Categories » ‘Constitution’
August 19th, 2014 by olddog
The new Army manual, known as ATP 3-39.33, provides discussion and techniques about civil disturbances and crowd control operations that occur in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS).
This document, just published this past Friday, August 15, 2014, promises to change the way the “authorities” deal with protesters, even peaceful ones. The consequences of ATP 39.33 could prove deadly for protesters. Further, the provisions of this Army manual could prove to be the end of the First Amendment right to assemble peaceably.
In section 1-2., the manual states that “Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots.” This section of the manual clearly states that protesting is a right protected by the Constitution. However, the authorities leave themselves an out to “legally” engage in lethal force toward protesters when the manual states that “peaceful protests can turn into full-scale riots” and field commanders have the right to make that determination. Subsequently, all protests, peaceful or not, need to be managed by the potential for violence. In other words, all protests are to be considered to be violent and handled accordingly. This certainly explains the violent manhandling of the media by the DHS controlled and militarized police in Ferguson, MO.
Posse Comitatus Is Violated
On the surface, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) act should prevent the Army from deploying the troops in the midst of a protest that is not on the scale of something like the 1992 LA Riots. However, the Army claims exemption from Posse Comitatus in the four following areas.
- 10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- 10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- 10 USC 333. When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.
With regard to 10 USC 331, if the local authorities have lost control in the midst of a profound display of domestic violence (e.g. LA Riots), most Americans support the use of National Guard or the military. However, in 10 USC 332, 333 and House Joint Resolution 1292 are ripe with exceptions which open the door to federal authorities abusing the public for exercising their Constitutional right to protest.
In 10 USC 332, the phrase “unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized,” permits the federal government from being demonstrated against. An act of demonstration, or the most benign demonstrations of civil disobedience gives the government the authority to take “deadly action” against the public because there are no clear distinctions on when the use of lethal and nonlethal force is appropriate (see the two charts displayed below).
In 10 USC 333, any disruption of federal law can be decisively dealt with by the federal government. The phrase “…conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized” is a telling passage of this Army document. If 10 USC 333 is applied to the letter of the written Army policy, the protesters who recently objected to illegal aliens being deposited in Murietta, California, could be subject to deadly force. Further, the protesters in Ferguson could be subject to the use of lethal force as well (Again, see the charts below).
The next time a community decides that it does not want to accept illegal immigrants, or protest the shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old, they could be met by the following:
The fourth exception claimed by the Army, with regard to the Army’s right to violate Posse Comitatus, is presented to the American people under the veil of the need to protect politicians.
House Resolution 1292 claims any protest which makes a public official feel “threatened” would be illegal and subject to intervention by the U.S. Army. Hypothetically, if 100 protesters were to gather outside of Senator John McCain‘s office in Phoenix, would that be enough to trigger a violent response by the Army? If McCain says he feels threatened, regardless if his claims are legitimate or not, it most certainly would justify the strongest response possible from the Army. Therefore, all a politician has to do is to say they feel threatened by any gathering to have the gathering dispersed and the protesters dealt with in any manner seen fit by the field commander. Make no mistake about it, this is the end of the First Amendment’s right peaceably assemble.
Army Depictions On How Best to Kill An American Citizen Who Expresses Disagreement with the Government
Do you remember the uproar when DHS was caught distributing target practicing sheets of pregnant women to be used for DHS agents when they were engaged in target practicing?
August 18th, 2014 by olddog
A law enforcement officer watches Sunday, Aug. 17, 2014, as tear gas is fired to disperse
a crowd protesting the shooting of teenager Michael Brown last Saturday in Ferguson, Mo.
BY DAVID A. LIEB AND JIM SALTER
Associated Press writer Nigel Duara contributed to this report.
FERGUSON, Mo. — The first night of a state-imposed curfew in Ferguson, Missouri, ended with tear gas and seven arrests, after police dressed in riot gear used armored vehicles to disperse defiant protesters who refused to leave a St. Louis suburb where a black, unarmed teen had been shot by a white police officer a week earlier.
Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson said protesters weren’t the reason for the escalated police reaction early Sunday morning after the midnight curfew took effect, but a report of people who had broken into a barbecue restaurant and a man who flashed a handgun in the street as armored vehicles approached the crowd of protesters.
Also overnight, a man was shot and critically wounded in the same area, but not by police; authorities were searching for the shooter. Someone also shot at a police car, officials said.
The protests have been going on since 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed Aug. 9 by a white Ferguson officer, Darren Wilson. The death heightened racial tensions between the predominantly black community and mostly white Ferguson Police Department, leading to several run-ins between police and protesters and prompting Missouri’s governor to put the Highway Patrol in charge of security.
The Ferguson Police Department waited six days to publicly reveal the name of the officer and documents alleging Brown robbed a convenience store before he was killed, though Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect when he encountered him walking in the street with a friend.
Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency in Ferguson on Saturday after protests turned violent the night before. In announcing the curfew, Nixon said that though many protesters were making themselves heard peacefully, the state would not allow looters to endanger the community.
“I am committed to making sure the forces of peace and justice prevail,” Nixon said during a news conference that was interrupted repeatedly by people objecting to the curfew and demanding that Wilson be charged with murder. “We must first have and maintain peace. This is a test. The eyes of the world are watching.”
It isn’t clear how many days curfew will be in effect. State statute gives the governor broad powers when he declares a state of emergency, but he hasn’t indicated that he plans to do anything other than imposing the curfew and empowering the state highway patrol to enforce it.
Meanwhile, Nixon said the U.S. Department of Justice is beefing up its civil rights investigation of the shooting.
Johnson, who is in charge of security in Ferguson, said 40 FBI agents were going door-to-door in the neighborhood starting Saturday, talking to people who might have seen or have information about the shooting.
Johnson said earlier Saturday that police would not enforce the curfew with armored trucks and tear gas but would communicate with protesters and give them ample opportunity to leave. Local officers faced strong criticism earlier in the week for their use of tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters.
But as the curfew deadline arrived early Sunday, remaining protesters refused to leave the area as officers spoke through a loudspeaker: “You are in violation of a state-imposed curfew. You must disperse immediately.”
As officers put on gas masks, a chant from the distant crowd emerged: “We have the right to assemble peacefully.”
A moment later, police began firing canisters into the crowd. Highway Patrol Spokesman Lt. John Hotz initially said police only used smoke, but later told The Associated Press they also used tear gas canisters.
“Obviously, we’re trying to give them every opportunity to comply with the curfew,” Hotz said.
On Saturday, some residents said it appeared the violent acts were being committed by people from other suburbs or states.
“Who would burn down their own backyard?” asked Rebecca McCloud, a local who works with the Sonshine Baptist Church in St. Louis. “These people aren’t from here. They came to burn down our city and leave.”
Wilson, the officer who shot Brown, is a six-year police veteran who had no previous complaints against him, Jackson has said. The Ferguson Police Department has refused to say anything about Wilson’s whereabouts, and Associated Press reporters were unable to contact him at any addresses or phone numbers listed under that name in the St. Louis area.
Wilson has been on paid administrative leave since the shooting. St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch said it could be weeks before the investigation wraps up.
Anyone unaware that it is very possible the word went out to find and make an example of someone who would resist lawful orders needs to study the real state of the union instead of watching stupid TV shows or listening to the media news channels. It is very possible that Obuma has received orders to pass down to the grunts in local P.D.s that Martial law is ready and waiting. FEMA is ready and waiting for the dull and ignorant to be their guest, and I doubt not there are plenty grateful for the perceived protection. When will the people understand that we DO NOT have a legal state or National government? We are the property of the Banking Cartel, Crown, POPE, and they want to thin us out and get rid of those who resist! Only the best suck asses will survive. As far as I’m concerned, those who will not fight back to save their lives, deserve what they get. Even a crippled Grandma can take one of them with her.
August 16th, 2014 by olddog
Photo credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images
By Glenn Greenwald
The intensive militarization of America’s police forces is a serious menace about which a small number of people have been loudly warning for years, with little attention or traction. In a 2007 paper on “the blurring distinctions between the police and military institutions and between war and law enforcement,” the criminal justice professor Peter Kraska defined “police militarization” as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.”
The harrowing events of the last week in Ferguson, Missouri – the fatal police shooting of an unarmed African-American teenager, Mike Brown, and the blatantly excessive and thuggish response to ensuing community protests from a police force that resembles an occupying army – have shocked the U.S. media class and millions of Americans. But none of this is aberrational.
It is the destructive by-product of several decades of deliberate militarization of American policing, a trend that received a sustained (and ongoing) steroid injection in the form of a still-flowing, post-9/11 federal funding bonanza, all justified in the name of “homeland security.” This has resulted in a domestic police force that looks, thinks, and acts more like an invading and occupying military than a community-based force to protect the public.
As is true for most issues of excessive and abusive policing, police militarization is overwhelmingly and disproportionately directed at minorities and poor communities, ensuring that the problem largely festers in the dark. Americans are now so accustomed to seeing police officers decked in camouflage and Robocop-style costumes, riding in armored vehicles and carrying automatic weapons first introduced during the U.S. occupation of Baghdad, that it has become normalized. But those who bear the brunt of this transformation are those who lack loud megaphones; their complaints of the inevitable and severe abuse that results have largely been met with indifference.
If anything positive can come from the Ferguson travesties, it is that the completely out-of-control orgy of domestic police militarization receives long-overdue attention and reining in.
Last night, two reporters, The Washington Post‘s Wesley Lowery and The Huffington Post‘s Ryan Reilly, were arrested and assaulted while working from a McDonald’s in Ferguson. The arrests were arbitrary and abusive, and received substantial attention — only because of their prominent platforms, not, as they both quickly pointed out upon being released, because there was anything unusual about this police behavior.
Reilly, on Facebook, recounted how he was arrested by “a Saint Louis County police officer in full riot gear, who refused to identify himself despite my repeated requests, purposefully banged my head against the window on the way out and sarcastically apologized.” He wrote: ”I’m fine. But if this is the way these officers treat a white reporter working on a laptop who moved a little too slowly for their liking, I can’t imagine how horribly they treat others.” He added: “And if anyone thinks that the militarization of our police force isn’t a huge issue in this country, I’ve got a story to tell you.”
Lowery, who is African-American, tweeted a summary of an interview he gave on MSNBC: “If I didn’t work for the Washington Post and were just another Black man in Ferguson, I’d still be in a cell now.” He added: “I knew I was going to be fine. But the thing is, so many people here in Ferguson don’t have as many Twitter followers as I have and don’t have Jeff Bezos or whoever to call and bail them out of jail.”
The best and most comprehensive account of the dangers of police militarization is the 2013 book by the libertarianWashington Post journalist Radley Balko, entitled “Rise of the Warrior Cops: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces.” Balko, who has devoted his career to documenting and battling the worst abuses of the U.S. criminal justice system, traces the history and underlying mentality that has given rise to all of this: the “law-and-order” obsessions that grew out of the social instability of the 1960s, the War on Drugs that has made law enforcement agencies view Americans as an enemy population, the Reagan-era “War on Poverty” (which was more aptly described as a war on America’s poor), the aggressive Clinton-era expansions of domestic policing, all topped off by the massively funded, rights-destroying, post-9/11 security state of the Bush and Obama years. All of this, he documents, has infused America’s police forces with “a creeping battlefield mentality.”
I read Balko’s book prior to publication in order to blurb it, and after I was done, immediately wrote what struck me most about it: “There is no vital trend in American society more overlooked than the militarization of our domestic police forces.” The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim, in the outlet’s official statement about Reilly’s arrest, made the same point: “Police militarization has been among the most consequential and unnoticed developments of our time.”
In June, the ACLU published a crucial 96-page report on this problem, entitled “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.” Its central point: “the United States today has become excessively militarized, mainly through federal programs that create incentives for state and local police to use unnecessarily aggressive weapons and tactics designed for the battlefield.”
The report documents how the Drug War and (Clinton/Biden) 1990s crime bills laid the groundwork for police militarization, but the virtually unlimited flow of “homeland security” money after 9/11 all but forced police departments to purchase battlefield equipment and other military paraphernalia whether they wanted them or not. Unsurprisingly, like the War on Drugs and police abuse generally, “the use of paramilitary weapons and tactics primarily impacted people of color.”
Some police departments eagerly militarize, but many recognize the dangers. Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank is quoted in the ACLU report: “We’re not the military. Nor should we look like an invading force coming in.” A 2011 Los Angeles Times article, noting that “federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security,” described how local police departments receive so much homeland security money from the U.S. government that they end up forced to buy battlefield equipment they know they do not need: from armored vehicles to Zodiac boats with side-scan sonar.
The trend long pre-dates 9/11, as this 1997 Christian Science Monitor article by Jonathan Landayabout growing police militarization and its resulting abuses (“Police Tap High-Tech Tools of Military to Fight Crime”) makes clear. Landay, in that 17-year-old article, described “an infrared scanner mounted on [a police officer's] car [that] is the same one used by US troops to hunt Iraqi forces in the Gulf war,” and wrote: “it is symbolic of an increasing use by police of some of the advanced technologies that make the US military the world’s mightiest.”
But the security-über-alles fixation of the 9/11 era is now the driving force. A June article in the New York Times by Matt Apuzzo (“War Gear Flows to Police Departments”) reported that “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.” He added: “The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units.”
All of this has become such big business, and is grounded in such politically entrenched bureaucratic power, that it is difficult to imagine how it can be uprooted. As the LA Timesexplained:
An entire industry has sprung up to sell an array of products, including high-tech motion sensors and fully outfitted emergency operations trailers. The market is expected to grow to $31 billion by 2014.
