Log in



Categories » ‘Totalitarianism’

Law Has Been Murdered

January 27th, 2015 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/23/law-murdered-paul-craig-roberts/

 By Paul Craig Roberts

Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly, and Bonny Mahoney are the kind of people who are imprisoned in America. It is not the perjurers and liars, the torturers, war criminals and mass murderers. It is the good people who peacefully protest the crimes of those who control the US government and its policies.

Since around 1990 I have studied and reported on cases that have resulted in the erosion of the protective features in law that made law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the government. Barrett Brown’s statement to the Judge in his show trial shows that the US Department of Justice has been successful in preventing the system from delivering any justice. The US Court system delivers support for the government’s crimes. That’s it.

Brown’s statement shows how the system works. The government brings false charges against you or they bring charges that are not illegal under law as understood. However, prosecutors invent new interpretations of laws and judges and juries accept legislation-by-prosecutor-to-fit-the-made-up-case. Almost never is a jury involved, not that jurors show any inclination to go against the government’s case. However, prosecutors only face that unlikely risk in 3 or 4 percent of the cases. All other cases are settled on the basis of self-incrimination. The prosecutor tells the defendant and his attorney, “you can admit to this and that and have a sentence of 5 or 10 years. Otherwise, we are indicting you with 105 offenses with imprisonment of at least one lifetime.

Read Brown’s statement to the judge. This young man describes perfectly how the so-called “criminal justice system” actually works. I have seen it time after time in cases I have investigated. Read The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/journalist-barrett-brown-sentenced-to-63-months-in-prison-for-linking-to-hacked-material-read-his-speech-here/5426421

Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney were sentenced to prison for stepping across the perimeters of Air Force bases in peaceful protests against murder-by-drone. There was no real reason for charges to be brought against them or for a judge to sentence them to prison except to continue to make it crystal clear that the US government tolerates no dissent.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pressroom/news/2015/01/23/kathy-kelly-begins-her-three-month-federal-prison-sentence-t

http://warisacrime.org/content/hancock-drone-resister-convicted-unexpected-new-charge

A democracy protected by free speech would permit these demonstrations, but the US is not a democracy and does not have free speech. That is the fact that Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney are proving.

In my opinion, protesting drone murders at Air Force bases that operate the killer drones is unlikely to be effective in stopping the murders. Suppose the protests resulted in a base commander having second thoughts. What can he possibly do about it? If he disobeys orders, he would face a court martial. If he expresses doubts or makes protests to higher ups, he would be removed and a worse murderer would be put in his place.

To be effective in halting the drone murders, the protests would have to be very large and persistent, and the protests would have to focus on Congress and the White House. They would need public support, but would get none from the presstitute media or from “law and order” conservatives, patriot organizations, neoconservatives, or liberals who have bought into the “war on terror.”

What Brown, Kelly, and Mahoney are in fact proving is that the US is lawless in the sense that law serves only the government and its agenda. In America law no longer has any other meaning. There is no rule of law. We are ruled by the government’s agenda.

 10 13 11 flagbar

Obamacare here come the toxic psychiatrists

January 26th, 2015 by

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/obamacare-here-come-the-toxic-psychiatrists/

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

The toxic psychiatrists are already here, but under Obamacare their mission will expand.

A recent Washington Post article parroted the usual unscientific statistic on numbers of people in America with mental disorders: 20% of all adults have “experienced a mental-health issue.”

Propaganda focuses heavily on children, with claims that “half of all mental-health disorders first show up before a person turns 14.”

“Three-quarters of mental-health disorders begin before 24. But less than 20% of children and adolescents with mental disorders receive the treatment they need.”

Obamacare has an “essential list” of services, and “mental-health treatment” is one of them. You can be sure the targeting of children will expand.

More and more children will be brought into the system and receive diagnoses of mental disorders and the toxic drugs psychiatrists routinely prescribe. More kids will be screened for depression and undergo “behavioral assessments.”

The influence of psychiatry in young children’s lives is going to expand beyond anything we’ve yet seen. America is going to experience another sea change: the medicalization of children’s behavior will blanket the country.

First of all, as I’ve established many times, NO so-called mental disorder is defined scientifically. There are no physical diagnostic tests: no blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no genetic tests, no brain-scan tests.

If there were, you would find them in the DSM, the bible of the psychiatric profession, which lists the, yes, 300 mental disorders.

Instead, disorders consist of menus of behaviors assembled by committees of psychiatrists, who decide which clusters of behaviors rate a disorder label.

In a PBS Frontline interview, during the episode called “Does ADHD Exist?”, Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Centerwas asked about the lack of a blood test for ADHD. He made this extraordinary statement:

“That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science.That doesn’t make them invalid.”

Dr. Barkley has his own definition of science. If, say, physics surrendered the need for physical tests, it could claim the sun revolves around the Earth, all oceans end in steep cliffs, and unexplored forests automatically contain dragons.

But “psychiatry is different.” Committees of men can assemble lists of behaviors and call them disorders. 300 and counting.

This is why all assessments of numbers of people who have mental disorders are useless. The disorders themselves are arbitrarily concocted.

But there are very serious consequences: drugs and more drugs.

When it comes to their toxicity and behavioral effects, I recommend several sources. The website “SSRI stories” presents a number of studies of the SSRI antidepressants (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft). Consult the work of Dr. Peter Breggin, David Healy, and Robert Whitaker. Read Breggin’s essential book,Toxic Psychiatry.

Here is important information about one psychiatric drug: Ritalin.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and prescribes other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium. (To see some of the toxic and dangerous effects of these two drugs, read my article, “The lying liars who lie about psychiatry.”)

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land. Under Obamacare, with psychiatry firmly placed on a par with other branches of medical practice, the plague is going to spread further, as previously uninsured people enter the system.

At the website, “SSRI stories”, you can also read numerous reports of antidepressants’ links to violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. The correlation is not meant to establish a perfect causative chain, but the shocking number of incidents is more than suggestive.

After commenting on some of the adverse effects of the antidepressant drug Prozac, psychiatrist Peter Breggin notes, “From the initial studies, it was also apparent that a small percentage of Prozac patients became psychotic.” Paxil and Zoloft are in the same class of drug as Prozac.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a time. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahueshow (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

When pressed, proponents of these SSRI drugs sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk,” or, “Maybe in one or two tragic cases the dosage prescribed was too high.” But the problem will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

Under Obamacare, mental-health professionals are looking forward to a much larger piece of the “treatment pie.” Huge numbers of previously uninsured people, including vulnerable children, will now move under the psychiatric umbrella, and their futures are at extreme risk.

Psychiatry has deeply troubling similarities to the Surveillance State. It profiles people and labels them. However, it then treats them with highly toxic and dangerous drugs.

In the wake of recent mass killings, Obama has shown his preference for psychiatric treatment in a number of statements. He’s also launched the so-called “brain mapping project,” which aims to detect more “mental problems” that need fixing by drugs and other invasive methods, and he’s promised to establish new community mental-health centers across the nation.

This, taken together with Obamacare, signals a catastrophe, and spells out the need for public resistance.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com

The lying liars who lie about psychiatry

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-psychiatry/

By Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

These days, we are witnessing an acceleration in the use of psychiatry to target Americans, to label them as dangerous, to take away guns they own, to blame gun violence in the US on mentally ill people. (see also this story by Dan Roberts).

It’s a winning strategy, because most Americans don’t have a clue about the way psychiatry actually works or its pose of being a science.

The public hears techno-speak and nods and surrenders.

If psychiatrists are experts on the human mind, mice can navigate the Arctic in canoes. But psychiatrists are educated to be able to talk a good game.

And politicians are more than happy to mouth vagaries, and consign the problems of society to “mental-health professionals.”

It turns out that the phrase “mental health” was invented by psyops specialists, who needed to create an analogy to physical well-being.

The needed to, because the mind was (and is) a mystery to psychiatrists.

An open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 2 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe it because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science.

If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s. but it’s still important,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear more room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months. I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.

Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM-IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;

life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;

brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

intercranial pressure leading to blindness;

peripheral circulatory collapse;

stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

serious impairment of cognitive function;

fainting;

restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances’ label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of toxic Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD. This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook. He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”

I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the medical apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.

The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock to be tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

Dr. Barkley employs a version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

And now, in the wake of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, it matters even less who or how many people are labeled with mental disorders. The more the better, as far as government is concerned.

Just as in the old USSR, psychiatry becomes an instrument of oppression, a way to discredit any person the State wants to silence and destroy.

