Elite accountable, is extensive. So here you have an excellent divide-and-conquer psychological operation. Fox News declares Obama the enemy, and Obama declares Fox the enemy, yet the Economic Elite remain in the shadows, behind the scenes, untouched and continuing their plunder.
Just think of all the misplaced outraged spent on these two puppets. Sure, people have many reasons to like and dislike both, but imagine if all the diehard Obama-haters focused their rage on the people who put Obama in power, and if the diehard Fox-haters stopped criticizing everything Fox says and focused on the Economic Elite who control the media environment in which Fox News operates.
If the Fox-haters and the Obama-haters united and focused their combined outrage on the common forces behind the both of them, we would all be much better off.
The most significant bias in the mainstream media is not the liberal or conservative views propagated to divide, distract, confuse and create apathy among the populace; the ultimate bias is in what is missing from the coverage. The investigative reporting on the most powerful forces within our society is left out of the discussion.
McClatchy, one of the few real journalism news organizations, has repeatedly reported on the illegal activities of Goldman Sachs and the crime syndicate they operate in. Yet, an overwhelming majority of mainstream news outlets ignore these reports and nothing is done to hold Goldman Sachs accountable. In fact, two of the leading figures in the outright theft of our money have recently been lauded in their propaganda press. When you see Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke become thePerson of the Year in Time Magazine and Goldman Sachs CEO Llyod Blankfein become the Financial Times Man of the Year, you begin to see where the real media bias lies.
The main bias is in favor of the thieves who stole our country and economy, and own the mainstream media companies. The omni-present mainstream media is the greatest weapon of oppression humanity has ever known.
Although the Internet has had an impact, television news is still by far the most influential news medium. Despite all the new information platforms, this year we have set a new record by watching an average of four hours and 49 minutes of TV per day. We have been subjected to heavy doses of propaganda on a daily basis, for hours a day, every day of our lives.
The mainstream media creates what is known in mass psychology as the “spectrum of thinkable thought.” By constantly discussing and debating surface issues, they limit the range of debate. Having the Republican vs. Democrat paradigm leads us to never debating the underlying Economic Elite who control both of the parties, not to mention their ownership of the media platform on which this debate is taking shape. The more important underlying issues are never discussed, and therefore never enter public consciousness.
The censorship that is most prevalent today is the most dangerous form. Not the censorship of explicit words, sex, or violence, but the censorship of any thoughts outside of elite corporate ideology. Any debate that leads to critical thought on prevailing elite economic dominance is not allowed to enter into the mass media or mainstream public consciousness.
“We must conclude that a changeover is imminent and ineluctable in the co-opted caste who serve the interests of domination, and above all manage the protection of that domination. In such an affair, innovation will surely not be displayed [in the mainstream media]. It appears instead like lightning, which we know only when it strikes.” — Guy Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle
May 7th, 2014 by olddog
Where Is America’s Democracy? (CORRECTION: REPUBLIC!)
Paul Craig Roberts
Anyone who looks carefully behind the veil of words cannot find democracy in America. For years I have been writing that the US government is no longer accountable to law or to the people (see, for example, my book, How America Was Lost). The Constitution has been set aside, and the executive branch is degenerating into Caesarism.
Government is used to impose agendas that result from the symbiotic relationship between the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony and the economic interests of powerful private interest groups, such as Wall Street, the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and extractive industries (energy, mining, and timber). Dollar imperialism, threats, bribes, and wars are means by which US hegemony is extended. These agendas are pursued without the knowledge or approval of the American people and in spite of their opposition.
Professor Martin Gilens at Princeton University and Professor Benjamin Page of Northwestern University have examined American governance and have concluded that the US is an oligarchy ruled by powerful rich private interest groups and that the US government has only a superficial resemblance to a democracy. Their analysis is forthcoming in publication in the journal, Perspectives on Politics.
Their conclusions are striking:
“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”
“When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.”