Like the military-industrial complex that became a permanent and powerful part of the American landscape during the Cold War, the vast network of Homeland Security spyware, concrete barricades and high-tech identity screening is here to stay. The Department of Homeland Security, a collection of agencies ranging from border control to airport security sewn quickly together after Sept. 11, is the third-largest Cabinet department and — with almost no lawmaker willing to render the U.S. less prepared for a terrorist attack — one of those least to fall victim to budget cuts.
The dangers of domestic militarization are both numerous and manifest. To begin with, as the nation is seeing in Ferguson, it degrades the mentality of police forces in virtually every negative way and subjects their targeted communities to rampant brutality and unaccountable abuse. The ACLU report summarized: “excessive militarism in policing, particularly through the use of paramilitary policing teams, escalates the risk of violence, threatens individual liberties, and unfairly impacts people of color.”
Police militarization also poses grave and direct dangers to basic political liberties, including rights of free speech, press and assembly. The first time I wrote about this issue was back in 2008 when I covered the protests outside the GOP national convention in St. Paul for Salon, and was truly amazed by the war-zone atmosphere deliberately created by the police:
St. Paul was the most militarized I have ever seen an American city be, even more so than Manhattan in the week of 9/11 — with troops of federal, state and local law enforcement agents marching around with riot gear, machine guns, and tear gas cannisters, shouting military chants and marching in military formations. Humvees and law enforcement officers with rifles were posted on various buildings and balconies. Numerous protesters and observers were tear gassed and injured.
The same thing happened during the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011: the police response was so excessive, and so clearly modeled after battlefield tactics, that there was no doubt that deterring domestic dissent is one of the primary aims of police militarization. About that police response, I wrote at the time:
Law enforcement officials and policy-makers in America know full well that serious protests — and more — are inevitable given the economic tumult and suffering the U.S. has seen over the last three years (and will continue to see for the foreseeable future). . . .
The reason the U.S. has para-militarized its police forces is precisely to control this type of domestic unrest, and it’s simply impossible to imagine its not being deployed in full against a growing protest movement aimed at grossly and corruptly unequal resource distribution. As Madeleine Albright said when arguing for U.S. military intervention in the Balkans: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” That’s obviously how governors, big-city Mayors and Police Chiefs feel about the stockpiles of assault rifles, SWAT gear, hi-tech helicopters, and the coming-soon drone technology lavished on them in the wake of the post/9-11 Security State explosion, to say nothing of the enormous federal law enforcement apparatus that, more than anything else, resembles a standing army which is increasingly directed inward.
Most of this militarization has been justified by invoking Scary Foreign Threats — primarily the Terrorist — but its prime purpose is domestic.
Police militarization is increasingly aimed at stifling journalism as well. Like the arrests of Lowery and Reilly last night, Democracy Now‘s Amy Goodman and two of her colleagues were arrested while covering the 2008 St. Paul protests. As Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (on whose board I sit) explained yesterday, militarization tactics “don’t just affect protesters, but also affect those who cover the protest. It creates an environment where police think they can disregard the law and tell reporters to stop filming, despite their legal right to do so, or fire tear gas directly at them to prevent them from doing their job. And if the rights of journalists are being trampled on, you can almost guarantee it’s even worse for those who don’t have such a platform to protect themselves.”
Ultimately, police militarization is part of a broader and truly dangerous trend: the importation of War on Terror tactics from foreign war zones onto American soil. American surveillance drones went from Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia into American cities, and it’s impossible to imagine that they won’t be followed by weaponized ones. The inhumane and oppressive conditions that prevailed at Guantanamo are matched, or exceeded, by the super-max hellholes and “Communications Management Units” now in the American prison system. And the “collect-it-all” mentality that drives NSA domestic surveillance was pioneered by Gen. Keith Alexander in Baghdad and by other generals in Afghanistan, aimed at enemy war populations.
Indeed, much of the war-like weaponry now seen in Ferguson comes from American laws, such as the so-called “Program 1033,” specifically designed to re-direct excessive Pentagon property – no longer needed as foreign wars wind down – into American cities. As the Missouri Department of Public Safety proudly explains on its website, “the 1033 Program provides surplus DoD military equipment to state and local civilian law enforcement agencies for use in counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism operations, and to enhance officer safety.”
One government newsletter - from “the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), a little known federal agency that equips police departments with surplus military gear” – boasted that “Fiscal Year 2011 was a record year in property transfers from the US military’s stockpiles to police departments around the nation.” The ACLU report notes: “the Department of Defense operates the 1033 Program through the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), whose motto is ‘from warfighter to crimefighter.’” The Justice Department has an entire program devoted to “supporting military veterans and the law enforcement agencies that hire them as our veterans seek to transition into careers as law enforcement officers.”
As part of America’s posture of Endless War, Americans have been trained to believe that everything is justified on the “battlefield” (now defined to mean “the whole world”): imprisonment without charges, kidnapping, torture, even assassination of U.S. citizens without trials. It is not hard to predict the results of importing this battlefield mentality onto American soil, aimed at American citizens: “From Warfighter to Crimefighter.” The results have been clear for those who have looked – or those who have been subject to this – for years. The events in Ferguson are, finally, forcing all Americans to watch the outcome of this process.
August 9th, 2014 by olddog
PART 1 and 2
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
August 9, 2014
My latest book—By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”—is now available through Amazon. Its title encapsulates its theme: namely, that “martial law” (as most Americans conceive of it) is a wholly illegitimate concept which appeals to some supposed, but false, “necessity” in order to establish a very real tyranny.
Some might say that, in light of the present parlous condition of the Republic, and especially the pathetic indifference of average Americans to this sorry state of affairs, writing such a book will prove to be a fool’s errand on my part—or perhaps a hopeless task quixotically undertaken for the benefit of fools. Obviously, I disagree. I consider the subject-matter of this book to be vital to this country’s survival.
To be sure, By Tyranny Out of Necessity is not the most important book which I have written on the general subject of the place of the Militia in America’s constitutional edifice. The others—Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume One, The Nation in Arms; Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume Two, The Sword and Sovereignty; Thirteen Words; andThree Rights—were more significant in principle, because if patriots in sufficient numbers had paid attention to the message those works conveyed, and had taken action upon it, the danger of “martial law” would already be well on the way to being obviated. As of now, however, By Tyranny Out of Necessity is the most important of my books in practice, precisely because most Americans have not been paying attention—not so much to my works, but to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution upon which those works are based. Now, people are becoming increasingly worried about the imposition of “martial law” in the course of some jury-rigged “national emergency”.They are being told by “the Powers That Be” that “martial law” is legitimate, and that sufficient steps are being taken to prepare for it—especially in the para-militarization of State and Local “law-enforcement” and “emergency-management” agencies. Through the media, they have witnessed an example of the implementation of “martial law”, on a small yet highly organized scale, in Watertown, Massachusetts, hard upon the bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon. Many of them have had personal experiences with the bestiality of “martial law” in the myriad episodes of unpunished “police brutality” which take place almost every day throughout this country. Yet, overall, most Americans have no idea whether “martial law” is even lawful or not—but apparently are resigned to the belief that nothing can be done to stop it from being imposed upon them.
One would presume that, in light of the seriousness of the matter, Americans would ask: “What is ‘martial law’?” and “How is ‘martial law’ legal?” Certainly, proof of the illegality of “martial law”—in any of its particulars, let alone as a whole—would provide a firm foundation for opposing it, and for deposing from public office those individuals who propose it. So I anticipate (or at least hope) that By Tyranny Out of Necessity, which demonstrates in exhaustive detail why the common misconception of “martial law” is industrial-strength bunkum, will be a smashing success in terms of its usefulness among patriots who intend to keep their heads out of the sand, their feet on the ground, and their eyes on the ultimate goal of living in what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”.
Yes, one would presume, perhaps even expect, that such would be the case. Yet hoping does not make it so. There remains the possibility that this country has already plunged so far off the deep end of Spengler’sDer Untergang des Abendlandes that nothing can be done to salvage the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any semblance of “a free State”. What might constitute evidence for that lugubrious conclusion?
A. The evidence. That I have had to write By Tyranny Out of Necessity (or, for that matter, any of my books touching on the Militia) is prime evidence of the decay into which this country has fallen. For, as By Tyranny Out of Necessity explains, the Militia are, as they always have been, the definitive preventive of and answer to “martial law”, or any other manifestation of usurpation or tyranny. No threat of “martial law” would exist if Americans were properly organized in “the Militia of the several States”, because any constitutionally valid form of “law” that needed enforcement by “martial” institutions against civilians would be the civil laws of the Union and of the several States executed by the Militia—that is, by WE THE PEOPLE themselves.
Even the half-witted rogues in the Disgrace of Columbia would think long and hard about the inadvisability of attempting to invoke “martial law” if WE THE PEOPLE awakened to their own constitutional authority in the Militia; refused to recognize the legitimacy of any form of “law” that needed “martial” enforcement against civilians, but was not executed by or under the control of the Militia; organized themselves for the purpose of revitalizing the Militia by means of State legislation under the States’ reserved constitutional authority in that respect; and through that effort prepared themselves to oppose “martial law” even if that legislation could not be enacted in time in every State. Emphasis on the last point is vital: Even if patriots could not succeed in having proper Militia statutes enacted throughout this country before a major economic, political, and social breakdown occurred, they could at least motivate, educate, organize, equip, and train tens of thousands of Americans who would be capable of acting collectively in their and their country’s interests. This critical mass does not exist at present; and it will never come into being unless and until adequate steps are taken to revitalize the Militia. Perhaps only a small part of it can be amalgamated before a calamity strikes. But something for some is better than nothing for all—a self-evident truth to which every passenger who found a seat in one of the few lifeboats on the Titanic would have attested.
B. Some of the responsible parties. The plain fact is, however, that neither “the Militia of the several States” nor any significant movements in favor of revitalizing the Militia exist in any State. Who is to blame for this? Of course, “the Powers That Be” and their partisans, clients, stooges, and hangers-on are the primary culprits—because the very last thing they want is for WE THE PEOPLE to organize themselves in the institutions which the Constitution describes as “necessary to the security of a free State”. “The Powers That Be”, after all, recoil from “a free State” as vampires recoil from garlic. Yet they are not the only responsible parties. Many other Americans are at fault, too. For example—
• The catastrophards. These doomsayers contend that it is useless to promote the revitalization of the Militia (or any other constitutional reform, for that matter), because all is already irretrievably lost. A national catastrophe, in one horrendous manifestation or another, is inevitable, imminent, unavoidable, and immitigable. Perhaps surprisingly, in the front ranks of these people march certain lay preachers who declaim in the style of prophets out of the Old Testament how this country is “under judgment” and will soon be destroyed by the hand of God. Well, if that is so, then good riddance to it. But is that prophecy true? Apparently their voices have not reminded them that God still helps those who help themselves. Neither have their voices recommended to them the alternative explanation of contemporary events, that Americans have not yet failed Heaven’s test, but are being tested right now—that all of the cultural bolshevism, pessimism, decadence, perversion, depravity, criminality, corruption, usurpation, and even tyranny from which America suffers is being allowed to afflict her so that WE THE PEOPLE can finally screw their courage to the sticking place and reassert the principles of “a free State” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—and that “judgment” will befall them only if they fail, neglect, or refuse to pass this test.
• The appeasers. Amazing (at least to me) is how many self-styled “patriots” are actually rather abject appeasers of and collaborators with “the Powers That Be”. This manifests itself most strikingly and sickeningly in the childish fear of “the M word” endemic in these people. How many times have I heard it said, and all too accurately so, that “even most of those Americans who support the Second Amendment do not want to be associated with anything concerning ‘militia’”? How, though, is this possible? Precisely how can someone claim to support the Second Amendment while at the same time repudiating the constitutional institutions which the Amendment itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”? What good is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” if it does not conduce to “the security of a free State”? And how can it do so if “the people” do not employ it in the Militia which the Amendment itself declares to be “necessary to” that purpose?
One can understand why various subversive organizations and individuals, in public office as well as private station, stridently demonize the word “militia”. They are intent, after all, not simply on tarring a word, but on psychologically terrorizing all Americans so that they can prevent the reinstatement of the very establishments which the Constitution itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”—and thereby insure the destruction of “a free State” everywhere within this country. Beyond understanding, though, is what those self-styled “patriots” who appease these subversives by distancing themselves from, if not demonizing, the word “militia” expect to gain from such craven and stupid behavior. Collaboration of that ilk can only hasten the day when no “free State” exists anywhere in America.
If these appeasers are ashamed of and unwilling to support their own Constitution with respect to what it declares in no uncertain terms to be “necessary”, they should emigrate to North Korea, where even lip-service is not paid to the principles and practices of “a free State”. They would do truly patriotic Americans a favor, because the departure of each defeatist collaborator from this country would give those patriots who remained that much of a better chance to prevail—at least to the extent of not having constantly to worry about being stabbed in the back.
• The intellectual élite. A not insignificant part of the self-styled “patriotic” leadership in this country contends that next to nothing can be done to dam the political, economic, social, and cultural sewage pouring out of the Disgrace of Columbia because, although the intellectually acute leaders themselves fully understand what needs doing, average Americans are little more than bovine morons whom the leaders simply cannot educate or motivate to do the right thing. So it is supposedly hopeless to expect “the sheeple” ever to understand the need to revitalize the Militia. This, however, is pathetic special pleading on two counts.