“…in the disputes between the East and West concerning the Russian opponents of the Soviet regime… [m]any dissidents went to lunatic asylums and were treated as mentally sick. Western doctors and the press accused Soviet doctors of being blind instruments of the regime and of having broken the solemn oath of their calling. The Russian doctors thought the West had gone mad in reproaching their behavior. For them, anyone who opposed such an efficient police power must be mentally disturbed. In their view, only those who had what Seneca called Libido morienti (the death wish) would dare to provoke the State. The Russian doctors were convinced that they were undertaking a humanitarian mission by placing the opponents of the regime in asylums and thereby reducing their aggression–the only hope for their survival. To reduce the outstanding to mediocrity was always a medical and human duty in a state where mediocrity had the better chance of survival.” — “Man: The Fallen Ape” by Branko Bokun

 10 13 11 flagbar

“If You Question Authority, You Are Mentally Ill”, Report Finds

January 23rd, 2015 by

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-21/if-you-question-authority-you-are-mentally-ill-report-finds

By Tyler Durden via Zerohedge

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man blog,

Only the Sheeple Are Sane

This post is about an issue that is by now a bit dated (though the topic as such certainly isn’t), but we have only just become aware of it and it seemed to us worth rescuing it from the memory hole. In late 2013, the then newest issue of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM for short) defined a new mental illness, the so-called“oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.

As TheMindUnleashed.org informs us, the definition of this new mental illness essentially amounts to declaring any non-conformity and questioning of authority as a form of insanity. According to the manual, ODD is defined as:

[…] an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.

In short, as Natural News put it: According to US psychiatrists, only the sheeple are sane.

Every time a new issue of the DSM appears, the number of mental disorders grows – and this growth is exponential. A century ago there were essentially 7 disorders, 80 years ago there were 59, 50 years ago there were 130, and by 2010 there were 374 (77 of which were “found” in just seven years). A prominent critic of this over-diagnosing (and the associated over-medication trend) is psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan. Here is an interview with her:

Allen Gregg in conversation with psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan

As MindUnleashed notes:

“Are we becoming sicker? Is it getting harder to be mentally healthy? Authors of the DSM-IV say that it’s because they’re better able to identify these illnesses today. Critics charge that it’s because they have too much time on their hands.

New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior. In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases. And there are treatments available.”

1-23-2015 11-56-36 AM

Edward Abbey on what happens when no-one ever stirs things up

 There is an obvious danger involved with such loose definitions such as the one employed in identifying the alleged illness of “ODD”. A chilling example was provided by the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s. In a 1959 speech, Nikita Khrushchev made the following remark:

“Can there be diseases, nervous diseases among certain people in the communist society? Evidently there can be. If that is so, then there also will be offenses which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. To those who might start calling for opposition to communism on this ‘basis,’ we say that now, too, there are people who fight against communism, but clearly the mental state of such people is not normal.”

Obviously, questioning the best socio-economic system ever devised had to be a sign of insanity, and after Khrushchev’s speech Soviet psychiatrists immediately went to work to discover and institutionalize all those mentally ill “communism deniers”.

The road to what followed had already been paved in 1951, when in a joint session of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences and the Board of the All-Union Neurological and Psychiatric Association, several leading neurologists and psychiatrists were accused of pursuing an “anti-Marxist and reactionary” deviation from the teachings of Pavlov. The session took place on Stalin’s behest so as to “free Soviet psychiatry of Western influences”.

The psychiatrist who wrote the policy report associated with this purge was Andrei Snezhnevsky, who invented (err, “discovered”) a new mental illness, which he termed “sluggish schizophrenia”. After Khrushchev’s 1959 speech, the term was widely adopted and the illness was diagnosed throughout the Eastern Bloc. The symptoms of the alleged “illness” were such that even the slightest change in behavior patterns could henceforth be interpreted as a sign of mental derangement. Political dissent was for instance considered to by a symptom of “sluggish schizophrenia with delusions of reform”.

Snezhnevsky personally signed a decision declaring several prominent dissidents legally insane – among them also neurophysiologist Vladimir Bukovsky, who was the first to expose and criticize the abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union and spent altogether 12 years in prisons, forced labor camps and locked up in psychiatric hospitals for his efforts.

Snezhnevsky’s theories became the only ones acceptable in Soviet psychiatry, and it was obviously held to be quite dangerous to oppose them. Ironically, in 1970, one year before Vladimir Bukovsky managed to smuggle out 150 pages that documented the silencing of political dissenters with the aid of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, the American Psychiatric Association named Snezhnevsky a “distinguished fellow” for his “outstanding contribution to psychiatry and related sciences” at its annual meeting in San Francisco.

 1-23-2015 11-57-48 AM

Soviet psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky, hero of socialist labor, owner of two Orders of Lenin as well as four Orders of the Red Star and USSR state prize.

Photo credit: tapemark.narod.ru

 Money and the Invention of new Categories of Disease

There is a basic problem with psychiatry and psychology: they are largely thymological, as opposed to natural sciences. If you break your arm and visit 10 different medical doctors, you will get the same diagnosis from every single one of them – they will all tell you that your arm is broken. A standardized treatment exists for dealing with a broken arm.

Make a list of psychological problems you are experiencing and visit ten different psychiatrists, and chances are very good that you will receive 10 different diagnoses coupled with 10 different proposals for treatment (including prescriptions for very powerful psychotropic drugs). Genuine severe mental disorders may be connected with chemical imbalances in the brain to some extent (no conclusive proof for this actually exists), but by and large there is little that can be objectively “measured”. The psychologist or psychiatrist must largely rely on the same ability that also characterizes the work of the historian – i.e., what Mises called “understanding”. They can only judge behavior.

So why have so many former “personality traits” been transformed into symptoms of mental illness? One major reason is money. Here are a few data points that shed light on the monetary side of the psychiatry business; the data are by now slightly dated, but they suffice to get the point across. As of 2010:

Global sales of anti-depressants, stimulants, anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs had reached more than $76 billion per year.

Globally, 54 million people were taking anti-depressants that are known to cause addiction, and often violent and homicidal behavior.

In the US, 20% of all women were taking mental health medication in 2010. Essentially every fourth female is prozac’d into quietude.

20 million children worldwide had been diagnosed with mental disorders and were prescribed stimulants and/or powerful anti-depressants.

In 2002, more than 100 million prescriptions were written for anti-depressants alone (cost: $19.5 billion nominal)

In France, one in seven prescriptions is for a psychotropic drug and more than 50% of the employed were taking such drugs (as of 2010, 1.8 million people).

Between 1986 and 2004, combined spending on anti-psychotic drugs and anti-depressants jumped from $500 million to $20 billion.

In the US, the mental health budget, adjusted for inflation, has soared from $33 billion in 1994 to $ 80 billion in 2010 (similar increases have occurred elsewhere).

(data via Stefan Molyneux)

Stefan Molyneux whom we got the above data from also reports that according to the US National Institute of Mental Health (in 2010) “26% of Americans suffer from mental illness” and “nearly 58 million Americans will suffer from an episode of mental illness in any given year”. There you have it – we’re literally surrounded by lunatics. As Molyneux rightly points out: if there is a disease for which we have effective cures, then application of this cure should reduce the prevalence of the disease.

For instance, a number of infectious diseases have been nearly, or completely exterminated by effective vaccines. We should therefore expect that with the arrival of psychiatric medications that allegedly “correct chemical imbalances in the brain”, there should be a decline in the number of mentally ill people. The first such medications were introduced in the mid 1950s. So what happened? In 1955, there were 355,000 adults confined to mental hospitals all over the US on account of being diagnosed as mentally ill by psychiatrists. After 50 years of medical treatment with anti-psychotic drugs, that number has risen to more than 4 million patients (as of 2007). Some success!

While the prescription of psychiatric medications to children soared from the mid 1980s to today, so did the number of youth receiving disability payments from the government for mental disability. It rose from 16,200 in 1986 to 561,569 in 2007 (a 35 fold increase). It appears that all those meds prescribed to “ODD” and “ADHD” children have had the exact opposite effect from that advertised.

 1-23-2015 11-59-17 AM

Again, there exists no convincing proof as of yet for any chemical, biological or genetic causes of mental illness. The categorizations found in the DSM are arrived at by “peer consensus”, not by any objective measurements. And yet, drugs that alter chemical balances in the brain are prescribed as treatment. The greater the number of new diseases manufactured by said consensus, the more treatments can be prescribed. As Dr. Thomas Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of Physicians of the UK, and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada, put it:

“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.”

It is not too difficult to see the enormous monetary incentives that are driving this business of declaring as many people as possible to be mentally ill. There no longer is such a thing as a harmless “eccentric”. Any deviation from the norms laid out by the psychiatric profession mean one is in need of treatment. Only the sheeple are sane.