“In the United States, our findings indicate that the majority does not rule–at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.”
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
A number of factors have contributed to the demise of democracy and accountable government in the US. One factor is the concentration of the US media in a few hands. During the last years of the Clinton regime, a formerly diverse media with significant independence was concentrated in five mega-corporations. The value of these corporations consists largely of their federal broadcast licenses. To insure the renewal of these licenses, the media avoids challenging the government on significant issues.
Another factor is the offshoring of US industrial and manufacturing jobs. This development destroyed the manufacturing and industrial unions, which were the backbone of the Democratic Party’s financial support. Now the Democrats have to appeal to the same interest groups as the Republicans–Wall Street, the military/security complex, and the polluting industries that despoil the environment. As both political parties are now financed by the same private interests, both political parties serve the same masters. There is no longer any countervailing power. The Obama regime is simply a continuation of the George W. Bush regime.
Two recent rulings by the Republican majority on the US Supreme Court are another decisive factor. The court ruled that it is merely an exercise of free speech for oligarchs to purchase the US government (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission). A corrupt Supreme Court has invented a “constitutional right” for corporations and oligarchs to use their vast financial resources to form a government of their choosing.
Private interest groups in the US are so powerful that they can purchase immunity from law. On March 27 a retiring Securities and Exchange Commission prosecutor, James Kidney, said that his prosecutions of financial criminals at Goldman Sachs and other giant US banks were blocked by SEC political appointees who “were focused on getting high-paying jobs after their government service.”
In a recent test to ascertain the responsiveness of members of Congress to monied interests in comparison to voters, two letters were sent to congressional offices. One letter asked for the representative to meet with community groups in his district. The other letter asked for the representative to meet with a group of active donors. The latter letter received by far the most responses from members of Congress.
In the US and Europe there is constant propaganda about “gangster state Russia.” According to this propaganda, President Putin is a tool of oligarchs who use Putin to rule Russia and loot the people. In my opinion, this propaganda originates in the Washington-funded NGOs that constitute a US fifth column inside Russia. The purpose of the propaganda is to destroy Putin’s legitimacy and that of his government in hopes of bringing to power a Washington-compliant government in Moscow.
My impression is that the Russian government has curtailed activities of some of the oligarchs who used the privatization era to seize control of resources, but that the government’s actions are consistent with the rule of law. In contrast, in the US oligarchs control the law and use it to acquire immunity from law.
The real gangster state is the US. Every institution is corrupt. Regulators sell protection from law for well-paying jobs in the industries that they are supposed to regulate. The Supreme Court not only permits money to purchase the government but also sells out the Constitution to the police state. The Supreme Court has just refused to hear the case against indefinite detention of US citizens in the absence of due process. This is an unambiguous unconstitutional law, yet the Supreme Court refuses to even hear the case, thus granting unchecked police power to the gangster state.http://rt.com/usa/156172-scotus-ndaa-hedges-obama/
Another defining characteristic of a gangster state is the criminalization of dissent and truth tellers. Washington has done everything in its power to criminalize Julian Assange and Edward Snowden for revealing the US government’s illegal, unconstitutional, and criminal actions. Washington reeks of hypocrisy. On April 26 the State Department announced its third annual Free The Press campaign, a propaganda exercise directed at foreign countries that are not Washington’s puppets. The very same day the Justice Department told the Supreme Court to reject the protection US journalists have under the Constitution against being forced to reveal their confidential sources so that James Risen can be imprisoned for reporting a government misdeed.https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/state-dept-launches-free-press-campaign-while-doj-supreme-court-force-reporter
In the 21st century Washington has squandered trillions of dollars on wars that have destroyed countries and killed, maimed, and displaced millions of people in seven or eight countries. Declaring its war crimes to be a “war on terror,” Washington has used the state of war that it created to destroy US civil liberty.