First, those in glass houses should not cast stones. If the sheeple are stupid, are the shepherds any smarter? How many among the self-obsessed intellectual élite of the “patriotic” leadership really understand the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and especially the relationship between the two? How many realize what the Second Amendment calls “a free State” actually is? How many are willing to do what is required to guarantee the survival of “a free State”? And, most to the point, how many pay any attention to the only institutions the Constitution itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”? Apparently not very many. For how many among the leadership support, or even mention, revitalization of the Militia?
Second, only a poor workman blames his tools. By hypothesis, average people need “leaders” because they are incapable of “leading” themselves. True “leaders” qualify as such because they are extraordinary individuals who demonstrate the capacity to show average people the right way to go. Therefore, the primary responsibility of “leaders” among the intellectual élite is always to devise a means to educate the people, not to complain about how uneducable they are. Just as a cabinetmaker must hone his chisels to fine edges in order to perform satisfactory work, if the people’s wits are dull the first task of the leadership must be to sharpen them. So, if America’s “patriotic” leadership does comprehend what is “necessary to the security of a free State”, its failure to pass on to average citizens the gist of this knowledge is more likely its own fault, rather than the fault of its pupils. The leadership cannot justly blame the people for its own sloth and incompetence.
• The “patriotic” gurus of the ether. The guruswho haunt the “patriotic” alternative media of websites, blogs, videos, talk radio, and so on make their livings by expatiating endlessly on the terrifying dangers that are impinging upon this country. In style, they are strikingly akin to the gnats of summer. They flit wildly from one topic to another (or provide a plethora of links that encourages their audiences to do so). They buzz with the artificial excitement of the moment. Sometimes they bite with trenchant comments. But, when all is said and done, their effect remains ephemeral. No one remembers tomorrow what they said yesterday. This is because, although they are often good at identifying obvious problems in the short term, they always seem unable to propose really workable long-term solutions. They sometimes can tell Americans what is going wrong, but almost never delve into how to set it right. Perhaps this is because they are unable to grasp that, although the day-to-day problems may change, the underlying causes of—and the ultimate solutions to—them never do. Or perhaps it is because they do grasp that the ever-intensifying difficulties assaulting Americans are (as the Chinese say) their very own rice bowls, without which they would have to find other sources of employment and income. Whatever the reason, they tend to be more public nuisances than public benefactors, because their viewers, readers, and listeners imagine that they have done something useful by tuning in, or that they need not do anything else, or that nothing more can be done.
In contrast, the Constitution sets out certain fixed principles of permanent value for WE THE PEOPLE’S control of the institutions called “government” at every level of the federal system. The most important of these is that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, because the overarching purpose of the Constitution is to secure “a free State” for all Americans. One would hope that THE PEOPLE would not need any “patriotic” gurus (or anyone else) to remind them of that. Yet, inasmuch as THE PEOPLE seem to have temporarily forgotten this principle—as evidenced by the absence of “well regulated Militia” in all of the fifty States—to be worth their salt the gurus should be emphasizing it at every opportunity. That they are not is revealing.
• The members of “private militias”. It is worse than simplistic to dismiss the members of various “private militias” scattered across this country as mere rustic buffoons who stupidly imagine themselves capable of employing Eighteenth-Century tactics to save America from Twenty-first-Century tyranny. For they at least understand that it is more intelligent to put some extra lifeboats on the Titanic before she sails, than to attempt to cobble a few together from deck chairs as she is sinking. They at least comprehend that it is more prudent to organize their families, friends, and neighbors into what they mistakenly call “militia” beforea nationwide crisis breaks out and “the Powers That Be” invoke “martial law”, rather than afterwards. For obviously it is better to bring together as many people as possible in cooperative endeavors on the basis of common plans before any such crisis supervenes—rather than when society is in utter disarray; when in the midst of chaos patriots are compelled to act as individuals or in small groups who or which do not even know of each other’s existences; and when, realizing their own isolation and lack of support from anyone else, patriots cannot depend upon or even minimally trust their own neighbors.
Nonetheless, the members of these “private militias” have grasped only the less important half of the right idea. In the final analysis, the organization of such groups is useless for restoring constitutional government, for the undeniable reason that, even if they are perfectly legal in all other respects, “private militia” by definition possess no governmental character. True constitutional “Militia” are governmental establishments of the several States, “well regulated” by statutes according to certain definite constitutional principles. In contrast, being the products of purely private action, no “private militias” can claim any governmental, let alone specifically constitutional, authority. And without such authority no “private militias” can assert the constitutional right, power, and duty to execute the laws of the Union and of the several States in a “martial” fashion against usurpers and tyrants who attempt to inflict “martial law” upon Americans anywhere within this country.
Indeed, if the misplaced enthusiasm for “private militias” did not derive originally from the machinations of agents provocateurs and agents of influence dispatched by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it ought to have. For nothing could be more useful to “the Powers That Be” than: (i) to goad patriots into expending their energies on purely private and uncoordinated activities, rather than on efforts to revitalize the constitutional establishments which embody and empower popular sovereignty; (ii) to deceive patriots into becoming suspicious of and antagonistic to “government” in general, so that they will disdain seeking the specifically governmental authority which the Constitution offers them (indeed, requires them to exercise) through the Militia; and (iii) to mislead patriots into disarming themselves of such a status, so that, in a crisis, when they are asked “What is your constitutional authority?” the honest answer must be “We have none.”
• Proponents of the so-called “individual right to keep and bear arms”. Those in the rather large crowd touting “the individual right to keep and bear arms” are worse off than the members of any “private militia”, because they comprehend far less than half of the problem. They fixate on the private possession of firearms alone, disregarding entirely that the organization of “well regulated Militia” imbued with governmental authority—not simply the adventitious possession of firearms by average Americans as their private right—is “necessary to the security of a free State”.
If the misplaced enthusiasm for “the individual right to keep and bear arms” did not derive originally from “black” political-psychological operations set in motion by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it too ought to have. For Americans who myopically focus on an “individual right” to the exclusion of the Militia imagine that they are promoting the ultimate purpose of Second Amendment simply by “clinging to their guns”—which, as one of their favorite expressions has it, will have to be pried “from their cold, dead hands”. But this bravado, even if backed up by action, can defend only a part of the Second Amendment—a part which, although necessary, is not sufficient. While each American who might have helped to revitalize the Militia dotes exclusively on his “individual right”, the Militia remain unorganized, and “the security of a free State” remains undefended by the institutions which the Second Amendment declares to be “necessary” for that purpose. None of these folks seems to recognize that: (i) Americans’ collective right (and duty) to possess firearms suitable for service in the Militia also secures each American’s “individual right”—for the self-evident reason that every member of the Militia, armed for that purpose, is also an individual who must maintain personal possession of one or more firearms at all times, thereby exercising an “individual right” to those firearms within the Militia far more secure than any “individual right” to any firearm which he might enjoy outside of the Militia (until the Judiciary declares that some so-called “compelling state interest” allows for that “individual right” to be abridged). And (ii) the purely “individual right to keep and bear arms” does nothing to secure each American’s collective as well as individual right (and duty) to participate in “[a] well regulated Militia”, and therefore next to nothing to promote “the security of a free State” for which such a Militia is “necessary”.
Consider the danger from tyranny. Can any individual, exercising solely his “individual right to keep and bear arms” in the confines of his own cellar, be expected to deter, let alone to stand up against, a tyranny which disposes of a large, well organized, and fully equipped police-state apparatus? Can even thousands and tens of thousands of individuals, individually exercising their “individual rights” in their individual cellars in mutual isolation, be expected to stop such a tyranny in its tracks? No—the “individual right to keep and bear arms”, individually exercised, simply assures the defeat of all individuals in detail. Only by organizing the great mass of her patriotic citizens for collective action can America defend herself from any tyranny worthy of that name. (And from an host of other highly undesirable situations less serious, but probably more likely, than full-blown tyranny.)
Consider also the contemporary problem of the constant political agitation in favor of “gun control”. Even having been approved by bare majorities of the Justices of the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions, “the individual right to keep and bear arms” remains woefully insufficient to stifle this subversive ferment. Notwithstanding Heller and McDonald, which way is the line moving on the graph of tyranny versus liberty? On the one hand, “gun control” is still advancing by giant strides in such “people’s democratic republics” as New York, Connecticut, California, Maryland, and New Jersey. On the other hand, in the course of lobbying and litigation over “gun control” sometimes patriots do win, and sometimes they lose—but the struggle goes on interminably, because they have not finally secured the practical application of the constitutionally most significant principle that every eligible American has a right (and a duty) to serve in “[a] well regulated Militia”, and therefore to be appropriately armed at all times for that purpose (unless, as to the actual possession and use of firearms, he happens to be a conscientious objector). Is not this never-ending fight over “gun control”, arising out of incessant political aggression against the American people by rogue public officials and the subversive private special-interest groups allied with them, wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment’s command that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”? What other constitutional right is the subject of such relentless attacks that its character as a true “right” is constantly open to challenge and even denial in America’s legislatures and courts?
Thus, “the individual right to keep and bear arms” proves to be a snare and a delusion—even arguably the greatest disservice to the defense of the Republic in modern times:
First, it cannot defeat, and probably cannot even deter, the kind of tyranny against which average Americans would need to exercise large-scale armed resistance.
Second, it diverts Americans from the real issue—which is the supreme constitutional authority of WE THE PEOPLE organized in “the Militia of the several States”.
Third, it administers a political soporific—that the big “gun-rights” organizations have everything well in hand, as long as common Americans continue to send them and their attorneys more and more money to pour down the rat-holes of endless lobbying and litigation.
Fourth, even when lobbying and litigation fail to secure “the individual right” to anything like its full extent, it nonetheless provides a political narcotic which attenuates the psychic pain of defeat with the consolation that at least some Americans can retain possession of some of their firearms under some circumstances for some limited purposes for some little while longer. Of course, who can foresee how long that will last? And as the narcotic effect wears off with the steady advance of “gun control”, who can predict how painful the withdrawal symptoms induced by a final exposure to hard reality will be? Finally, and of the most dire consequence,
Fifth, while the struggle over “gun control” continues on the “gun controllers’” own terms, Americans are doing nothing to revitalize the Militia on the Constitution’s terms.
• Purveyors of fairy-tale panaceas for America’s problems. If the proponents of “private militias” and of “the individual right of the people to keep and bear Arms” at least grasp small—albeit woefully insufficient—parts of what needs to be done, what can be said about the Pied Pipers of Humbug who promote such airy schemes as “Impeachment” of Barack Obama?
Leave aside the obvious objection that, if Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for “the Office of President” because he is not “a natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution, then he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment” under Article II, Section 4, because as a matter of constitutional law he never entered into that “Office” in the first place. Indicted he might be—for impersonation of a public official (as well as for numerous other offenses stemming from and facilitated by that imposture)—if he is actually constitutionally ineligible for “the Office of President”; but “removed from Office on Impeachment” he cannot be. To be eligible for “Impeachment” from some office, one must first be eligible to the office to which “Impeachment” relates. The illogicality of the drive for “Impeachment” is not the worst of its demerits, though. The most glaring are the impracticality of “Impeachment” in the short term and its utter irrelevance in the long run.
First, in light of the present composition of Congress, can anyone not regularly ingesting LSD or some other hallucinogenic drug possibly imagine that “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama might possibly follow a strictly constitutional path to a strictly constitutional end? For example, with respect to the notorious issue of Mr. Obama’s alleged ineligibility to “the Office of President”, and all of the consequences thereof, is not every Member of Congress knowingly, willfully, and intentionally complicitous in whatever wrongdoing has taken and continues to take place, or at least proceeding with willful blindness towards or in reckless disregard of the facts? No present Member of Congress who was in office in 2008 or 2012 challenged a single electoral vote supposedly cast for Mr. Obama in the presidential elections of those years—although every Member of Congress had a statutory right and even duty to do so. And apparently not a single Member of Congress at the present time openly refuses to acknowledge, accept, or acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s posturing as “the President”. Why this is the case doubtlessly requires different explanations for different Members of Congress—none of these excuses, one presumes, exculpatory. But that such is the case no one can deny. How, then, can anyone expect such hopelessly compromised individuals to carry through the process of “Impeachment” in the “no stone left unturned” manner in which it ought to be prosecuted? That, in such an environment of thoroughgoing institutional cowardice and corruption, “Impeachment” would provide nothing but farcical political entertainment can be predicted with moral certainty simply by studying the history of the last two episodes of real “Impeachment” or near-“Impeachment” of the real Presidents Clinton and Nixon, as documented in such “kiss and tell” books as David P. Schippers, Sell Out: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment and Jerry Zeifman, “Without Honor”: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot.
Second, what of real substance could be expected to change for the better if, for recondite political reasons, the necessary majorities of Members of Congress would agree in the cloak rooms that Mr. Obama should be “removed from Office on Impeachment”? Mr. Obama, after all, is merely a symptom, not the underlying cause, of America’s malaise. Removing a single, even very prominent, puppet from the stage will not change the identities of the puppet masters, let alone their ability to bring forth as many new puppets as may be necessary to serve their interests. As long as “Manchuria” exists, it will continue to supply a plenitude of suitable “candidates”. Certainly the departure of Mr. Obama from the scene will not, by itself, return control of their own political destiny to WE THE PEOPLE. The “two” major political parties, and (of more consequence) the factions and other special-interest groups that pull their strings, will remain in commanding positions in the electoral process, in the big “mainstream media”, in the world of banking and high finance, and so on.