Stefan Molyneux’s podcast on mental illness from which we have taken most of the statistics presented above can be seen here:

 Stefan Molyneux on mental illness.

 Freethinkers Medicated Into Silence by Good Serfs

However, there may be another reason why anti-authoritarianism specifically has made it onto the list of behaviors held to be symptomatic of mental illness. Psychologist Dr. Bruce Levine has laid the problem out in an article entitled “Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill”. A few pertinent excerpts follow below. First Dr. Levine explains why there seem so few anti-authoritarians in the US. The reason in his opinion is that many have been medicated into silence:

“Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority—sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively, sometimes wisely and sometimes not.

Some activists lament how few anti-authoritarians there appear to be in the United States. One reason could be that many natural anti-authoritarians are now psycho-pathologized and medicated before they achieve political consciousness of society’s most oppressive authorities.”

(emphasis added)

But why does this happen, apart from the monetary incentives discussed above? Why are psychiatrists so eager to medicate anti-authoritarians into a stupor? In Dr. Levine’s opinion, the reason is that the career of most psychiatrists involves an extraordinary degree of compliance with authorities, to the point where they are not even aware anymore of how obedient they have become. When confronted with patients who aren’t exhibiting a similar degree of obedient behavior, they immediately suspect that there is something to diagnose and treat:

“The selection and socialization of mental health professionals tends to breed out many anti-authoritarians. Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where one routinely conforms to the demands of authorities. Thus for many MDs and PhDs, people different from them who reject this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another world—a diagnosable one.

I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and othermental health professionals are not only extraordinarily compliant with authorities but also unaware of the magnitude of their obedience. And it also has become clear to me that the anti-authoritarianism of their patients creates enormous anxiety for these professionals, and their anxiety fuels diagnoses and treatments.  (emphasis added)

1-23-2015 12-01-30 PM

1-23-2015 12-02-58 PM

It is probably a good bet that a Haldol-addled Einstein wouldn’t have excelled at much. Well, he even looked crazy: theoretical physicist and reputed anti-authoritarian Albert Einstein, who invented a few unimportant little formulas like E=mc2. Rumor has it he also invented gravity, which we have been struggling against ever since.

Photo credit: Getty Images

As Dr. Levine points out, once they are diagnosed as mentally ill, anti-authoritarians are especially likely to become victims of a vicious cycle:

“Many anti-authoritarians who earlier in their lives were diagnosed with mental illness tell me that once they were labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, they got caught in a dilemma.

Authoritarians, by definition, demand unquestioning obedienceand so any resistance to their diagnosis and treatment created enormous anxiety for authoritarian mental health professionalsand professionals, feeling out of control, labeled them “noncompliant with treatment,” increased the severity of their diagnosis, and jacked up their medications.”

(emphasis added)

Dr. Levine then concludes that the direction in which the system has evolved is indeed reminiscent of a “Sovietization”; just as the ruling classes once employed an authoritarian religious establishment to enforce compliance with the status quo, they can nowadays rely on psychiatry to do the job:

“What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society.

So authoritarians financially marginalize those who buck the system, they criminalize anti-authoritarianism, they psychopathologize anti-authoritarians, and they market drugs for their “cure.”

(emphasis added)

Evidently the system provides ample scope for both intentional and unintentional abuse.

Conclusion:

In order to prevent misunderstandings, we should point out that we don’t want to assert here that there exists no such thing as mental illness, or that psychiatry is completely useless in diagnosing it or providing effective treatment. The same holds for psychotropic medication: there certainly exist medications that can be helpful in alleviating symptoms of severe mental conditions and allow people to lead fairly normal lives that would otherwise be out of reach for them (i.e., we don’t fully agree with Stefan Molyneux’s conclusions; this is simply based on the fact that we personally know of two cases in which appropriate medication helped people exhibiting severe symptoms associated with schizophrenia).

However, it is important to realize that the sciences dealing with the human mind are thymological in nature and cannot make claims based on objectively measurable physical quantities. And yet, the field has turned into a “growth industry” in every respect; the number of behaviors regarded as “abnormal”, as well as the number of medications prescribed for treating such behaviors has grown exponentially. This is a dangerous development and the fact that almost every quirky personality trait is suddenly deemed a sign of disease is certainly giving one pause (it is dangerous in several respects: consider for instance the great number of mass murderers who were prescribed psychotropic drugs. Correlation is not always causation of course, but still…)

The psychopathologizing of anti-authoritarian behavior is yet another step on what looks like an increasingly slippery slope and it strikes us as especially harmful. As Dr. Levine inter alia points out: “It has been my experience that many anti-authoritarians labeled with psychiatric diagnoses usually don’t reject all authorities, simply those they’ve assessed to be illegitimate ones.”

In other words, the term “anti-authoritarian” does not necessarily stand for a blanket rejection of all authorities, but rather a healthy questioning of the legitimacy of existing authorities. This seems all the more necessary today, when governments in the name of providing all-encompassing security (a task at which they are predictably failing) are seeing fit to let individual liberty die a death of a thousand cuts.

1-23-2015 12-04-24 PMOLDDOGS COMMENTS 

YOU CAN COUNT ME AMONG THE INSANE, AND I’M KEEPING DAMN GOOD COMPANY THESE LAST DAYS

LATEST FBI CLAIM OF DISRUPTED TERROR PLOT DESERVES MUCH SCRUTINY AND SKEPTICISM

January 19th, 2015 by

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-

disrupting-terror-u-s-plot-deserves-scrutiny-skepticism/

BY GLENN GREENWALD AND ANDREW FISHMAN 

The Justice Department on Wednesday issued a press release trumpeting its latest success in disrupting a domestic terrorism plot, announcing that “the Joint Terrorism Task Force has arrested a Cincinnati-area man for a plot to attack the U.S. Capitol and kill government officials.” The alleged would-be terrorist is 20-year-old Christopher Cornell (above), who is unemployed, lives at home, spends most of his time playing video games in his bedroom, still addresses his mother as “Mommy” and regards his cat as his best friend; he was described as “a typical student” and “quiet but not overly reserved” by the principal of the local high school he graduated in 2012.

The affidavit filed by an FBI investigative agent alleges Cornell had “posted comments and information supportive of [ISIS] through Twitter accounts.” The FBI learned about Cornell from an unnamed informant who, as the FBI put it, “began cooperating with the FBI in order to obtain favorable treatment with respect to his criminal exposure on an unrelated case.” Acting under the FBI’s direction, the informant arranged two in-person meetings with Cornell where they allegedly discussed an attack on the Capitol, and the FBI says it arrested Cornell to prevent him from carrying out the attack.

Family members say Cornell converted to Islam just six months ago and claimed he began attending a small local mosque. Yet The Cincinnati Enquirer could not find a single person at that mosque who had ever seen him before, and noted that a young, white, recent convert would have been quite conspicuous at a mosque largely populated by “immigrants from West Africa,” many of whom “speak little or no English.”

The DOJ’s press release predictably generated an avalanche of scary media headlines hailing the FBI. CNN: “FBI says plot to attack U.S. Capitol was ready to go.” MSNBC: “US terror plot foiled by FBI arrest of Ohio man.” Wall St. Journal: “Ohio Man Charged With Plotting ISIS-Inspired Attack on U.S. Capitol.”

1-19-2015 11-52-29 AM

Just as predictably, political officials instantly exploited the news to justify their powers of domestic surveillance. House Speaker John Boehner claimed yesterday that “the National Security Agency’s snooping powers helped stop a plot to attack the Capitol and that his colleagues need to keep that in mind as they debate whether to renew the law that allows the government to collect bulk information from its citizens.” He warned: “We live in a dangerous country, and we get reminded every week of the dangers that are out there.” 

The known facts from this latest case seem to fit well within a now-familiar FBI pattern whereby the agency does not disrupt planned domestic terror attacks but rather creates them, then publicly praises itself for stopping its own plots.

First, they target a Muslim: not due to any evidence of intent or capability to engage in terrorism, but rather for the “radical” political views he expresses. In most cases, the Muslim targeted by the FBI is a very young (late teens, early 20s), adrift, unemployed loner who has shown no signs of mastering basic life functions, let alone carrying out a serious terror attack, and has no known involvement with actual terrorist groups.

They then find another Muslim who is highly motivated to help disrupt a “terror plot”: either because they’re being paid substantial sums of money by the FBI or because (as appears to be the case here) they are charged with some unrelated crime and are desperate to please the FBI in exchange for leniency (or both). The FBI then gives the informant a detailed attack plan, and sometimes even the money and other instruments to carry it out, and the informant then shares all of that with the target. Typically, the informant also induces, lures, cajoles, and persuades the target to agree to carry out the FBI-designed plot. In some instances where the target refuses to go along, they have their informant offer huge cash inducements to the impoverished target.