In the 21st century it is difficult to find a significant statement made by Washington that is not a lie. Obamacare is a lie. Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction is a lie. Assad’s use of chemical weapons is a lie. Iranian nukes are a lie. Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea is a lie. No fly zones are a lie. Russian aggression against Georgia is a lie. 9/11, the basis for Washington’s destruction of civil liberty and illegal military attacks, is itself a lie. The fantastic story that a few Saudi Arabians without government or intelligence agency backing outwitted the entire national security apparatus of the Western world is unbelievable. It is simply not credible that every institution of the national security state simultaneously failed. That Washington would tell such a fantastic lie shows that Washington has no respect for the intelligence of the American people and no respect for the integrity of the American media. It shows also that Washington has no respect for the intelligence and integrity of its European and Asian allies.
Washington won’t even tell the truth about little things in comparison–jobs, unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, economic recovery. Washington rigs the markets in order to cover up its sacrifice of the economy for the benefit of a few special interests. In the name of “privatization,” Washington hands over public assets and government responsibilities to rapacious private interests.
The conclusion is inescapable that the US is a gangster state. Indeed, the US is worse than a mere gangster state. The US is a shameless exploitative tyranny.
Mr. Roberts keeps forgetting to mention that the reason for all this is the power the Banking Cartel has over the entire Government, which makes VOTEING A FOOLS ERRON. Only a revolution will stop them! Is he afarid to denounce the Bankers, and exposed the real threat? Come on Paul, you have the knowledge and ability.
May 2nd, 2014 by olddog
By Bob Livingston
The political class is now demonstrating a level of hubris rarely, if ever, seen in the American system.
Within just a few hours, three of the top four most post powerful politicians in the country unabashedly revealed the low opinion they have of liberty and the American people and a willingness to persecute, prosecute and lie to those who advocate and fight for Constitutional government. And by their silence, the rest of the political class nodded their agreement.
First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bunkerville, Nev., rancher Cliven Bundy and the hundreds of Americans who rallied to Bundy’s defense domestic terrorists. Then, President Barack Obama brazenly lied to the American people in claiming that 8 million people had signed up for Obamacare and that the program was a success, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And early Friday morning, the learned Speaker of the House John Boehner has proclaimed once again to big money donors and crony capitalists that an immigration bill would be passed this year over the wishes of the majority of Americans.
Within hours of reports circulating in alternative media of Reid’s use of the Bureau of Land Management in his land grab on behalf of a Chinese solar energy firm, BLM pulled its goon squad of armed enforcers out of the area. It also scrambled to delete evidence from its own website that the area the Bundy family has used to graze their cattle is needed for “utility-scale solar power generation facilities on public lands” and that need was hindered by “trespass grazing” cattle.
Reid and his son Rory have worked in lockstep with the BLM and transnational green energy firms to wrestle land and use rights from American ranchers for years. Bundy is the last rancher standing in an area that once saw dozens of them.
What few reports on the standoff between Bundy and BLM that have made it into the mainstream media speciously claim the Bundy ranch is some 200 miles from the proposed site of the ENN Energy Group’s solar farm and panel building plant, and that the ENN project was shelved last year. Even the supposedly reliable “right wing” websites Breitbart.com and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze have carried the Federal government’s water on this dispute. The two-faced Beck — who has called for a pitchfork revolution and sells shirts calling for one — even went so far as to call Bundy supporters “frightening” and compared them with Occupy Wall Street, which was a CIA-funded operation designed to foment unrest in America.
Claims have also been made that the Federal government owns the land in question. But the Constitution specifically describes in Article I, Section 8 what land the Federal government can possess, and there are subsequent Supreme Court decisions that lay out the legal framework. (Hint: It does not include protecting tortoises or building solar plants.)