Moreover, by itself “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama will not solve any of the problems that now confront this country with the threat of “martial law”—in particular, the impending dethronement of the Federal Reserve Note as the “world reserve currency”, with the consequent collapse of America’s domestic economy in hyperinflation, depression or (most likely) the one followed by the other. Whoever “the Powers That Be” contrive to foist upon this country as President in Mr. Obama’s stead—whether that be “Joe Biden” or some other equally appalling figurehead—must follow the path heretofore laid out for Mr. Obama, because Obama’s successor can do nothing else without impairing the position of “the Powers That Be”. So, even if “Impeachment” were successful to the extent of removing Mr. Obama himself from the office which perhaps he never held in the first place, Americans would still need to revitalize the Militia—which, of course, can (and should) be done without wasting any time and effort on “Impeachment”.
C. At the end of the rope. What can these and other Americans who have neglected revitalization of the Militia, or worse yet actively opposed it by joining the dissident chorus of those who demonize the very word “militia”, belatedly offer in their own defense? That now, as the threat of “martial law” looms large over this country, they are sorry for having misled themselves and countless others too? What good will such a tardy admission be? As of this writing, patriots of all sorts have squandered more than forty-five years since the Gun Control Act of 1968 plastered the agenda of the “gun-control” fanatics across the pages of the United States Statutes at Large for everyone to see, and almost twelve years since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security began the erection and deployment in earnest of a national para-military police-state apparatus. America, moreover, does not have the luxury of another forty-five years, or another twelve years—more than likely not even another four or five years—during which her citizens in sufficient numbers can finally catch on to what is going on, and to what lies at the end of the road down which they are being led.
If Americans want to live in “a free State”, they must bend their every effort—immediately, if not sooner—to restore, protect, and preserve the Constitution. No alternative to an unremitting defense of the Constitution exists, because the Constitution, rightly understood and enforced according to that understanding, provides the only basis for acceptable “government” now available. Nothing else is ready, or even in contemplation, to replace it. Moreover, the great advantage of the Constitution is that true patriots know perfectly well what it really means and how to put that meaning into practice.
According to the Constitution, the Militia are the sole institutions “necessary” for achievement of the Constitution’s ultimate aim, “the security of a free State”. Therefore it is childishly ridiculous to imagine that anyone can defend the Constitution—even as it might be amended by those supposedly well-meaning but naive individuals recklessly calling for a “constitutional convention” of some sort—without demanding revitalization of the Militia. Certainly no proposed amendment which I have ever seen substitutes, or even suggests, something other than “[a] well regulated Militia” as a new institution “necessary to the security of a free State”. The reason is obvious: Who but WE THE PEOPLE themselves, exercising sovereignty through the ultimate Power of the Sword in their own hands, could possibly perform the task of guaranteeing such “security”?
Yes, time is rapidly running out. But perhaps that is not so bad, after all. Although America’s neck is in a noose, perhaps the threat of “martial law” will finally stimulate enough of her remaining “good People” (as the Declaration of Independence styled true patriots) to think about—and then to take action aimed at—revitalization of the Militia before the trap door on History’s scaffold springs open and the threat of “martial law” becomes a fatal actuality. After all, as Samuel Johnson once reputedly quipped, nothing focuses a man’s mind more than his impending hanging.
© 2014 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
It is devastating to witness the best legal mind in America teetering on the edge of despair, as he admits there is little hope for an ignorant Nation. Every one of us is directly responsible for the real State of the Union, and our acceptance of tyranny. We have used our ignorance as our excuse. I don’t know if I am sad or happy that the end is near. Read today’s post on http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com There is no hope without intelligent leaders
August 7th, 2014 by olddog
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
“The lamps are going out all over Europe,” Sir Edward Grey famously said on the eve of World War I. “We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”
It was 100 years ago last week that Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, setting in motion the unspeakable calamity that contemporaries dubbed the Great War. Well in excess of ten million people perished, and by some estimates, many more.
Numbers, even staggering ones like this, can scarcely convey the depth and breadth of the destruction. The war was an ongoing slaughter of devastating proportions. Tens of thousands perished in campaigns that moved the front just a matter of yards. It was World War I that gave us the term “basket case,” by which was meant a quadruple amputee. Other now-familiar tools of warfare came into common use: the machine gun, the tank, even poison gas. Rarely has the State’s machinery of senseless destruction been on more macabre display.
The scholarly pendulum has swung back in the direction of German atrocities having indeed been committed in Belgium, though perhaps not quite as gruesome as the tales of babies being passed from bayonet to bayonet that were disseminated to Americans early in the war. In turn, a vastly larger number of Germans, with estimates as high as 750,000, died as a result of the British hunger blockade that violated longstanding norms of international conduct, even during wartime.
The machinery of State propaganda reached heights never before seen. Whole peoples were systematically demonized in the service of the warmakers. Sound money was abandoned, to return only briefly and in a hobbled form during the interwar period.
To be sure, some socialists opposed the war, since it pitted the working classes of the world against each other. Others, intoxicated by the spirit of nationalism, abandoned socialism (at least in its internationalist aspects) and plunged into the war with gusto. Among these: Benito Mussolini.
And yet there is scarcely an atrocity that States cause that another State, in the name of peace, cannot make indescribably worse.
The intervention by Woodrow Wilson, against the wishes of most Americans — were that not so, neither the draft nor the ceaseless propaganda would have been necessary — was one of the most catastrophic decisions ever made, by anyone. It set in motion a sequence of events whose consequences would reverberate throughout the twentieth century.
One can make a case, not merely plausible but indeed quite compelling, that in the absence of Wilson’s intervention, the entire litany of twentieth-century horrors could have been avoided. Without a punitive peace, which only Wilson’s intervention made possible, the Nazis would have had no natural constituency, and no path to power. The Bolshevik Revolution, which succeeded only because of the unpopularity of the war, might not have occurred if the promise of coming American support had not kept that war going.
Even George Kennan, a pillar of the establishment, admitted in retrospect: “Today if one were offered the chance of having back again the Germany of 1913 — a Germany run by conservative but relatively moderate people, no Nazis and no Communists — a vigorous Germany, full of energy and confidence, able to play a part again in the balancing-off of Russian power in Europe, in many ways it would not sound so bad.”
Meanwhile, the Turkish collapse, writes Philip Jenkins, led some Muslims to seek a different basis on which to unify, and that in turn has encouraged the most illiberal forms of Islam.
Oh, but everyone is against war, right?
Yes, just about everyone makes the perfunctory nod to the tragedy of war, that war is a last resort only, and that everyone sincerely regrets having to go to war.
But war has been at the heart of much modern ideology. For years, Theodore Roosevelt had exulted at the prospect of war. Peace was for the weak and flabby. The strains of war were a school of discipline and manliness, without which nations degenerate. Fascists, in turn, urged their countries to adopt for domestic use the patterns of military life: regimentation, limitations on dissent, the common pursuit of a single goal, proper reverence for The Leader, the subordination of all other allegiances in favor of loyalty to the State, and the priority of the “public interest” over mere private interests.
If the fascist right has been rightly associated with militarism, that isn’t because the revolutionary left has been any less dedicated to organized violence. Robert Nisbet wrote,
Napoleon was the perfect exemplar of revolution as well as of war, not merely in France but throughout almost all of Europe, and even beyond. Marx and Engels were both keen students of war, profoundly appreciative of its properties with respect to large-scale institutional change. From Trotsky and his Red Army down to Mao and Chou En-lai in China today, the uniform of the soldier has been the uniform of the revolutionist.
For their part, those people we associate with progressivism in the United States, with only a handful of exceptions, overwhelmingly favored intervening in the war. They favored it not only out of the bipartisan sense of American righteousness that goes back as far as one cares to look, but also precisely because they knew war meant bigger and more intrusive government. They knew it would make people accustomed to the idea that they can be called upon to carry out the State’s program, whatever it may be.
Murray N. Rothbard drew up the indictment of the Progressives on this count. He added that the standard view of historians that World War I amounted to the end of Progressivism was exactly backward: World War I, with its economic planning, the impetus it gave to government growth, and its disparagement of private property and the mundane concerns of bourgeois life, represented the culmination of everything the Progressive movement represented.
By contrast, war is the very negation of the libertarian creed. It disrupts the international division of labor. It treats human beings as disposable commodities in the service of State ambition. It undermines commerce, sound money, and private property. It results in an increase of State power. It demands the substitution of the great national effort in place of the private interests of free individuals. It urges us to sympathize not with our fellow men around the world, but with the handful of people who happen to administer the State apparatus that rules over us. We are encouraged to wave the flags and sing the songs of our expropriators, as the poor souls on the other side do the same.
In the hands of commerce and the market, the fruits of capitalist civilization improve living standards and lift people out of destitution. But the political class cannot be trusted with these good things. The very success of the market economy has meant more resources to be siphoned off by the warmakers. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Nation, State, and Economy (1919):
War has become more fearful and destructive than ever before because it is now waged with all the means of the highly developed technique that the free economy has created. Bourgeois civilization has built railroads and electric power plants, has invented explosives and airplanes, in order to create wealth. Imperialism has placed the tools of peace in the service of destruction. With modern means it would be easy to wipe out humanity at one blow. In horrible madness Caligula wished that the entire Roman people had one head so that he could strike it off. The civilization of the twentieth century has made it possible for the raving madness of the modern imperialists to realize similar bloody dreams. By pressing a button one can expose thousands to destruction. It was the fate of civilization that it was unable to keep the external means that it had created out of the hands of those who had remained estranged from its spirit. Modern tyrants have things much easier than their predecessors …
Nothing in the world is easier than opposing a war that ended long ago. It takes no real courage to be against the Vietnam War in 2014. What takes courage is opposing a war while it is being fought — when the propaganda and intimidation of the public are at their height — or even before it breaks out in the first place. With the memory of the moral and material catastrophe of World War I before us 100 years later, let us pledge never again to be fooled and exploited by the State and its violent pastimes.
To my ever lasting shame, I admit to being caught up in the fury of ignorant patriotism while in my youth, but now after flushing my mind with knowledge I am equally infuriated at those who instigated this insanity. My mind simply cannot grasp how evil these bastards really are, or how to quite the hatred I have for them. To me, the total destruction of the entire Banking Cartel is the only sane answer to restore peace and societal harmony. There is no justification for men who worship the State. They are the epitome of stupidity. Not until justice has been satiated will humanity prosper and mature.
July 25th, 2014 by olddog
By Joachim Hagopian
Journalist Mai Bei, (Yahoo News) is reminding America of its recent dark past vis-à-vis that longtime rogue agency the CIA’s global torture operations during that rogue regime of the Bush administration.
The plot thickens with the Senate Intelligence Committee strongly in favor of declassifying its five years in the making, 6,700 page report bringing to light in graphic criminal detail the plethora of Geneva Convention and international law violations committed by overzealous CIA henchmen in their quest to torture information out of thousands of detainees the world over “fighting” America’s so called war on terror. Today’s article attempts to create high drama Washington-style by hyping up anticipation of an executive-legislative showdown between how much of the CIA’s dastardly deeds should be disclosed to the waiting American public.
Pressure is mounting on our current beleaguered president known for his disastrous foreign policy on the heels of the exact same disastrous foreign policy launched by the war criminal neocons before him. As a recent backdrop leading to this latest theatrical release of government-gone-bad is the back and forth sniping charges between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA, both accusing the other of illegal spying.
Committee Chair Diane Feinstein (D-CA) had long been cozy with protecting CIA secrecy and criminality right until she learned that Director John Brennan’s CIA was busily violating her committee’s privacy. She had no problem with the American public’s privacy constantly violated in act after unconstitutional act or for that matter any world citizen’s right to life being destroyed in the name of national security. But her ire was hypocritically provoked when the CIA no doubt got up too close and personal on her naked body politic and she did not like it one bit.
Then lest we forget, we had President Obama campaigning on the promise once Bush was gone to be the most open, honest and transparent presidency in US history. What does he do? He proceeds to become the most secretive president in US history, racking up more cover-up scandals, more charges of espionage, more press harassment and more denials of Freedom of Information Act requests than all previous presidents combined! A Time Magazine article earlier this year noted:
“The administration cited national security concerns a record 8,496 times as an excuse for withholding information from the public, a 57% increase from the year before.”
Barrack Obama has given a whole new meaning to the expression “double-speak,” raising it to rarefied heights even his court jesting predecessor filled with his bumbling rendition of boldface lies and deception could never outdo. The man that raised not just America’s hopes but the entire world has the record of a proven imposter and fraudulent traitor to the American people.
But then his oligarch puppet masters are not just pulling his strings but all three treasonous branches of government as well. The joke of a corrupt and oligarch owned two party system lining its greedy pockets with the three ring circus of shadowy, shady lobbyists, Congress and think tank provocateurs, slithering amorally in and out of public life all to ensure that their puppet masters are fully obeyed and loyalty to them at all cost is maintained. The ideological dogma-quagmire of Republicans versus Democrats’ buffoonery is mere slight of hand, carefully orchestrated design. Meanwhile, the cherry picked judicial branch from the Supreme Court on down ensures every key decision pays homage to their masters as well.
So with everything so stacked against the lowly public citizens whose Constitution they lied under oath to protect, every branch of US government holds Americans in bold, in-our-face contempt. Why is there even a question being raised by a mainstream press insider about disclosure of criminal CIA behavior when even a half awake public already knows the score – secrecy in the name of national security rules the world. Theft in the name of national security rules the world. And death and destruction all around the world in the name of American Empire security.
The pretense of intergovernmental conflict over throwing a bone of reality to a truth-starved public is an affront to Americans’ intelligence. And even more insulting is the implicit reasoning that would have us citizens concluding that just because illicit torture never even worked as far as providing any relevant or useful information that helped the US “win” its war on terror, the biggest lie is asserting that torture because it was so against the law no longer is even happening just because our President says so.