Once they finally get the target to agree, the FBI swoops in at the last minute, arrests the target, issues a press release praising themselves for disrupting a dangerous attack (which it conceived of, funded, and recruited the operatives for), and the DOJ and federal judges send their target to prison for years or even decades (where they are kept in special GITMO-like units). Subservient U.S. courts uphold the charges by applying such abroad and permissive interpretation of “entrapment” that it could almost never be successfully invoked. As AP noted last night, “defense arguments have repeatedly failed with judges, and the stings have led to many convictions.”

Consider the truly remarkable (yet not aberrational) 2011 prosecution of James Cromitie, an impoverished African-American Muslim convert who had expressed anti-Semitic views but, at the age of 45, had never evinced any inclination to participate in a violent attack. For eight months, the FBI used an informant – one who was on the hook for another crimeand whom the FBI was paying – to try to persuade Cromitie to agree to join a terror plot which the FBI had concocted. And for eight months, he adamantly refused. Only when they dangled a payment of $250,000 in front of him right as he lost his job did he finally assent, causing the FBI to arrest him. The DOJ trumpeted the case as a major terrorism arrest, obtained a prosecution and sent him to prison for 25 years.

The federal judge presiding over his case, Colleen McMahon, repeatedly lambasted the government for wholly manufacturing the plot. When sentencing him to decades in prison, she said Cromitie “was incapable of committing an act of terrorism on his own,” and that it was the FBI which “created acts of terrorism out of his fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true.” She added: “only the government could have made a terrorist out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”

In her written ruling upholding the conviction, Judge McMahon noted that Cromitie “had successfully resisted going too far for eight months,” and agreed only after “the Government dangled what had to be almost irresistible temptation in front of an impoverished man from what I have come (after literally dozens of cases) to view as the saddest and most dysfunctional community in the Southern District of New York.” It was the FBI’s own informant, she wrote, who “was the prime mover and instigator of all the criminal activity that occurred.” She then wrote (emphasis added):

As it turns out, the Government did absolutely everything that the defense predicted in its previous motion to dismiss the indictment.The Government indisputably “manufactured” the crimes of which defendants stand convicted. The Government invented all of the details of the scheme - many of them, such as the trip to Connecticut and the inclusion of Stewart AFB as a target, for specific legal purposes of which the defendants could not possibly have been aware (the former gave rise to federal jurisdiction and the latter mandated a twenty-five year minimum sentence). The Government selected the targets. The Government designed and built the phony ordnance that the defendants planted (or planned to plant) at Government-selected targets. The Government provided every item used in the plot: cameras, cell phones, cars, maps and even a gun. The Government did all the driving (as none of the defendants had a car or a driver’s license). The Government funded the entire project. And the Government, through its agent, offered the defendants large sums of money, contingent on their participation in the heinous scheme.

Additionally, before deciding that the defendants (particularly Cromitie, who was in their sights for nine months) presented any real danger, the Government appears to have done minimal due diligence, relying instead on reports from its Confidential Informant, who passed on information about Cromitie information that could easily have been verified (or not verified, since much of it was untrue), but that no one thought it necessary to check before offering a jihadist opportunity to a man who had no contact with any extremist groups and no history of anything other than drug crimes.

On another occasion, Judge McMahon wrote: “There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that James Cromitie could never have dreamed up the scenario in which he actually became involved. And if by some chance he had, he would not have had the slightest idea how to make it happen.” She added that while “Cromitie, who was desperately poor, accepted meals and rent money from [the informant], he repeatedly backed away from his violent statements when it came time to act on them,” and that “only when the offers became outrageously high–and when Cromitie was particularly vulnerable to them, because he had lost his job–did he finally succumb.”

This is pre-emptory prosecution: targeting citizens not for their criminal behavior but for their political views. It’s an attempt by the U.S. Government to anticipate who will become a criminal at some point in the future based on their expressed political opinions – not unlike the dystopian premise of Minority Report – and then exploiting the FBI’s vast financial, organizational, and even psychological resources, along with the individuals’ vulnerabilities, to make it happen.

In 2005, federal appellate judge A. Wallace Tashima – the first Japanese-American appointed to the federal bench, who was imprisoned in an U.S. internment camp – vehemently dissented from one of the worst such prosecutions and condemned these FBI cases as “the unsettling and untoward consequences of the government’s use of anticipatory prosecution as a weapon in the ‘war on terrorism.’”

There are countless similar cases where the FBI triumphantly disrupts its own plots, causing people to be imprisoned as terrorists who would not and could not have acted on their own. Trevor Aaronson has comprehensively covered what amounts to the FBI’s own domestic terror network, and has reported that “nearly half [of all DOJ terrorism] prosecutions involved the use of informants, many of them incentivized by money (operatives can be paid as much as $100,000 per assignment) or the need to work off criminal or immigration violation.” He documents “49 [terrorism] defendants [who] participated in plots led by an agent provocateur—an FBI operative instigating terrorist action.” In 2012, Petra Bartosiewicz in The Nation reviewed the post-9/11 body of terrorism cases and concluded:

Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants — who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own — have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.

The U.S. Government has been aggressively pressuring its allies to adopt the same “sting” tactics against their own Muslim citizens (and like most War on Terror abuses, this practice is now fully seeping into non-terrorism domestic law: in a drug smuggling prosecution last year, a federal judge condemned the Drug Enforcement Agency for luring someone into smuggling cocaine, saying that “the government’s investigation deployed techniques that generated a wholly new crime for the sake of pressing criminal charges against” the defendant).

Many of the key facts in this latest case are still unknown, but there are ample reasons to treat this case with substantial skepticism. Though he had brushes with the law as a minor arguably indicative of anger issues, the 20-year-old Cornell had no history of engaging in politically-motivated violence (he disrupted a local 9/11 memorial ceremony last year by yelling a 9/11 Truth slogan, but was not arrested). There is no evidence he had any contact with any overseas or domestic terrorist operatives (the informant vaguely claims that Cornell claims he “had been in contact with persons overseas” but ultimately told the informant that “he did not think he would receive specific authorization to conduct a terrorist attack in the United States”).

Cornell’s father accused the FBI of responsibility for the plot, saying of his son: “He’s a mommy’s boy. His best friend is his cat Mikey. He still calls his mother ‘Mommy.’” His father said that “he might be 20, but he was more like a 16-year-old kid who never left the house.” He added that his son had only $1,200 in his bank account, and that the money to purchase guns could only have come from the FBI. It was the FBI, he said, who were “taking him somewhere, and they were filling his head with a lot of this garbage.”

The mosque with which Cornell was supposedly associated is itself tiny, a non-profit that reported a meager $115,000 in revenue last year. It has no history of producing terrorism suspects or violent radicals.

1-19-2015 11-53-42 AM

Whatever else is true, a huge dose of scrutiny and skepticism should be applied to the FBI’s claims. Media organizations certainly should not be trumpeting this as some dangerous terror plot from which the FBI heroically saved us all, nor telling their viewers that the FBI “uncovered” a plot that it actually created, nor trying to depict it (as MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki did in the pictured segment) as part of some larger plot of international terror groups, at least not without further evidence (and, just by the way, Mr. Kornacki: Anwar Awlaki was not “the leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen,” no matter how much repeating that false claim might help President Obama, who ordered that U.S. citizen killed with no due process). Nor should politicians like John Boehner be permitted without challenge to claim that this scary plot shows how crucial is the Patriot Act and the NSA domestic spying program in keeping us safe.

Having crazed loners get guns and seek to shoot people is, of course, a threat. But so is allowing the FBI to manufacture terror plots: in the process keeping fear levels about terrorism completely inflated, along with its own surveillance powers and budget. Ohio is a major recipient of homeland security spending: it “has four fusion centers, more than any other state except California, New York and Texas. Ohio also ranks fourth in the nation (tying New York) with four FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs).”

Something has to be done to justify all that terrorism spending. For all those law enforcement agents with little to do, why not sit around and manufacture plots to justify those expenditures, giving a boost to their pro-surveillance ideology to boot? Media outlets have a responsibility to investigate the FBI’s claims, not mindlessly repeat them while parading their alarmed faces and scary graphics.

Photo: Associated Press

10 13 11 flagbar

AMERICAN MATRIX HOW WE LOST OUR CONSTITUTION PART 2

January 16th, 2015 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn206.htm

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 16, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

COLORABLE MONEY, COLORABLE LAW, COLORABLE LIBERTY

Before providing you with the following information, I must state that I am not an attorney and have not studied the law. I’m a retired banker who has done a lot of research on this subject.