A BLM document discusses the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and specifically mentions the Gold Butte area (which includes Bunkerville) and “cattle trespass grazing” as being part of critical concern to future utility-scale solar energy development. In short, Reid is using the BLM (headed by his lackey and former adviser Neil Kornze) to turn all Nevada “Federal lands” into a green energy zone for his and his son’s personal gain and Bundy’s cattle are hindering this effort. This is proven by information on the BLM website (since removed) that states grazing by Bundy’s cattle, “impacts” solar development and the construction of solar development on public lands.
Understand the implications of Reid’s claim that those who bravely stood with Bundy, stared into the barrels of heavily armed oppressors who were threatening to shoot them and faced down the BLM’s armed goons are “domestic terrorists.”
Thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act, the government can simply designate Americans as terrorists and they can then be disappeared into gulags never to be charged, tried or heard from again. Habeas corpus, in the cases deemed “domestic terrorism,” is now nonexistent.
Obama has already ordered drone strikes to kill Americans in foreign lands without due process. The step from indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of American “terrorists” overseas to indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of “domestic terrorists” in America has just been shortened considerably.
This is common knowledge in circles of people who depend upon the alternative media and understand the truth about the Federal police state. Don’t think that Reid is not aware of this. And he understands that those who sided with the Bundys recognize this as well.
Reid is too savvy and too skilled a politician to make a slip of the tongue statement accusing Americans of domestic terrorism.
Obama’s claim that 8 million people have now signed up for Obamacare and the law is working as intended is an incredible stretch even for a man who is such a consummate liar that more than half of Americans know he lies on important issues. The law is working “so well” that even in the face of monetary penalties, tens of millions of people who are eligible to sign up for Obamacare insurance have avoided doing so.
Boehner is said to be “hell-bent” on passing an amnesty bill this year. This has been an important issue for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for some time and is, therefore, an important issue for the Republican establishment.
Understand that, for the Republican elite, amnesty is not about trying to win over Hispanics in order to bolster chances for carrying national elections. It’s about providing cheap labor for big corporations. The plight of millions of unemployed Americans does not concern the establishment.
I have been writing for many years that the U.S. government is a democracy in name only. In truth, it is fascist and ruled by one party with two names under the control of the globalists.
The only goal of the globalists and their psychopathic political class stooges is to loot and pillage. They have done so to the point that America is now a giant rock rolling downhill toward collapse.
As regimes get closer to collapse, they inflict increasingly greater pain and controls on their people. It is now evident in America for those who would see it.
The domestic terrorists in question are not the American people. They are Reid, Obama, Boehner and the rest of the political and bureaucratic class who ignore the rule of law and oppress the American people.
Note from the Editor: Round two of the financial meltdown is predicted to reach global proportions, already adversely affecting Greece, Spain and most of Europe. It appears less severe in the states because our banks are printing useless fiat currency. I’ve arranged for readers to get two free books—Surviving a Global financial Crisis and Currency Collapse, plus How to Survive the Collapse of Civilization—to help you prepare for the worst.
April 20th, 2014 by olddog
Received by email
Jan. 17 2013
TO THE EDITOR:
Republicans and “so called” conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?
We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our great President came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us.
I don’t know the exact statistics, but I’m quite certain the Chicago is a lot safer than Morehead City NC, when it comes to gun violence.
But do Republicans and Conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not! All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth distribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution I’d say, and president Obama needs to change it.
The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the President is Black. They even dared to question whether He was born in this country. I think that all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being President.
Right now it says that a person has to be thirty five years old, and to be a natural born citizen. Well that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for President because their Mother had a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a Doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way.
Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in order to make life fair.
Please withhold my name because I don’t want to receive crank calls.
Which-ever News Paper received this letter to the editor should have dispatched the funny farm cops to pick her/it/him up and take her/it/him to the psychiatric ward for a brain replacement. This is the classic dumbass attitude of government educated whacko’s who want everyone to be like them, and if they’re not, then force them to be. As for me and my house, we desire a separate government to live under, and preferably a different Continent. Stupidity is contagious! HAPPY EASTER FROM OLDDOG
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.