Then this so called issue of invoking Senate Resolution 400 passed in 1976 creating the Senate Intel Committee has only been feebly threatened in the past to finagle grandstanding leverage against former presidents to nudge them a little closer toward honesty with the public. But not once has this little known provision been formally used and implemented to out a president on any real full and honest disclosure. It afforded the Senate the power to declassify information without the president’s approval. Though the stage is being set to send mainstream media into fulltime speculation spin, with such statements from today’s article as:
“If the president didn’t object in writing within five days, the full Senate would then weigh the report in closed session and vote on whether to unilaterally declassify it.”
But of course full declassification is precisely what is always avoided at all cost. Beyond the veneer of superficial appearance, the executive and legislative branches have always covertly worked their shady backroom deals out privately amongst themselves, far removed from the public eye of awareness, much less accountability, and that’s of course how it will stay.
Again Bai’s article makes reference that Obama will most likely reveal his heavily censored version of a generalized, ultra-brief summary that the CIA during the neocon regime engaged in some distasteful behaviors, slipping it by Americans busily “tanning themselves at the beach this summer.” What is most certain is Obama’s loyal deference to more secrecy in the name of national security ad nauseum.
And as such, those 6700 pages of colorful twisted accounts of such criminal barbarism as water boarding victims to death by drowning, ripping out their fingernails, electrocuting their gonads, those kind of unsavory details will in good taste be conveniently omitted. One more sure thing predicted to come out of all this when our psychopathic president does finally go through the motions of public disclosure. He will promise (which in double-speak means lie) that no US agency now resorts to such inhumane internationally outlawed practices of torture under his clean-cut watch.
Please Mr. President, spare us, for we know better. You are enshrouded in deceit up to your ears, and so is your entire government enshrouded in deceit as the American public is on to you like never before.
So as the apartheid US Empire allows its apartheid Israeli ally to genocide Palestinians in Gaza while trumping up another false flag with Putin and his east Ukrainian cronies downing that Malaysian flight, we are all reminded of the false flag evoked nearly a year ago when you Mr. President and your three blind henchman Kerry, Hagel and Dempsey fell on your faces trying to convince the world that Syria’s Assad launched that gas attack in the Damascus suburb.
We saw through your lies then and will see through them again. You have no credibility left with the American public, much less the world. Your ploy to obediently ignite World War III per oligarch order to get to Iran through Syria on your way past Russia and China is the only thing transparent about your presidency.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing.
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 22nd, 2014 by olddog
General Civil Orders
June 10, 2014
Issued to All Members of the Domestic Police Forces, US Marshals Service, the Provost Marshal, Members of the American Bar Association and the American Armed Services
At the federal level the American government has always been a separate foreign international maritime jurisdiction operated under contract to provide two services: (1) protect the national trust assets, and (2) perform governmental services for the Several States— which in terms of international law are all recognized sovereign nations.
The equity contract known as “The Constitution for the united States of America” makes it clear that the Several States contracted to form a single governmental services agency known as “The United States”. The contract stipulates the assets to be held in trust by the federal government in the Preamble and Bill of Rights comprising the trust indenture portion of the contract and also stipulates the nineteen enumerated services to be performed—and exactly what “powers” the States agreed to delegate to The United States and how they would pay for these services.
What isn’t so widely known or appreciated is that the governmental services company known as The United States was a privately owned and operated commercial company set up by Benjamin Franklin in 1754. George Washington was actually the 11th “President” of this company, and only the 1st President to take office after the receipt of the “Constitution” contract.
According to the 1824 Webster’s Dictionary, the word “federal” was a synonym for “contract” at the time the original Constitution was written. All “constitutions” are affirmations of debt —in this case, the debt the States assumed when they created the federal government and jointly agreed to pay for the services that it would provide. The office of “President” is and always has been a uniquely commercial office, not a “Head of State”.
Because the federal governmental services company is privately owned and operated, only shareholders known as “electors” have a real say in its elections and administration, only “trustees” known as “members of Congress” have the right to determine how the national trust assets are protected though they are obligated as trustees to do a reasonable job of it, and only the States have the right to complain if the stipulated services aren’t up to par.
The American people at large, known simply as “inhabitants of the domestic states” or “State Citizens” have always been a separate and distinct population apart from “US Citizens” or “Federal Citizens”— and to these two groups a third kind of “citizen” was added in 1871, that of “US citizen”.
Following the Civil War, the governmental services company providing the services agreed to by the States reorganized as a corporation dba the “United States of America, Incorporated” and published its Articles as the “Constitution of the United States of America”. Unlike “The Constitution for the united States of America”, the “Constitution of the United States of America” is a document peculiar to the new “Municipal” – that is, “City State” government formed to administer the affairs of the District of Columbia and federal territories and possessions.
This corporate “constitution” provided for the creation of a new kind of “Federal Citizen”—-a “US citizen”—and from that point onward, from the perspective of the new federal municipal government formed by the Act of 1871— American State Citizens (the inhabitants of the domestic fifty states) were regarded as “non-resident aliens”. This same corporation dba the “United States of America, Incorporated” (chartered in Delaware) began operating two separate “governments” at once— the “municipal government of the District of Columbia” and the “federal government” owed to the States of the Union—-both under the auspices of the “United States Congress”.
These semantic deceits have given rise to endless confusions, usurpations, and criminality. These General Civil Orders address some of those issues which are most important at this time.
The Congress ceased operating as it was required by contract to operate in 1860. After December of 1865, it never again operated as an unincorporated Body Politic representing the States of the Union. The “federal government” has functioned exclusively as an incorporated commercial entity, with an elected Board of Directors merely calling itself the “US Congress” ever since. As such, the “federal government” is a commercial corporation like any other commercial corporation. It has no special status, no immunity from prosecution, and hasn’t functioned as a governing body of a sovereign nation for 150 years.
To overcome this obvious difficulty the “US Congress” formed another “union” of “American” “states” from the “federal territories and possessions”. The Seven Insular States including the “State of New Columbia” (District of Columbia), Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, et alia, and formed a new nation simply calling themselves “the United States of America” and claimed separate national sovereignty.
Thus we have The United States of America (Major) comprised of the now-fifty organic States created by Statehood Compacts and the United States of America (Minor) representing the seven Insular States, both being administered under the direction of the corporate Board of Directors known as the “US Congress”— which has continued to act solely as the sovereign government of “the United States of America” (Minor).
These blatant semantic deceits by officers of the federal corporation and officials of “the United States of America (Minor)” amount to purposeful constructive fraud against their employers, the American organic states. To try to overcome this obstacle, members of the “US Congress” contrived a “complex regulatory scheme” by which they established their own “State” governments and have tried to claim that they have been at “war” with the American people while relying upon the organic states for their own sustenance and have falsely claimed that they established “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” over the original states of the Union by these acts of self-interested fraud carried out against their employers and benefactors.
Fraud has no statute of limitations.
The governmental services corporations have always been under commercial contract to provide services to the American people and have acted against their employers as employees.
It is essential that members of the Bar Associations, members of the “State” governments which have been surreptitiously “redefined” to their detriment, members of the domestic police forces, and members of the various armed forces gain a clear understanding of the fact that for purposes of administration of government services on American State soil, the “federal government” is a corporation with no more civil authority on the land than JC PENNY or HARLEY DAVIDSON.
The “federal government” is under contract to the organic States and as our Forefathers vested the ENTIRE civil government on the land in the people inhabiting the land, each American is a sovereign “organic state” of the union. Each one of us has more civil power and authority on the land than the entire “federal government” has ever had or ever can have.
For that reason and as a result of the deliberations which have already taken place among the other nations of the world, the “federal government” dba the UNITED STATES, INC. , a French commercial corporation, is hereby called to task for non-performance on its contractual obligations. The semantic deceits involved in claiming that American State Citizens are “US citizens” and all the other fraudulent claims advanced against the American states and people are to be fully recognized for what they are—fraudulent claims having no merit and owed no enforcement.
Other corporate entities, notably the FEDERAL RESERVE and INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, which are responsible for creating and promoting this fraud are to be recognized and dealt with appropriately as international dealers in fraud and usury.
American Negroes have in the past been considered “US citizens” because that is the only “citizenship” they were ever granted after the Civil War, a grave error of justice that resulted in them only having “civil rights” which are privileges granted by the “US Congress” instead of the “Natural and Unalienable Rights” they are naturally heir to. They were also claimed as chattel backing the debts of the United States of America, Incorporated, despite both national and international prohibitions abolishing slavery and peonage. A prompt correction is available from the organic states and by proclamation of these organic states, they are granted full and immediately recognizable status as “American Nationals” owed all the “Natural and Unalienable Rights” of any other organic State Citizen, no matter which geographically defined state they may inhabit on the land. The only exceptions are those unfortunates born within the borders of the Insular States—District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.—who must self-declare under Article 15 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It has been the policy of the United States of America (Minor) to consider all federal employees and members of the active duty military who are birthright inhabitants of The United States of America (Major) temporary “dual citizens” subject to the United States of America (Minor). However, The United States of America (Major) recognizes no dual citizenship whatsoever, and the process required for any birthright inhabitant of the land to adopt “US Citizenship” is both lengthy and purposeful, as stated in US Statute at Large 2, Revised Statute 2561. As the employers of the United States of America (Minor) we exercise our proprietary interest and direct all American State Citizens to defend the interests and integrity of the American organic states regardless of any contrary “orders” issued by any corporate officer of the UNITED STATES or foreign official acting under the auspices of the United States of America (Minor).
All birthright State Citizens of The United States of America (Major) are specifically enjoined from engaging in any activity contrary to the health, welfare, safety, and benefit of their fellow State Citizens and will otherwise be recognized as criminals regardless of what uniforms they wear or what authorities they pretend to have. If corporate “President” Obama should order any member of the “US military” or any armed “agency personnel” —BATF, IRS, NSA, FEMA, etc.—-to open fire upon American State Citizens, it will be a war crime against non-combatant civilians and it will be immediately recognized as such throughout the world.
For all military and civilian-based defense and law enforcement agencies the rule to be observed is: if you can’t do it as a private individual, you can’t do it as a public officer.
Any State Citizen who is forced to open fire on federally or federal “State” or “STATE” funded personnel in defense of life or property will be recognized as a non-combatant civilian without exception, held harmless, and supported by all members of the American Armed Forces of the United States of America (Major) and all American State Militias. Any State Citizen so imposed upon by those in his or her employment or hired by those in his or her employment in any capacity whatsoever including “elected” officials, will be entitled to full reparations in the amount of $5,000,000.00 USD or the equivalent at the time of the damage incurred for every death, $2,500,000.00 USD or the equivalent at the time of the damage for every permanent disability. They shall also be owed full reparations for all property damage incurred and up to eighty (80) times compensatory damages at the discretion of a jury of their peers.
The individual States of the Union formed by Statehood Compact retain the full and unencumbered claim upon their birthright inhabitants. These “states” are defined geographically. They are not incorporated entities, and they are not “represented” by any incorporated “State of________” or “STATE OF_________” organization at this time. They are presented solely by the unincorporated Body Politic and their individual inhabitants, who retain all organic and civil prerogatives on the land.
Those organizations currently calling themselves the “State of Alaska” or the “STATE OF ALASKA”, etc., are representatives of two different governmental services corporations operated by the FEDERAL RESERVE (“State of Alaska”) and the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (“STATE OF ALASKA”), doing business as franchises of the United States of America, Inc. and the UNITED STATES, INC. respectively. They have no representational capacity whatsoever and are operating under commercial contract only.
Because these “State” and “Federal” entities have all functioned under conditions of non-disclosure and semantic deceit serving to promulgate fraud upon the organic states and the American people, they are all to be considered criminal syndicates to the extent that they have been aware of their status and have failed to correct their operations and representations. All contracts held by these organizations or assumed to be held by these organizations are null and void for fraud. These contracts include but are not limited to contracts for sale, for labor, for trade, “citizenship” contracts, powers of attorney, licenses, mortgages, registrations, and application agreements of all kinds. All signatures of American State Citizens acting under the influence of semantic deceit and non-disclosure are rescinded.
All those individuals engaged in employment as “federal” and “state” and “municipal” employees and “elected officials” are hereby given Notice that they are employees of private, for-profit corporations that are merely under contract to provide stipulated public services, having no special status, having no immunity, and having no authority as sovereign nations or states. Any actions that they take infringing on the rights and prerogatives of American State Citizens are criminal acts without exception and are to be treated as criminal acts. These individuals have exactly the same standing as employees of any other commercial company, and the rules, regulations, codes, and other “statutes” they enforce are obligations unique to those organizations only.
Posse Comitatus is to be observed and enforced on the land of the domestic organic states regardless of any Executive Order issued by Barack H. Obama acting as “President” of the United States of America (Minor) or as the President of any incorporated entity whatsoever. Any such imposition of “martial law” by Mr. Obama has exactly the same legal standing as “martial law” imposed by the President of BURGER KING, INTERNATIONAL or the King of Sweden on the land of the organic states. He can order his paid employees to commit hari kari if he wishes to do so, and they may follow his instructions if they care to, but they may not under any circumstance murder anyone, assault anyone, seize any private property, or cause any trouble for American State Citizens, or they shall be immediately recognized as criminals and treated as such.
Likewise, the government of the United States of America (Minor) may do what it wills with those who are legitimately born under its hegemony, but it cannot say one word claiming authority over any birthright State Citizen of The United States of America (Major).