What we learned in Part I is that federal, state, county and city governments and most of the departments and divisions that are part of them are incorporated. We learned that corporations function under Articles of Incorporation, not a Constitution and that’s how we lost our constitutional rights and courts that support them.

We learned that corporations are governed by business laws having to do with Maritime Law (also called Law of the Seas or Admiralty Law both of which are historically very old) and the Uniform Commercial Code. We learned that Constitutional Law is based on Common Law (which is based on substance and the will of the people — the Will of God, too, many people say). For example, under Common Law we are provided the alternative of not testifying against ourselves; that is not part of Maritime Law.

To understand the damage that has been done to our nation, we need to define the word “colorable” – its meaning, its impact on our currency, our courts, and our constitutional liberties and the limits the Constitution places on government. It is from the meaning of the word “colorable” that the virus of death infecting our nation breeds and keeps breeding… like Ebola, it dissolves every major life-giving organ in its path until death ensues.

COLORABLE MONEY – COLORABLE COURTS

To be “colorable,” is for something to appear to be what it is not. It looks real, you are told by your government that it is real and, in the example of currency, it is used or behaves as if it’s real, but it is not. Take what you are told is a dollar bill from your billfold. It looks like a dollar bill. You can spend it like a dollar bill. But it is not a dollar bill. It is a Federal Reserve Note. It says so, right on the face of it – at the top, above George Washington’s picture.

In the world of banking, what is a note? Answer: It is a loan. It is credit. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, fiat money has no value in and of itself, but it can be exchanged… like Monopoly money. A direct quote from the Minneapolis Fed: …(fiat currency can be exchanged) “for goods and services… because (the people) are confident it will be honored when they buy goods and services.”

Money and currency are not the same. We used to have money in America but when the dollar was no longer backed by gold or silver our “money” became a fiat currency. These things called a “Federal Reserve Note” became colorable currency, something that behaved like money because people could use it to buy groceries, cars, electronics, etc., and also pay for services like health care and life insurance. But it was not money. It was colorable… it just serves as a paper currency. Money is something of substance – like gold or silver. For Common Law to exist, money of substance must exist.

If a (colorable) Federal Reserve Note becomes part of a contract, the contract also becomes colorable. Colorable contracts, in turn, must be adjudicated under a “colorable” jurisdiction (system of justice – our courts). So when the colorable currency called Federal Reserve Notes was created, the government had to create a jurisdiction (court system) to cover colorable contracts. The incorporated governments called this new form of jurisdiction Statutory Law because though it was based on the Uniform Commercial Code which is based on Admiralty Law, “Statutory” is neither. Thus, Statutory Jurisdiction is colorable.

It sounds complicated, but if you think about it for a few minutes, it is really quite simple. Public Law was used in Common Law courts; Public Policy is used in Statutory courts… and that’s what gave bureaucrats control of our courtrooms. That’s what gave them the ability to prosecute members of the public because a regulation passed by a government agency rather than a law passed by Congress or your State Legislature, was violated.

So our courts have changed… how many times in the past years have you heard the term “The Petitioner does not have Standing to file this case… dismissed!” We have been unable to file cases against our government even when clear abuses of power exist. How many juries have been given rules they are told they must follow in determining a verdict, leaving them no choice other than “guilty” or “not guilty” regardless of what the evidence indicates? How many judges have withheld evidence from a jury? It has brought topics like “Nullification” to the forefront of the politically active. Nullification deals with a jury’s right to dismiss from its decision of guilt or innocence the judge’s directions as to what the jury may or may not consider in reaching its decision. Juries are empowered to nullify the judge’s directions if they feel it is justified.

All of this and more has been caused by the change from Common to a colorable form of Maritime Law called Statutory Law… a form of law required when our various governments incorporated — which, in turn, was required when the Federal Reserve System presented us with a “colorable currency.”

What have we Americans been taught by our government-subsidized education about the cause of our Revolutionary War? Mostly we were told about the Boston Tea Party, the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, and other nice stories.

Many people say the Revolution began because of the Crown’s Declaratory Act which taxed tea, taxed stamps, forced colonists to quarter in their homes members of the English military, etc. No. It began because of the Rothschilds and their central bank system which, in today’s world, has driven us to the brink of another world war.

It’s true that all those things were great irritants, but the real core problem involved central banking – the Bank of England. The colonists were forced by England’s King to use a paper currency issued by the Bank of England which demanded we use it – and we were to cede our colonial banking and monetary systems and pay interest to the Bank of England for using their paper money.

It sounds eerily like the way the Federal Reserve System in America works today, doesn’t it? It is, in fact, quite similar. So we must start with the assumption that what made our ancestors go to war in the 1700s is quite acceptable to Americans today because we have embraced what they were willing to die to prevent: Central banks and a fiat currency.

The Rothschilds were around when America was a colony of Great Britain and the fact that we were founded on the basis of Common Law troubled them. Why? Common Law is based on substance and rejects “colorable money” and “colorable courts.” Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution describes for you what “substance” relative to Common Law means: “Gold and silver,” not a meaningless fiat currency that has nothing backing it. That is a currency with no substance and violates Common Law.

Prior to the forming of the Federal Reserve System, America’s Constitutional Republic required the nation to pay its debts in gold or silver and Rothschild banks did not loan gold or silver. Thus they did not like our newly-formed government which rejected a fiat currency with nothing backing it (what we have today). As described above, the Rothschilds allowed the King of England to borrow paper money from them and got repaid in gold and silver.

Our Constitution declared gold and silver as the official currency of the United States of America and that’s why the Rothschilds financed the War of 1812. They wanted America as part of the United Kingdom so they could expand into the New World their Bank of England scam. They of course lost the War of 1812 and began seeking other ways to further their “we’ll loan you paper and you pay us back in gold and silver” scheme and began working on what we now have as a central banking system, the Federal Reserve, founded on December 23, 1913, 100 years after the War of 1812. And how legitimate is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Not very. Read the history.

Our ancestors in North America began to revolt against the Brits but we had Common Law in the Colonies at the time. When the King’s tax collectors made their rounds, however, they imposed Admiralty Law on the people. It enabled them to arrest and quickly try people, denying to what were mostly Englishmen and women the common rights due them as citizens of the Crown. That is what caused the Revolutionary War.

Perhaps the most interesting part of our history is that almost exactly the same thing has happened to us once again. What’s the old saying about what happens if we don’t learn from history? By incorporating federal, state, and county governments (because of the Federal Reserve’s colorable currency), the U.S. Government made it possible to remove the Common Law supported by our U.S. Constitution and implement a prostituted form of Maritime (or Admiralty) Law called Statutory Law. Our ancestors refused to tolerate it and it will be interesting to see if today’s society which seems more motivated by security and comfort than by right and wrong and liberty will accept the Law of the Seas.

To make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s start with some definitions and let them guide you to an understanding of how we got in our current mess. Only if we understand the history behind these massive problems will we be able to solve them.

To explain how the loss of Common Law robbed us of our independence and our Republic and how incorporating federal, state, and county governments made it possible, we need some definitions. You’re about to get a graduate school crash course in business and finance (and a little law):

JURISDICTION: 1. The right of a court to hear a particular case, based on the scope of its authority over the type of case and the parties to the case. 2. Authority or control. 3. The extent of authority or control. 4. The territorial range of authority or control.

While researching the jurisdiction of our courts, I came upon an article that was so well done, so easy for a non-lawyer to understand, I decided to reprint portions of it here. One of the difficult things about writing both Parts I and II of this article is stating things in a way that can be understood by non-bankers and non-lawyers. Since I’m not a lawyer, I particularly appreciated this article and recommend that you read it in its entirety HERE. I am not publishing the entire article below, just those parts that apply to this topic.

The article is a condensed story about a man named Howard Freeman and is based on a seminar Freeman gave in 1990. The article is written in ham and eggs English and is not filled with legal terminology that forces you to look every-other-word up in a legal dictionary. The following definition about Common Law, Equity Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Courts of Contract, Colorable Money and Colorable Courts, and the Uniform Commercial Code is taken from that seminar and the article written about it.

The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:

COMMON LAW

Common Law is based on God’s law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over the state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, ” BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS – IT’S THE LAW. ” This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

EQUITY LAW

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action – not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws Equity Laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract. (BARNEWALL NOTE: You may have signed an insurance contract agreeing to always wear your seat belts or otherwise obey all traffic laws and, of course, your state requires automobile insurance coverage.)

ADMIRALTY/MARITIME LAW

This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (all traffic codes, etc) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.