Please note that Barack H. Obama is “Commander in Chief” of the “US Armed Forces” which legitimately includes the Puerto Rican Navy and whatever security forces are endemic to Guam, American Samoa and the other Insular States.
The Grand Army of the Republic and its successors are obligated to perform under General Order 100.
The American Armed Forces also known as the Armed Forces of The United States of America (Major) are paid for by and obligated to serve the organic states, which we present and for which we require your service. In the absence of a properly formed and operational government of the Republic, all rights revert to the organic states, including the civil authority to issue these General Orders. “President” Barack H. Obama is operating as an official of the United States of America (Minor) and as a corporate officer in the employ of the UNITED STATES, a French commercial corporation chartered by the International Monetary Fund, an agency of the UNITED NATIONS. He is not now nor has he ever been elected to any public office of The United States of America (Major).
Likewise the members of the “US Congress” have never taken the Oath of any Public Office of The United States of America (Major) and are merely operating as private corporate officers of the same commercial corporation dba the “UNITED STATES”.
All offices deriving and paid and/or receiving credit entirely or in part as a result of the original equity contract known as The Constitution for the united States of America are offices of the Armed Forces of The United States of America (Major) by definition and those who serve in these offices are employees of the inhabitants of the domestic now-fifty States defined by Statehood Compacts. As such, you are now receiving direct orders under the civil authority of these organic states.
All the foregoing circumstance is indeed the “mischief” predicted by Chief Justice Harlan in his dissenting opinion given in Downes v. Bidwell — mischief resulting from allowing Congress to operate two governments at once, one a constitutional Republic, and the other an oligarchy under the plenary control of Congress. The members of the “US Congress” have been corrupted by power lust or through ignorance subverted and used to serve the aims of criminals. That does not give anyone else a license to sin. It merely requires the recognition of the sins of the members of the Congress and appropriate enlightened action depriving them of any power or excuse to continue these deceits and usurpations.
There are 515 people responsible. It is incumbent upon them to straighten it out, and for the rest of us to insist that they do so. It is also the responsibility of all members of the domestic police
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 12th, 2014 by olddog
Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession. “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley, who had asked Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote: “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family…” Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase. If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”
Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York stated in their constitutional ratification documents, each state had a right to withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests. So when New Englanders began plotting secession barely twenty years after the end of the American Revolution, their leader, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering (who was also George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state) stated that “the principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation. That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt” (In Henry Adams, editor, Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815, p. 338). The New England plot to secede from the union culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they ultimately decided to remain in the union and to try to dominate it politically instead. (They of course succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, beginning in April of 1865 up to the present day.)
John Quincy Adams, the quintessential New England Yankee, echoed these Jeffersonian sentiments in an 1839 speech in which he said that if different states or groups of states came into irrepressible conflict, then that “will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation…” (John Quincy Adams,>The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1939, pp. 66-69).
There is a long history of American newspapers endorsing the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition. The following are just a few examples.
The Bangor, Maine Daily Union once editorialized that the union of Maine with the other states “rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each. When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing [state] can ever restore it.” Moreover, a state can never be a true equal member of the American union if forced into it by military aggression, the Maine editors wrote.
“A war … is a thousand times worse evil than the loss of a State, or a dozen States” the Indianapolis Daily Journal once wrote. “The very freedom claimed by every individual citizen, precludes the idea of compulsory association, as individuals, as communities, or as States,” wrote the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat. “The very germ of liberty is the right of forming our own governments, enacting our own laws, and choosing or own political associates … The right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”
Using violence to force any state to remain in the union, once said the New York Journal of Commerce, would “change our government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism” where one part of the people are “slaves.” The Washington (D.C.) Constitution concurred, calling a coerced union held together at gunpoint (like the Soviet Union, for instance) “the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly.”
“The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the New York Daily Tribune once wrote, “is sound and just,” so that if any state wanted to secede peacefully from the union, it has “a clear moral right to do so.”
A union maintained by military force, Soviet style, would be “mad and Quixotic” as well as “tyrannical and unjust” and “worse than a mockery,” editorialized the Trenton (N.J.) True American. Echoing Jefferson’s letter to John C. Breckinridge, the Cincinnati Daily Commercial once editorialized that “there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; and the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear” if one or more states were to peacefully secede.
All of these Northern state editorials were published in the first three months of 1861 and are published in Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, Mass.: 1964). They illustrate how the truths penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence — that the states were considered to be free, independent, and sovereign in the same sense that England and France were; that the union was voluntary; that using invasion, bloodshed, and mass murder to force a state into the union would be an abomination and a universal moral outrage; and that a free society is required to revere freedom of association — were still alive and well until April of 1865 when the Lincoln regime invented and adopted the novel new theory that: 1) the states were never sovereign; 2) the union was not voluntary; and 3) the federal government had the “right” to prove that propositions 1 and 2 are right by means murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens by waging total war on the entire civilian population of the Southern states, bombing and burning its cities and towns into a smoldering ruin, and calling it all “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
[LewRockwell.com, July 4, 2014]
For those who have read this essay, does your heart not expand with the lust for freedom? Does the adrenalin of freedom not make you light headed? Can any one deny that this is what we need to enforce on the corporate scumbags that rule our country? Yes I agree there would be many problems to solve if America was not a slave state to the Banksters, but how little confidence would one have to not pursue it? Who care’s if the Vatican has title from the Dead King of England. We did not have a problem when we thought we were taking it by force. SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH DOING IT RIGHT THIS TIME? For those who have not been educated yet, here is the real history of America.
The King of England had seeded America, along with All the Kings holdings and power to the Pope to recover his soul for the sin of Divorce. The Banksters were hired by the Pope to control the Governments, and now we are sucking hind tit as slaves to the corporations that have managed to control the Government. America is run as a profit producing business as witnessed by all the laws they use to fine us. It’s all one huge extortion racket that has expanded globally. Pretty soon we will have to get a permit to take a crap. Hint, Never go through an air-port without some change in your pocket, just in case Nature Calls.
July 2nd, 2014 by olddog
By John W. Whitehead
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”—Patrick Henry
Imagine living in a country where armed soldiers crash through doors to arrest and imprison citizens merely for criticizing government officials. Imagine that in this very same country, you’re watched all the time, and if you look even a little bit suspicious, the police stop and frisk you or pull you over to search you on the off chance you’re doing something illegal. Keep in mind that if you have a firearm of any kind while in this country, it may get you arrested and, in some circumstances, shot by police.
If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong. However, the scenario described above took place more than 200 years ago, when American colonists suffered under Great Britain’s version of an early police state. It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters.
No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence. A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.
Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated. Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations. The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that 238 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance. Indeed, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.
Indeed, as I document in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, a cursory review of the true state of our freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights shows exactly how dismal things have become:
The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans cannot be silenced by the government. Yet despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Whether it’s a Marine detained for criticizing the government on Facebook, a reporter persecuted for refusing to reveal his sources, or a protester arrested for standing silently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, these are dangerous times for those who choose to exercise their rights.
The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Yet while gun ownership has been recognized as an individual citizen right, Americans continue to face an uphill battle in the courts when it comes to defending themselves against militarized, weaponized government agents armed to the hilt. In fact, court rulings in recent years have affirmed that citizens don’t have the right to resist police officers who enter their homes illegally, mistakenly or otherwise.
The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” Unfortunately, the wall of separation between civilian and military policing has been torn down in recent years, as militarized SWAT teams are now allowed to burst into homes unannounced in order to investigate minor crimes such as marijuana possession and credit card fraud. With domestic police increasingly posing as military forces—complete with weapons, uniforms, assault vehicles, etc.—a good case could be made for the fact that SWAT team raids constitute the forced quartering of soldiers within the private home, which the Third Amendment was written to prevent.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from touching you or placing you under surveillance or entering your property without probable cause and even then, only with a court-sanctioned warrant. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has been all but eviscerated in recent years by court rulings and government programs that sanction all manner of intrusions, including giving police carte blanche authority to break into homes or apartments without a warrant, conduct roadside strip searches, and generally manhandle any person in manner they see fit. Moreover, in the so-called name of national security, intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency now have the ability to conduct mass unwarranted electronic intrusions into the personal and private transactions of all Americans, including phone, mail, computer and medical records. All of this data is available to other government agencies, including local police.
The Fifth Amendment is supposed to ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without following strict legal guidelines. Unfortunately, those protections have been largely extinguished in recent years, especially in the wake of Congress’ passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain Americans indefinitely without due process.
The Sixth Amendment was intended to not only ensure a “speedy and public trial,” but it was supposed to prevent the government from keeping someone in jail for unspecified offenses. That too has been a casualty of the so-called war on terror. Between the NDAA’s indefinite detention clause and the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) legislation, which has been used as justification for using drones to kill American citizens in the absence of a court trial, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees become meaningless.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. However, when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears.
The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether. America’s continued reliance on the death penalty, which has been shown to be flawed in its application and execution, is a perfect example of this.
The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so. Thus, once the government began violating the non-enumerated rights granted in the Ninth Amendment, it was only a matter of time before it began to trample the enumerated rights of the people, as explicitly spelled out in the rest of the Bill of Rights.
As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.
Thus, even on those rare occasions when the courts provide us with a slight glimmer of hope that all may not be lost, those brief reprieves of judicial sensibility are quickly overwhelmed by a bureaucratic machine that continues to march relentlessly in lockstep with the police state.
This brings me back to those 56 men who risked everything—their fortunes and their lives—to speak truth to power in that sweltering Philadelphia heat 238 summers ago. Of those 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burned by the Red Coats, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost their sons during the war. Remarkably, these men—who were community leaders, business owners, judges, lawyers and inventors—sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so that you and I could live freely in a nation where we have the right to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government. In the face of torture and even death, they did not waver.
The choice before us is clear. In the words of Patrick Henry, will we choose dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery?
This commentary is also
available at www.rutherford.org.
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 23rd, 2014 by olddog
US changes nuclear strategy to first strike
The US has begun the run up to the Third World War, and Europeans seem to be on board, writes Paul Craig Roberts.
By Paul Craig Roberts
I wish I had only good news to bring to readers, or even one item of good news. Alas, goodness has ceased to be a feature of US policy and simply cannot be found in any words or deeds emanating from Washington or the capitals of its European vassal states. The Western World has succumbed to evil.
In an article published by Op-Ed News, Eric Zuesse supports my reports of indications that Washington is preparing for a nuclear first strike against Russia.
US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack. Washington pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and is developing and deploying an ABM shield. Washington is demonizing Russia and Russia’s President with shameless lies and propaganda, thus preparing the populations of the US and its client states for war with Russia.
Washington has been convinced by neoconservatives that Russian strategic nuclear forces are in run down and unprepared condition and are sitting ducks for attack. This false belief is based on out-of-date information, a decade old, such as the argument presented in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press in the April 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization of American elites.
Regardless of the condition of Russian nuclear forces, the success of Washington’s first strike and degree of protection provided by Washington’s ABM shield against retaliation, the article I posted by Steven Starr, “The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons,” makes clear that nuclear war has no winners. Everyone dies.
In an article published in the December 2008 issue of Physics Today, three atmospheric scientists point out that even the substantial reduction in nuclear arsenals that the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty hoped to achieve, from 70,000 warheads in 1986 to 1700-2200 warheads by the end of 2012, did not reduce the threat that nuclear war presents to life on earth. The authors conclude that in addition to the direct blast effects of hundreds of millions of human fatalities, “the indirect effects would likely eliminate the majority of the human population.” The stratospheric smoke from firestorms would cause nuclear winter and agricultural collapse. Those who did not perish from blast and radiation would starve to death.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev understood this. Unfortunately, no successor US government has. As far as Washington is concerned, death is what happens to others, not to “the exceptional people.” (The SORT agreement apparently failed. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the nine nuclear-armed states still possess a total of 16,300 nuclear weapons.)
It is a fact that Washington has policymakers who think, incorrectly, that nuclear war is winnable and who regard nuclear war as a means of preventing the rise of Russia and China as checks on Washington’s hegemony over the world. The US government, regardless of party in office, is a massive threat to life on earth. European governments, which think of themselves as civilized, are not, because they enable Washington’s pursuit of hegemony. It is this pursuit that threatens life with extinction. The ideology that grants “exceptional, indispensable America” supremacy is an enormous threat to the world.
The destruction of seven countries in whole or in part by the West in the 21st century, with the support of “Western civilization” and the Western media, comprises powerful evidence that the leadership of the Western world is devoid of moral conscience and human compassion. Now that Washington is armed with its false doctrine of “nuclear primacy,” the outlook for humanity is very bleak.
Washington has begun the run up to the Third World War, and Europeans seem to be on board. As recently as November 2012 NATO Secretary General Rasmussen said that NATO does not regard Russia as an enemy. Now that the White House Fool and his European vassals have convinced Russia that the West is an enemy, Rasmussen declared that “we must adapt to the fact that Russia now considers us its adversary” by beefing up Ukraine’s military along with those of Eastern and Central Europe.
Last month, Alexander Vershbow, former US ambassador to Russia, currently NATO Deputy Secretary General, declared Russia to be the enemy and said that the American and European taxpayers need to fork over for the military modernization “not just of Ukraine, but also Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan.”
It is possible to see these calls for more military spending as just the normal functioning of agents for the US military/security complex. Having lost “the war on terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington needs a replacement and has set about resurrecting the Cold War.
This is probably how the armaments industry, its shills, and part of Washington sees it. But the neoconservatives are more ambitious. They are not pursuing merely more profits for the military/security complex. Their goal is Washington’s hegemony over the world, which means reckless actions such as the strategic threat that the Obama regime, with the complicity of its European vassals, has brought to Russia in Ukraine.
Since last autumn, the US government has been lying through its teeth about Ukraine, blaming Russia for the consequences of Washington’s actions, and demonizing Putin. The presstitute media and the European capitals have seconded the lies and propaganda and repeat them endlessly. Consequently, the US public’s attitude toward Russia moved sharply negative.
How do you think Russia and China see this? Russia has witnessed NATO brought to its borders, a violation of the Reagan-Gorbachev understandings. Russia has witnessed the US pull out of the ABM treaty and develop a “star wars” shield. (Whether or not the shield would work is immaterial. The purpose of the shield is to convince the politicians and the public that Americans are safe.) Russia has witnessed Washington change the role of nuclear weapons in its war doctrine from deterrent to preemptive first strike. And now Russia listens to a daily stream of lies from the West and witnesses the slaughter by Washington’s vassal in Kiev of civilians in Russian Ukraine, branded “terrorists” by Washington, by such weapons as white phosphorus with not a peep of protest from the West.
While massive attacks by artillery and air strikes on homes and apartments in Russian Ukraine were conducted, Washington continued with its deception as it did on Tonkin Gulf, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, etc. It is an amazing fact that the world lives in a false reality created by Washington’s lies.
The movie, The Matrix, is a true depiction of life in the West. The population lives in a false reality created for them by their rulers. A handful of humans have escaped the false existence and are committed to bringing humans back to reality. They rescue Neo, “The One,” who they believe correctly to have the power to free humans from the false reality in which they live. Morpheus, the leader of the rebels, explains to Neo:
“The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”
I experience this every time I write a column. Protests from those determined not to be unplugged arrive in emails and on those websites that expose their writers to slander by government trolls in comment sections. Don’t believe real reality, they insist, believe the false reality.
The Matrix even encompasses part of the Russian and Chinese population, especially those educated in the West and those susceptible to Western propaganda, but on the whole those populations know the difference between lies and truth. The problem for Washington is that the propaganda that prevails over the Western peoples does not prevail over the Russian and Chinese governments.
How do you think China reacts when Washington declares the South China Sea to be an area of US national interests, allocates 60 percent of its vast fleet to the Pacific, and constructs new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam?
Suppose all Washington intends is to keep taxpayer funding alive for the military/security complex which launders some of the taxpayers’ money and returns it as political campaign contributions. Can Russia and China take the risk of viewing Washington’s words and deeds in this limited way?
So far the Russians (and the Chinese) have remained sensible. Lavrov, the Foreign Minister said: “At this stage, we want to give our partners a chance to calm down. We’ll see what happens next. If absolutely baseless accusations against Russia continue, it there are attempts to pressure us with economic leverage, then we may reevaluate the situation.”
If the White House Fool, Washington’s media whores and European vassals convince Russia that war is in the cards, war will be in the cards. As there is no prospect whatsoever of NATO being able to mount a conventional offensive threat against Russia anywhere near the size and power of the German invasion force in 1941 that met with destruction, the war will be nuclear, which will mean the end of all of us.
Keep that firmly in mind as Washington and its media whores continue to beat the drums for war. Keep in mind also that a long history proves beyond all doubt that everything Washington and the presstitute media tells you is a lie serving an undeclared agenda. You cannot rectify the situation by voting Democrat instead of Republican or by voting Republican instead of Democrat.
Thomas Jefferson told us his solution: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
There are few patriots in Washington but many tyrants.
June 22nd, 2014 by olddog
By boycotting the British system, the Founding Fathers were already
free and independent men by the time they signed the Declaration of
Independence. The coming war would be to defend that freedom.
The Lost Key to Real Revolution
commentary by Tony Cartalucci
Yes things are bad, but what can we do? Intolerable acts drove colonial men subjected to the sting of tyranny into action over two centuries years ago. Before the great battles of the American Revolution took place and the victory that followed, the Founding Fathers took it upon themselves to declare their independence not only by writ, but also by action. Our Founding Fathers ceased the import of British goods, they created their own monetary system, they assembled their own militias, and most importantly they formed their own government based upon their own values, not King George’s self-interest.
This truly measurable independence turned out to be the key to their success, for independence is freedom, and freedom from tyranny is victory. The battle they fought was not one to free themselves, instead, it was fought to defend the freedom from the British system they had already achieved.
This is perhaps the most overlooked lesson we fail to understand today. We are faced with a tyranny that also spans the globe. It is a tyranny long ago left unchecked and long ago left to fester. It is now a tyranny that runs amok at such pace it may perhaps even destroy itself bringing everyone over the precipice of disaster with it. However, the system born of this tyranny is one we still undoubtedly depend on in our everyday lives.
Can any of us deny that intolerable acts have been committed against us, not least what has been committed in our names? If not, then now is the time to make ourselves independent, now is the time to begin freeing ourselves from this system. The Founding Fathers did not drink British tea as they camped in the mud, froze in the snow, or marched into battle. But more importantly, before the battles as they signed their names upon their historic declaration, they had already long boycotted it. In this way we too must commit ourselves to boycotting and replacing this system we see as unjust. We cannot possibly be “free” of something we are still entirely dependent on.
Should we succeed in this endeavor, then we may declare ourselves independent and enjoy and protect the freedom such independence implies. Perhaps two centuries from now, our ancestors will say, “Our forefathers didn’t shop the globocrats‘ Walmart.” To be sure, it will not be easy. The Founding Fathers’ journey toward independence was as much a battle in many ways as the war they fought to defend it.
The Founding Fathers boycotted the British Empire that so stung them with tyranny. We must identify those that deliver the sting of tyranny to us now. We must look past the politicians, “follow the money” and “make the connections” between the injustice we see and those who are organizing and benefiting from it.
It will not be easy and it will not happen overnight. It is up to us, each and every day starting today, to decide how and where we spend our money, what we do with our free time, to whom we pay our attention to and who we choose to follow. Little by little we can regain our independence while simultaneously eroding the power and influence that has made this tyranny so grievous.
What can we do? This is what we can do, and we can do it starting now. Boycott the globalists.
June 19th, 2014 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
As Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Richest Representative of the One Percent in the House of Representatives, said: “Impeachment is off the table.” Nevertheless, Insouciant Californians still send The bought-and paid-for hireling to Washington
In my day if an experienced professor of international and constitutional law, such as University of Illinois Professor Francis A. Boyle, called for impeachment of a president, it was a serious situation for the president. But no more. Today an American president can ride roughshod over constitutional lawyers, the US Constitution and US statutory law without any danger of impeachment. To avoid impeachment today, all a president has to do is to avoid having a sexual affair with a White House intern in the Oval Office, or is that the Oral Orifice.
America’s last two presidents, Obama and George W. Bush, have established the precedent that impeachment is a “dead letter law.” Impeachment is unlikely ever again to be a threat to a tyrannical president. Congress and the Federal Judiciary have accepted their impotence. Both “coequal” branches of government are happy in their subservience to the Executive Power. Members of Congress and the Judiciary are still permitted to pretend that they are important, like Roman Senators under the Caesars, but both are incapable of challenging the Executive Branch where a Caesar now rules independently of law and the Constitution.
I have received a communication from University of Illinois Law School Professor Francis A. Boyle, an internationally famous representative of human rights, with J.D. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University, a man revered in many countries of the world, although not in Washington:
“On Tuesday 11 March 2003, with the Bush Jr. administration’s war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee (which has jurisdiction over Bills of Impeachment), convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and debate immediately putting into the U.S. House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war. Congressman Conyers kindly requested that Ramsey Clark and I come to the meeting in order to argue the case for impeachment.
“This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate between Clark and I, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment for partisan political reasons. Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House on the eve of war.
“Suffice it to say that most of the ‘experts’ there opposed impeachment not on the basis of enforcing the Constitution and the Rule of Law, whether international or domestic, but on the political grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party’s effort to get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. federal laws, U.S. treaties and other international agreements to which the United States is a party, etc. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to international executive agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.
“Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was historical: The Athenians lost their democracy. The Romans lost their Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of history!
“After two hours of most vigorous debate among those in attendance, the meeting adjourned with second revised draft Bills of Impeachment sitting on the table.”
Professor Boyle said to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark on the way out of the building after the two hour debate:
“Ramsey, I don’t understand it. Why didn’t those people take me up on my offer to stick around, polish up my draft bills of impeachment, and put them in there right away in order to head off this war?
“And Ramsey replied: ‘I think most of the people there want a war.’”
And, Indeed, they did. John Podesta representing the Democratic National Committed told Conyers that the Democratic Party did not want Conyers to pursue the impeachment effort. Instead, the Democratic Party wanted to give Republicans Bush and Cheney their war on Iraq so that the Democrats would fare better in the national elections in 2004. Think about that, not just the stupidity of the Democratic Party–whenever has a party at war been in danger of electoral defeat? Look and see! Here is the spokesman for the Democratic Party telling Conyers: “Don’t prevent a war, because we will benefit politically from it. Let the Iraqi people die. Let our soldiers die. We Democrats will benefit from it.”
You can listen to Professor Boyle tell the story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfvMlyCnjDs If you are impatient, listen to the 7 minute marker to the 9:35 marker.
Once upon a time Democrats were less vicious than Republicans, but no more. I can remember when Democrats were the Humane Party. This was before the corporations and their “free market” shills sent the industrial and manufacturing jobs to Asia, destroying the industrial and manufacturing basis of the Democratic Party in the working people. Today the Democrats have to appeal to Wall Street, to the Military/Security Complex, and to the Evironmental Despoilers in the Agribusiness, Timber, Mining, and Energy industries.
Obama completed George W. Bush’s destruction of the US Constitution. Neither party represents you or America, unless you are the one percent. If you vote for a Republican or a Democrat you are voting for your dispossession and for war. You are voting in favor of a DHS sponsored SWAT team breaking into your home at night and murdering you or your wife or your children and most certainly the family pet dog.
Both political parties are irredeemably evil. Neither has any redeeming virtues.
If Americans cannot find leadership that can survive assassination, either by media slander or by SWAT Team bullet, America is lost.
How would you place your bet? Is America lost or is America the salt of the earth, the exceptional, indispensable people chosen by History to enjoy hegemony over Earth?
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 6th, 2014 by olddog
By Brandon Smith
On the surface, the economic atmosphere of the U.S. has appeared rather calm and uneventful. Stocks are up, employment isn’t great but jobs aren’t collapsing into the void (at least not openly), and the U.S. dollar seems to be going strong. Peel away the thin veneer, however, and a different financial horror show is revealed.
U.S. stocks have enjoyed unprecedented crash protection due to a steady infusion of fiat money from the Federal Reserve known as quantitative easing. With the advent of the “taper”, QE is now swiftly coming to a close (as is evident in the overall reduction in treasury market purchases), and is slated to end by this fall, if not sooner.
Employment has been boosted only in statistical presentation, and not in reality. The Labor Department’s creative accounting of job numbers omits numerous factors, the most important being the issue of long term unemployed. Millions of people who have been jobless for so long they no longer qualify for benefits are being removed from the rolls. This quiet catastrophe has the side bonus of making it appear as though unemployment is going down.
U.S. Treasury bonds, and by extension the dollar, have also stayed afloat due to the river of stimulus being introduced by the Federal Reserve. That same river, through QE, is now drying up.
In my article The Final Swindle Of Private American Wealth Has Begun, I outline the data which leads me to believe that the Fed taper is a deliberate action in preparation for an impending market collapse. The effectiveness of QE stimulus has a shelf-life, and that shelf life has come to an end. With debt monetization no longer a useful tool in propping up the ailing U.S. economy, central bankers are publicly stepping back. Why? If a collapse occurs while stimulus is in full swing, the Fed immediately takes full blame for the calamity, while being forced to admit that central banking as a concept serves absolutely no meaningful purpose.
My research over many years has led me to conclude that a collapse of the American system is not only expected by international financiers, but is in fact being engineered by them. The Fed is an entity created by globalists for globalists. These people have no loyalties to any one country or culture. Their only loyalties are to themselves and their private organizations.
While many people assume that the stimulus measures of the Fed are driven by a desire to save our economy and currency, I see instead a concerted program of destabilization which is meant to bring about the eventual demise of our nation’s fiscal infrastructure. What some might call “kicking the can down the road,” I call deliberately stretching the country thin over time, so that any indirect crisis can be used as a trigger event to bring the ceiling crashing down.
In the past several months, the Fed taper of QE and subsequently U.S. bond buying has coincided with steep declines in purchases by China, a dump of one-fifth of holdings by Russia, and an overall decline in new purchases of U.S. dollars for FOREX reserves.
With the Ukraine crisis now escalating to fever pitch, BRIC nations are openly discussing the probability of “de-dollarization” in international summits, and the ultimate dumping of the dollar as the world reserve currency.
The U.S. is in desperate need of a benefactor to purchase its ever rising debt and keep the system running. Strangely, a buyer with apparently bottomless pockets has arrived to pick up the slack that the Fed and the BRICS are leaving behind. But, who is this buyer?
At first glance, it appears to be the tiny nation of Belgium.
While foreign investment in the U.S. has sharply declined since March, Belgium has quickly become the third largest buyer of Treasury bonds, just behind China and Japan, purchasing more than $200 billion in securities in the past five months, adding to a total stash of around $340 billion. This development is rather bewildering, primarily because Belgium’s GDP as of 2012 was a miniscule $483 billion, meaning, Belgium has spent nearly the entirety of its yearly GDP on our debt.