However, the courts don’t want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdictions, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case (Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, Supreme Court, 1938) – that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

COURTS OF CONTRACT

You must ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn’t the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand the Constitution, in Article I, § 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced – Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts.

CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. This is characteristic: It must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house,” etc. That was a valid contract – the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, “For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house….” And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a “colorable” dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law Jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

COLORABLE MONEY – COLORABLE COURTS

Colorable: That which exists in appearance only, and not in reality; not what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned have the appearance of truth. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.” Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let’s see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

The government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the “colorable” currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely “colorable” from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is “colorable” law, and it is used in all the courts.

(End of text from Howard Freeman’s seminar.)

Do you see how the Federal Reserve Notes were the basic cause of the problems we now see in our courts, our financial system, our Republic, our Independence as a people? They created a fiat currency backed by nothing. Keep in mind, the word “Note” means “Loan.” It is “colorable currency.”

The Common Law, as embodied in the US Constitution, for the protection and security of persons and property, is Substantive Common Law – [substantive right: a right {as of life, liberty, property, or reputation} held to exist for its own sake and to constitute part of the normal legal order of society] – the intention of the Founding Fathers being the assurance of access to this law by the people.

The most important thing we the people can work to achieve is Constitutional Counties. This system was imposed on us from the top down and must be unwound from the bottom up.

As I said in Part I of this article, corporations can be dissolved – and we need to do that. It’s not difficult to achieve… get enough signatures on a petition to get the initiative on your county ballot and vote the corporations out of existence.

It is, however, more difficult than it sounds. It requires extensive planning because you must remember how we got from a Constitutional Republic to Crony Capitalism. Here’s what I think happened.

The Federal Reserve came into being in 1913. Our money was turned into a fiat currency when President Nixon took us off of the gold standard. The U.S. Government was based on Common Law which made colorable money (money lacking substance – Common Law is based on substance) and that made it impossible for it to continue issuing Federal Reserve Notes. So the federal government incorporated itself which made it possible for them to continue with the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes. It became clear that the states could not accept colorable money from an incorporated federal government unless they, too, were incorporated – and the same thing happened to our counties. To gain access to a colorable currency, an entire system had to be created. How much simpler our lives would be if the Treasury Department had taken over America’s monetary system rather than build this octopus so the Federal Reserve System could be maintained! This attests to the power of the Rothschild central banking system. We might want to keep in mind that one of the primary problems in the Middle East is that Islam does not allow loan usury (interest) and not all of the nations in the Middle East have central banks. Libya didn’t have one – until Muammar Gaddafi was removed from office and killed. Libya now has a central bank. (The Stylebook at the Washington Post spells it “Gaddafi.” The Stylebook at the Associated Press spells it “Gadhafi.”)

Though it is not difficult to dissolve the corporations if it is the will of the people to regain their constitutional rights, a great deal of thought must go into how a county that dissolves its corporations will survive without federal and state dollars. Some of the questions that arise are:

  1. If Common Law is returned to our court system and our governing bodies, it requires a currency that has substance and contracts based on that substance. Fiat currency – Federal Reserve Notes – has no substance. How can those people being paid by the federal, state, or county governments get paid in a currency of substance? How about people receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits? How about veterans receiving retirement and VA benefits? They are being paid in Federal Reserve Notes (as we all are) which, since they are not redeemable in gold or silver, are deemed as having no substance and contracts with no substance are rejected by Common Law. This part of problem resolution is complex – but with good planning it can be done.
  2. Can fiat currency be used at all in a Constitutional County?
    3. Is there a way to reject the colorable Statutory Laws created by federal and state governments and build a bridge between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Equity Law, etc.?

There are many other questions, but to ask and answer them requires a book, not an article. The purpose of this two-part article has been to explain to you what I believe happened and what I believe the solution to be. It will not be easy. Nor will it be free.

Liberty is never free. How much you value it will determine the price you are willing to pay to regain it.

[The book: The Coming Battle, published in 1899, documents how the politicians of that period didn’t want the debt to be paid off. They wanted the debt to be rolled over from generation to generation. It continues to this day. It’s a must read.]

Click here for part —–> 1,

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who of American Women, Who’s Who in Finance and Business, and Who’s Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

E-Mail: marilynwrites@bresnan.net

 

The Police Threat Is Too High

January 12th, 2015 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/10/police-threat-high/

Paul Craig Roberts

The hypocrisy of American police is beginning to bother even law and order conservatives. The New York Police Department is rivaling the black community in Ferguson in keeping alive the murders of their community members.

We are constantly reminded of how dangerous it is to be a police officer. A total of 50 police officers were reportedly killed last year in the “line of duty,” but the police themselves managed to kill 1,029 Americans during the same time period, most of whom were unarmed and innocent of wrongdoings.

In other words, any encounter between the public and the police is more than 20 times more dangerous for the public than for the police.

That should raise questions about the absence of restraint on the ability of police to use deadly force as a first resort. Yet authorities and white communities invariably defend police violence against the public.

If Americans had half-decent educations, Americans would know that power comes from precedent. The police, like the executive branch, have now established themselves above the law. The laws that apply to the public do not apply to police, US presidents, presidential appointees, NSA, and CIA.

The URL below provides two short videos of Montana police officer Grant Morrison shooting to death in separate incidents two unarmed drivers pulled over by Morrison in routine traffic stops. In both cases, Morrison’s first actions are to scream obscenities and pull the trigger. Morrison comes across as completely crazed. It is inexplicable that Montana permits an armed lunatic to roam the streets pulling over cars. You try doing that.

Clearly the police are privileged and, thereby, unaccountable.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/09/1356607/-Montana-officer-Grant-Morrison-shoots-and-kills-his-second-unarmed-man-No-charges-in-either-case?detail=email

According to news reports, during eight years of what is called the Iraq War more US citizens were murdered by the police than US soldiers were killed in the war. In other words, US police are a greater threat to Americans than enemy forces are to US soldiers who have invaded a foreign country.

The other day I heard a NY police commissioner on NPR defend the NY police violence against Eric Garner that resulted in Garner’s death. The police commissioner said that Garner more or less brought on his own death by not quickly cooperating with police orders. When asked if selling single cigarettes out of a pack was a sufficiently dangerous act to justify police use of prohibited choke holds, the commissioner said Garner’s single cigarette sales were depriving NY City of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues that could be used for more and better schools and hospitals.

I was surprised to learn that selling “loosies” was a billion dollar business. Somehow that seems about as hard to believe as everything else authorities tell us.

Other countries manage to have police forces that do not indiscriminately gun down their citizens. Yet most Americans will support the police until it happens to them, but keep in mind that every time you get in your car you have placed yourself in far greater danger from police than you face from terrorists.

 10 13 11 flagbar

Oligarchy: America’s one party state

January 10th, 2015 by

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/oligarchy-americas-one-party-state?f=must_reads

1-10-2015 8-32-41 AM

By LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD

Oligarchy is defined as a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

The oligarchy is composed of the Democrat and Republican establishments, the media and the financiers, who every four years hire a President.

The political system they operate is known as “totalitarian democracy“, one in which lawfully elected representatives rule a nation state whose citizens, although granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of government.

The main policy of the American oligarchy is malfeasance, the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.

Or as Ambrose Bierce, a 19th century political satirist, described Washington D.C. as a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles and the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

How did, for example, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) manage to grow his net worth to $10 million while raising a large family, on a public official’s salary, and incurring the expenses associated with maintaining two residences on opposite sides of the country?

According to Peter Schweizer (“Throw them all out: how politicians and their friends get rich off insider stock tips, land deals, and cronyism that would send the rest of us to prison”):

“For the Government Rich, insider deals, insider trading, and taxpayer money have become a pathway to wealth. They get to walk this exclusive pathway because they get to operate by a different set of rules from the rest of us. And they get to do this while they are working for us, in the name of the “public service.”

“Crony capitalism unites these politicians with a certain class of businessmen who act as political entrepreneurs. They make their money from government subsidies, guaranteed loans, grants, and set-asides. They seek to steer the ship of state into profitable seas. Twenty-first-century privateers, they pursue wealth through political pull rather than by producing new products or services. In addition to these political entrepreneurs, big investors turn to lobbying and insider information from their sponsored politicians to make their investment decisions. And business is very good.”

During a December 6, 2014 speech, former Republican National Chairman and George W. Bush White House aide, Ed Gillespie spoke of the dangers that came from the massive growth of Big Government, creating what he called the “influence economy” as opposed to the long American tradition of a free market economy, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

“We can see an influence economy starting to take shape. CEOs are becoming less concerned about inventing the right products, targeting the right markets and hiring the right people in hopes of making a respectable profit for investors-and more concerned about getting the right lobbyists, retaining the right lawyers and attending the right fundraisers in hopes of getting a hefty subsidy from taxpayers. Making the right campaign contributions are becoming as important to a company as its research and development budget, and federal-compliance lawyers will soon outnumber patent lawyers.”