Clearly, this is impossible, and someone, somewhere, is using Belgium as a proxy in order to prop up the U.S. But who?
Recently, a company based in Belgium called Euroclear has come forward claiming to be the culprit behind the massive purchases of American debt. Euroclear, though, is not a direct buyer. Instead, the bank is a facilitator, using what it calls a “collateral highway” to allow central banks and international banks to move vast amounts of securities around the world faster than ever before.
Euroclear claims to be an administrator for more than $24 trillion in worldwide assets and transactions, but these transactions are not initiated by the company itself. Euroclear is a middleman used by our secret buyer to quickly move U.S. Treasuries into various accounts without ever being identified. So the question remains, who is the true buyer?
My investigation into Euroclear found some interesting facts. Euroclear has financial relationships with more than 90 percent of the world’s central banks and was once partly owned and run by 120 of the largest financial institutions back when it was called the “Euroclear System”. The organization was consolidated and operated by none other than JP Morgan Bank in 1972. In 2000, Euroclear was officially incorporated and became its own entity. However, one must remember, once a JP Morgan bank, always a JP Morgan bank.
Another interesting fact – Euroclear also has a strong relationship with the Russian government and is a primary broker for Russian debt to foreign investors. This once again proves my ongoing point that Russia is tied to the global banking cabal as much as the United States. The East vs. West paradigm is a sham of the highest order.
Euroclear’s ties to the banking elite are obvious; however, we are still no closer to discovering the specific groups or institution responsible for buying up U.S. debt. I think that the use of Euroclear and Belgium may be a key in understanding this mystery.
Belgium is the political center of the EU, with more politicians, diplomats and lobbyists than Washington D.C. It is also, despite its size and economic weakness, a member of an exclusive economic club called the “Group Of Ten” (G10).
The G10 nations have all agreed to participate in a “General Arrangement to Borrow” (GAB) launched in 1962 by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The GAB is designed as an ever cycling fund which members pay into. In times of emergency, members can ask the IMF’s permission for a release of funds. If the IMF agrees, it then injects capital through Treasury purchases and SDR allocations. Essentially, the IMF takes our money, then gives it back to us in times of desperation (with strings attached). A similar program called ‘New Arrangements To Borrow’ (NAB) involves 38 member countries. This fund was boosted to approximately 370 billion SDR (or $575 billion dollars U.S.) as the derivatives crisis struck markets in 2008-2009. Without a full and independent audit of the IMF, however, it is impossible to know the exact funds it has at its disposal, or how many SDR’s it has created.
It should be noted the Bank of International Settlements is also an overseer of the G10. If you want to learn more about the darker nature of globalist groups like the IMF and the BIS, read my articles, Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too, and False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency.
The following article from Harpers titled “Ruling The World Of Money,” was published in 1983 and boasts about the secrecy and “ingenuity” of the Bank Of International Settlements, an unaccountable body of financiers that dominates the very course of economic life around the world.
It is my belief that Belgium, as a member of the G10 and the GAB/NAB agreements, is being used as a proxy by the BIS and the IMF to purchase U.S. debt, but at a high price. I believe that the banking elite are hiding behind their middleman, Euroclear, because they do not want their purchases of Treasuries revealed too soon. I believe that the IMF in particular is accumulating U.S. debt to be used later as leverage to absorb the dollar and finalize the rise of their SDR currency basket as the world reserve standard.
Imagine what would happen if all foreign creditors abandoned U.S. debt purchases because the dollar was no longer seen as viable as a world reserve currency. Imagine that the Fed’s efforts to stimulate through fiat printing became useless in propping up Treasuries, serving only to devalue the domestic buying power of our currency. Imagine that the IMF swoops in as the lender of last resort; the only entity willing to service our debt and keep the system running. Imagine what kind of concessions America would have to make to a global loan shark like the IMF.
Keep in mind, the plan to replace the dollar is not mere “theory”. In fact, IMF head Christine Lagarde has openly called for a “global financial system” to take over in the place of the current dollar based system.
The Bretton Woods System, established in 1944, was used by the United Nations and participating governments to form international rules of economic conduct, including fixed rates for currencies and establishing the dollar as the monetary backbone. The IMF was created during this shift towards globalization as the BIS slithered into the background after its business dealings with the Nazis were exposed. It was the G10, backed by the IMF, that then signed the Smithsonian Agreement in 1971 which ended the Bretton Woods system of fixed currencies, as well as any remnants of the gold standard. This led to the floated currency system we have today, as well as the slow poison of monetary inflation which has now destroyed more than 98 percent of the dollar’s purchasing power.
I believe the next and final step in the banker program is to reestablish a new Bretton Woods style system in the wake of an engineered catastrophe. That is to say, we are about to go full circle. Perhaps Ukraine will be the cover event, or tensions in the South China Sea. Just as Bretton Woods was unveiled during World War II, Bretton Woods redux may be unveiled during World War III. In either case, the false East/West paradigm is the most useful ploy the elites have to bring about a controlled decline of the dollar.
The new system will reintroduce the concept of fixed currencies, but this time, all currencies will be fixed or “pegged” to the value of the SDR global basket. The IMF holds a global SDR summit every five years, and the next meeting is set for the beginning of 2015.
If the Chinese yuan is brought into the SDR basket next year, if the BRICS enter into a conjured economic war with the West, and if the dollar is toppled as the world reserve, there will be nothing left in terms of fiscal structure in the way of a global currency system. If the public does not remove the globalist edifice by force, the IMF and the BIS will then achieve their dream – the complete dissolution of economic sovereignty, and the acceptance by the masses of global financial governance. The elites don’t want to hide behind the curtain anymore. They want recognition. They want to be worshiped. And, it all begins with the secret buyout of America, the implosion of our debt markets, and the annihilation of our way of life.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.
To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:
Silver and Gold are on their way back to historic highs, and now is the time to buy. LetLibertyCPM.com help you decide how to best protect your savings and insulate you from an ever destabilizing dollar.
Do you need long term food storage but want the best quality as well? The good people at Nuvona Premium Foods are offering discounts on their Non-GMO food storage for Alt-Market readers only! Take advantage of this incredible deal while it lasts!
Do you have enough Non-GMO seeds in case of economic collapse? Seeds are the OTHER alternative currency, and if you aren’t stocked, then you aren’t prepared. To buy top quality non-GMO seeds at a special 10% discount, visit Humble Seed, and use the code Alt10
June 2nd, 2014 by olddog
By Karen Schoen
A LIE is defined as a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally. As a teacher I watched as new texts moved away from history and fact into emotion and fiction. History altered in texts, were forced upon unsuspecting students. Today little resembles the American experiment full of pride, patriotism and self confidence. The words, “think outside the box are no longer uttered in halls and classrooms.” Today students are taught to be common while legislators refuse to listen to Americans scream, stop experimenting on my child. Their career, their wallet is more important than being a statesman protecting the people. Instead, legislators protect special interest with one goal, screw the people and steal their land. They use environmental lies to promote this goal while unsuspecting true environmentalists become useful idiots incapable common sense relying only on the lies they learned in school. In 1989, Shirley McCune of the McREL Foundation under George Bush 41 as President and Bill Clinton as president of the Governors Association changed the face of education. Shirley proclaimed:
- Students are HUMAN CAPITAL Education’s purpose is to train students to work.
The purpose of education is to teach people how to think not what to think. Training is not education
- Purpose of Education was to Transform Society from individualism to collectivism
Individualism is the core of American exceptionalism. The concept of America is that exceptional people working together will create exceptional things which we did until now.
- Fact Based Education is no longer the primary focus of education
Today we have a government based on lies and deception as these students have graduated and work in unconstitutional government agencies all knowing that truth is no longer important. In the 1930′s Communists, evil people following Lucifer – as noted by Saul Alinsky, fled Hitler’s Germany and fled to Russia and America. UnderOperation Paper Clip they were given new identities and placed in our science programs, universities and now government. They did not stop their ideology and embrace American values. Instead they set out to transform American into their utopia by continuing their experiments using the environment as their crisis. When the people screamed and exposed these lies, there were demonized. To shut people up programs like:
- Political correctness – self censorship • Do not talk about Politics and Religion – most important to our founders who believed the PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER but only if they are involved in the government process. A republic can only work when the people are moral. • Being part of the silent majority – not speaking out affirms the lies
While parents were told to be silent, books like Rescue Mission Planet Earth were being used in school - The child’s edition of UN Agenda 21 promoting sustainability by demonizing groups and humans. Passages like those on page 73, “Agenda 21 says: Funds could be raised by reallocating resources now committed to the military.” were drummed into the heads of the youth who are today’s legislators while turning these legislators into “useful idiots” necessary to transform Americans from individualism into communism as Shirley stated. Today Representative Joe Garcia said, “Communism works.” Cradle to grave indoctrination is being called for in programs demanding all students must go to college just so they will incur debt. People in debt are slaves and will never own anything.
- School is to replace family • Government is to replace God and morality • The UN is to replace the US in programs
Programs like free trade, sustainability, conservation, man made global warming are used to divide people and promote poverty not success. “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King Students are indoctrinated into believing they are at fault “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations While lies are promoted as the truth….“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment In the last few weeks I exposed the lies of John Beale and his lying wife Nancy Ketes who are largely responsible for creating the heinous deception of the EPA. With Americans no longer taught the US constitution in school, they do not know that Article IV Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State (Person) in this Union a Republican (representative – you vote for the people to carry your voice) Form of Government… Marbury vs Madison decision: Any unconstitutional law is void. Rules and statutes are not laws and should not be followed.
- The EPA is not elected. • The EPA is unconstitutional. • The EPA is void.
Lack of that knowledge has forced phony laws/rules based on lies to dictate the future of America.
- Not preparing for the real weather – controlled by the sun, in hibernation, getting colder in a 206 year mini ice age - spaceandscience.net • Forcing GMO – experimental food control with genetically modified food -Monsanto Seeds of Death, Food safety Act – which no one read giving government power to confiscate your food. • Creating phony droughts to create phony food shortages- • Lying about fossil fuels- oil and coal a cheap source of energy giving wealth and power to individual business owners enabling them to keep costs of goods and services down while providing American jobs like fracking and Keystone • Using the Clean Air Act to deem a puddle navigable water. Putting meters on private wells, taxing rain water, creating phony conservation, wetlands • Conducting experiments on students and seniors (just like their ancestors in the 30′s) • Using food for fuel creating famines and high food prices. Ethanol a phony science designed to redistribute wealth through subsidies while damaging cars and engines while driving prices higher. • Forcing people off their land in conservation schemes. • Working with the UN to create phony models eliminating farming, fishing in order to control food. • Working with Sierra Club and other environmental liars creating phony law suits in order to create phony legislation aimed and destruction of the middle class by eliminating private industry and private property.
The EPA and other unelected bureaucratic departments have one goal, destruction of middle America. These unconstitutional regional groups must be closed and the liars must be prosecuted. The first step is to defund. Your Representative will tell you – but we do not have the Senate to stop funding. If they tell you that FIRED THEM. They did not read the constitution. Funding begins and ends in the HOUSE of Representatives. Article I Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the HOUSE of Representatives; but the Senate may (not must, shall or will – remember the NDAA, the President may pick up Americans w/o due process. Same idea) propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills. When I taught the Constitution I taught: The House controls the purse and does not need the Senate to vote on any funding bill. The Senate ratifies all appointments and treaties and does not need the House to approve. When the constitution is not taught people do not know their rights. Get involved.
Your job for today… Demand defunding of the lying cheating, stealing, unconstitutional EPA or soon you will be deciding whether to drive to work or buy food. Contact your HOUSE member. © 2014 Karen Schoen - All Rights Reserve Karen Schoen originally from New York currently resides in the Florida panhandle, a former teacher, dean and business owner who became an activist and devotes her time speaking to groups throughout the United States educating Americans to the communist United Nations takeover of America called UN Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Sustainable America, Resilient cities, Smart Growth, New Urbanism etc.
Should you need a speaker on any agenda 21 issue, contact Karen. Karen has a Bachelors Degree in Education, minor in History and a Masters Degree in Liberal Studies and post graduate credits from the New School of Social Research where she was trained in psychological manipulation now applied in schools. Putting the pieces together and connecting the dots is her specialty. Karen is one of the founders of the AgEnders (Americans ending Agenda 21) writes for blogs, newsletters, agenda21today.com,americaismyname.org, saveamericafoundation.com, and Karenschoen.com Karen co-hosts her radio show, “American Freedom Watch Radio,” onblogtalkradio.com/americanstatesman and redstatetalkradio.com has numerous videos on teapartychannel.net, freedominamerica.us and youtube, and she is often a guest on other radio and TV shows. Karen heads the team of AgEnders dedicated to educating Americans about Agenda 21. Karen hosts The AgEnders webinars series designed to expose the truth, by providing education and conversation and action against UN Agenda 21. UN Agenda 21 calls for the inventory and control of every aspect of human activity while indoctrination into global governance.
The Elite are using environmental issues to control the population, destroy American exceptionalism, individual rights, private intellectual and real property family values, religious values and nationalism. School programs like IB and Common Core are designed to transform Americans into accepting collectivism and social justice. Karen has testified in front of the Florida Legislature on many occasions, is a Director of Panhandle Patriots, a founder of the AgEnders, (Americans ending Agenda 21) , Co- chair of the Florida Assessment Committee on Education and Director of the Save America Foundation. Karen has just decided to run for office FL State REP Dist 5. Look forvotekarenschoen.com E-Mail: email@example.com