The conduct of Congress is driven purely by political expediency and winning elections for the sole purpose of obtaining power and profit. There is, in fact, no difference between the aims of Big Government Republicans and Big Government Democrats.

Democrats attain and maintain power by practicing tribal politics, emphasizing and exploiting grievances based on race, ethnicity, gender and income.

In contrast, Republicans have no principles at all, but tactics for obtaining office as junior partners in a government ruling class from where they can perform their post-election rewarding of special interests, while ignoring the needs and desires of their constituents.

To maintain control, both parties foster a culture of dependency on the government. Democrats create dependency by expanding federal mandates and increasing entitlements. Republicans promote dependency by limiting voter choice and crushing or co-opting independent thinkers and grass roots movements like the Tea Party.

Both parties use campaign deception, practice political expediency, engage in crony capitalism and, when necessary, promote voter fraud to sustain the corrupt status quo.

The American media support the oligarchy by helping to preserve the illusion of democracy and, thereby, facilitate the very corruption the people’s “watchdog” was meant to prevent. They enable tyranny by misinforming and misleading citizens as purveyors of a conventional wisdom defined along narrow political lines determined by financial self-interest.

The United States is now governed by a combination of executive over-reach, legislative complicity, judicial partisanship and journalistic decadence.

All the traditional means for ordinary Americans to safeguard representative government have now been blocked by a self-absorbed permanent political elite unrestrained by the Constitution and the rule of law.

Welcome to the elective despotism of a de-facto-one-party-state.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

The Road To War With Russia-We’re Not Only On It We’ve Already Arrived

January 9th, 2015 by

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2015/01/the-road-to-war-with-russia-were

-not-only-on-it-weve-already-arrived-2455268.html

1-9-2015 1-40-35 PM

 Chris Martenson

Peak Prosperity

For several weeks now the anti-Russian stance in the US press has quieted down. Presumably because the political leadership has moved its attention on to other things, and the media flock has followed suit. 

Have you read much about Ukraine and Russia recently?

I thought not, despite the fact that there’s plenty of serious action — both there as well as related activity in the US — going on that deserves our careful attention.

As I recently wrote, the plunging oil price is a potential catalyst for stock market turmoil and sovereign instability. Venezuela is already circling the drain, and numerous other oil exporters are in deep trouble as they foolishly expanded their national budgets and social programs to match the price of oil; something that is easy to do on the way up and devilishly tricky on the way down.

But consider the impact on Russia. From the Russian point of view, everything from their plunging ruble to bitter sanctions to the falling price of oil are the fault of the US, either directly or indirectly. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant; that’s the view of the Russians right now. So no surprise,  it doesn’t dispose them towards much in the way of good-will towards the West generally, and the US specifically.

The fall in the price of oil is creating serious difficulties economically and financially for Russia. We’ll get to those facets in a minute. But right now, I want to focus on the continued belligerence of the US towards Russia — some of which is overt and some of which, you can be certain, is covert — which could very well end up provoking a more kinetic and dangerous response than the West is prepared for.

Russia Forced To Act

Before anyone jumps in to say “Why are you defending Putin? He’s a bad”, let me just say that I have been closely analyzing each move by Russia and the West since then President of Ukraine Yanukovych declined to sign the European Association Agreement back in November of 2013. 

Based on the preponderance of evidence, its’ clear to me that the West/US deserve the lion’s share of the blame for the conflict that now rages with Ukraine and between Russia and the western world.

It was the West that supported the unsavory assortment of thugs, neo-Nazis, and ultra-nationalists that seized power in a coup from the democratically-elected Yanukovych.  We can argue all we want about whether he was a good boy or not, but that’s irrelevant and plays into the hands of those at the US State Department who would like to deflect attention away from the very non-democratic events (shaped behind the scenes by our influence) that led to his overthrow.

The US did the same thing with Saddam, if you recall. It’s a simple deflection: away from the actions of the US, and towards the character of the person standing in the line of fire from those actions.

In my view, if Yanukovych had not been violently deposed, Ukraine would be peaceful right now, Russia would not have had to intervene, and there would be no civil war in Ukraine and far reduced tensions between the West and Russia.

So ham-handed were those efforts to intervene in Ukraine on the part of the Obama State department that no less an historically loathsome creature than Henry Kissinger even called the US’s actions a ‘fatal mistake’:

Kissinger warns of West’s ‘fatal mistake’ that may lead to new Cold War

Nov 10, 2014

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has given a chilling assessment of a new geopolitical situation taking shape amid the Ukrainian crisis, warning of a possible new Cold War and calling the West’s approach to the crisis a “fatal mistake.”

The 91-year-old diplomat characterized the tense relations as exhibiting the danger of “another Cold War.”

“This danger does exist and we can’t ignore it,” Kissinger said. He warned that ignoring this danger any further may result in a tragedy,” he told Germany’s Der Spiegel.

(Source)

When even Henry Kissinger thinks you’ve been too reckless in the application of raw power, you’ve over done it.

So given the timeline of the events that have led to the frostiest US-Russian relations since the depths of the cold war, I am of the view that Russia has been actually quite restrained and has not over reacted to any of the numerous provocations.

Despite the lull in front page reporting of the Russian situation, there remains a careful program of steady anti-Russian propaganda running through the western press.

It Takes Two To Tango

prop·a·gan·da

ˌpräpəˈɡandə/

Noun  – derogatory

Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

For propaganda to work well, there needs to be tight coordination between the State and the press.  The role of the press is to first publish the propaganda, and second, to neglect to look into it or report on anything that might call it into question. Sins of omission and commission are both required.

The good news is that the internet is a great equalizing force and we can readily unearth inconvenient facts with a little digging that blunt the propaganda. The bad news is that a lot of people still get all their news from so-called ‘official’ sources.

At any rate, here’s a first-rate piece of unadulterated propaganda courtesy of Bloomberg.  Note that it was printed on Dec 31, one of several very quiet news days where little debate is likely to happen:

Inside Obama’s Secret Outreach to Russia

President Barack Obama’s administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.

In several conversations with Lavrov, Kerry has floated an offer to Russia that would pave the way for a partial release of some of the most onerous economic sanctions. Kerry’s conditions included Russia adhering to September’s Minsk agreement and ceasing direct military support for the Ukrainian separatists. 

(Source)

The tenor of this piece is set. It’s the US that is trying to be reasonable, but Russia has shown little interest in repairing relations. That’s one assertion.

Another is that Russia has been providing direct military support for the separatists in neighboring Ukraine. And yet another that Putin himself has shown little interest in halting his aggression. 

That’s the main narrative that the US wants to put forward. Putin is a bad guy. Like Saddam…remember him?  The US is the one being reasonable here, according to this piece, and it is Russia that has been fomenting the troubles.

The US narrative goes further, repeatedly claiming that Russia has been supplying major arms to the separatists, as we see here from early December 2014:

U.S. Says Russia Arms Ukraine Rebels, OSCE Wary on Truce

Dec 2, 2014

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg accused Russia of sending tanks, advanced air-defense systems and other heavy weapons across the border to Ukrainian rebels.

Russia denies involvement in the conflict.

“Since the Sept. 5 Minsk cease-fire agreement, Russia has funneled several hundred” tanks, armed personnel carriers, and other military vehicles directly to pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, Kerry said.

Russian military forces still operate inside eastern Ukraine where they provide “command and control” for the separatists they back, he added.

(Source)

The charge from the Secretary General of NATO and from John Kerry of the US State department is that Russia has military forces inside Ukraine, and that they’ve funneled hundreds of tanks, APCs, and other military vehicles numbering in the hundreds.

As with the MH-17 disaster, we have to call this another case of the dog that did not bark.

Where are the pictures?

The sorts of weaponry being claimed here are impossible to conceal from the air.

Snapping high resolution photos of such things is child’s play for today’s military satellites, and even civilian ones, too.

Accusing a major world power of action this brash should require at least some demonstration of proof. Especially after the WMD warning fiasco that played out at the UN leading up to the Bush II Iraq invasion. The least you could do is provide a few pictures of said military vehicles and heavy weaponry.

But there are none.  And the reason none have been offered is because none exist.  If they did, you can be 100% certain they’d be released and replayed over and over again on CNN until everybody and their uncle could distinguish a T-72 tank outline from a Russian made APC.

About Those ‘Unwilling’ Russians

Let’s look more closely at the reasons why Russia may not exactly be in a conciliatory mood towards the US at this moment in time.

With just our short-term memories, we can recall that the US Congress passed a serious piece of anti-Russian resolution last month that can easily be seen as a declaration of war by a reasonable person.

This unfortunate piece of legislation, H.Res. 758, was passed on December 4, 2014 and is titled “Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”

Ron Paul expressed the problems with this resolution very well:

Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was not an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.

 

The Missing 13th Amendment

January 8th, 2015 by

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/01/07/the-missing-13th-amendment/#more-9579

THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION BARRED THE BAR’S

‘ESQUIRES’ FROM HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE!

By Judge Dale, retired 

From the ACS Editor: Judge Dale also explains how the momentous Supreme Court decision, Bond v. US (2000), was intentionally buried to prevent the people from finding out about the faux USA corporate government that has been unlawfully ‘slid’ into place.

1-8-2015 10-22-19 AM

On or about March 20, 2013, the New Hampshire Legislature passed HB 638, recognizing Article XIII, known by few as: “The Missing 13TH Amendment,” missing from the organic Constitution of the United States of America and the legislative analysis that was offered, described a trite but secret history of this mystical amendment, which I have encapsulated as follows:

RE: During the American Civil War, the country was under Martial Law by President Lincoln and after the War, Lincoln’s policies were to be abated and everything was supposed to return to normal but it didn’t happen quite that way. Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which created a government corporation within the District of Columbia, called: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This new government corporation replaced the Municipal Charter for the District of Columbia, a move that egregiously led to the fraudulent rewrite and adoption of what appeared to be the organic American Constitution. This erroneous rewrite is described as a corporate “mission statement” with the original 13TH Amendment “omitted” and it was this Constitutional rewrite that was inadvertently published for all to see.

Members of royalty, PhD’s, lawyers, squires and bankers, “Titles of Nobility,” have left an historic wake of deceit, destruction and corruption behind them on this planet and I would like to believe that it was the majority intent of the Founding Fathers and the first federal convention, to shield America from those proven elements of destruction and corruption. In so doing they proposed and ratified several amendments, one being Article XIII or the 13th Amendment, specifically designed to bar candidates who held such “Titles of Nobility,” from ever holding a seat in government! Each year since 1871, Lincoln’s Martial Law has been renewed by Congress and currently, all state and federal governments are dominated by legislators with, “Titles of Nobility.” What was once regarded as a service to country is now a political career.

Quote: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens at all, you can bet it was planned that way.” Franklin D. Roosevelt

The described “omission” of Article XIII [the missing 13th Amendment] and the “mission statement” the fraudulent copy of the organic constitution initiates the following [ten] questions, which I will attempt to answer as succinctly as I can.

QUESTION 1: How do you “omit” a Constitutional Article when they are all sequentially numbered?

ANSWER 1: Obviously this is a lawyer’s response by the New Hampshire Legislature because you cannot simply “omit” a Constitutional Amendment, they are sequentially numbered! The original Article XIII was intentionally and methodically removed from existence, which took a number of years to complete and was NOT simply “omitted.” It required a conspiracy; a federal rewrite; the removal of all former texts and references to the original Article XIII and the domination of all the various state government legislatures by candidates holding, “Titles of Nobility,” who would be willing to save their careers at any cost, thus proving that this was all intentional on their part to complete and sustain its demise.

QUESTION 2: Why didn’t Lincoln’s Martial Law policies abate and the government return back to normal following the Civil War?

ANSWER 2: The federal government for the American Republic had IMPLODED when the southern states decided to secede from the Union and walk out while Congress was still in session. Absent the presence of those southern state delegates, Congress could not adjourn and could not move forward for lack of a quorum! President Lincoln became the federal law under Martial Law until a new federal government could be assembled.

QUESTION 3: President Lincoln was a lawyer, a Title of Nobility, and several delegates and predecessors’ were lawyers! Now how can that be, given that the original 13th Amendment prohibited persons possessing a, “Title of Nobility,” from ever holding a seat in government and given that the 13th Amendment had not been “omitted” until 1871, during the Lincoln Administration?

ANSWER 3: The Truth is that the American Republic never enjoyed a Constitutional government beginning with the election of George Washington. George took office one year before the Constitution permitted; he subsequently overthrew the organic Constitution; reinstated the British owned Virginia Colony Corporation; altered the Oath of Office requirements; installed a corporate Military government in place of a Civilian government and replaced the Common Law with a commercial law known as “Admiralty” or “the law of the sea.” George then declared that: “All of America is now under water!” George was a 32nd Degree Freemason and a descendent of William, the Prince of Orange, the Sovereign King of America, according to the signed copy of the, “Paris Treaty of 1783.” This gave him the notion that he too could become King of America!

We all have been taught to think and believe that George Washington was this great military man of honor; a hero and “The father of this country.” If you were a Congressman and part of that Great Political Conspiracy and knocking down approximately three to four million a year, you might be inclined to believe that hogwash too but in actuality, George was the first traitor to the American Republic and who was memorialized by Congress by the construction of the Washington Monument, a 555 foot tall sea level obelisk, representing that: “America is now under water!”

QUESTION 4: Why was President Lincoln forced to declare Martial Law and exercise Executive Privilege to create policy during and after the Civil War, when Martial Law was always intended to be a temporary solution?

ANSWER 4: Martial Law was imposed rather than admit that the Union was dissolved. Under Martial Law, Lincoln became the federal law until he and Congress could regroup, and war was then declared as a distraction.

Note: The Civil War was never about the slave question but that is what we were taught in order to conceal the historic truth and Lincoln subsequently became the second memorialized traitor to the American Republic. I cannot find any evidence to support the notion that the southern state governments were a part of this grand conspiracy however their secession and attack on Fort Sumter was both convenient and timely! When the southern delegates rejoined the corporate federal government they to shared in the fruits of the piracy of American labor and industry.

QUESTION 5: Why did Congress feel the need to renew Lincoln’s Order of Martial Law, every year since the Civil War?

ANSWER 5: The federal government has committed an ongoing treason against the American Republic from day ONE and the organic Constitution would have severely restricted the Congress and the President. Under Martial Law those restrictions are suspended, which in turn grants the Corporate “alleged” President the power of Executive Privilege to create policy without Congressional oversight. Since Martial Law can only be invoked during War or during Acts of Civil disobedience, the corporate federal government has obviously declared War upon the American Republic ever since 1781. Hence, their reason to renew Lincoln’s Martial Law each year!

NOTE: By 1933, the Roosevelt Administration passed the Emergency Banking Act. Concealed within this act is a modification of the Trading with the Enemy Act, wherein Congress has declared that the American people are the enemy of the federal government! Also concealed within this Act, Roosevelt dissolved the Virginia Colony Corporation.

QUESTION 6: How could Congress pass the Organic Act of 1871, when the US Constitution absolutely prohibited government corporations?

ANSWER 6: The Organic Act set the stage for a new federal corporation and prevented the Lincoln Administration from having to disclose to the American public that the federal government was dissolved and never was constitutional, which would have exposed that the Civil War was used as a distraction and treasonous solution to their problem.

NOTE: I believe that Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was completely heartfelt and was the act of a repentant man who felt totally responsible for all the death and destruction that had occurred. I also believed that a guilt ridden Lincoln constantly placed himself in harms way, hoping that he would be dispatched with prejudice.

QUESTION 7: Why did Congress feel the need to create a new Municipal Charter for the District of Columbia?

ANSWER 7: Had Congress disclosed that secession by the south had legally dissolved the federal government, the American public probably would have demanded that a new Constitutional government be created, with new elections held because of a lack of faith in the previous delegates and that would have destroyed their federal careers; positions of power and visions of grandeur. So the Organic Act was passed and a new commercial corporation created having a Constitutional appearance and reference (ie) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, under which was concealed the original private foreign Virginia Colony Corporation. Under this new corporation, all of them could profit from the commercial piracy of American labor and industry.

QUESTION 8: Why did Congress copy and modify the organic Constitution to create a “mission statement”?

ANSWER 8] Congress was better able to maintain the “illusion” of a constitutional government for the American Republic, by using and modifying the organic Constitution as a “mission statement” without officially touching the organic Constitution! The federal officials regarded this plan as plausible deniability and business as usual. All they ever had to claim was that a mistake had been made by omitting Article XIII. Congress’s new “mission statement” can also be easily modified to suit their collective preference without convening a Constitutional Convention. Hence: The adoption of the Civil Rights Act and Tax Laws, etc. were all a corporate ruse! It was the corporate “mission statement” that was actually being modified by all their new amendments and NOT the organic Constitution and this is how it appears lately that Congress has unlawfully repealed several Constitutional amendments without convening a Constitutional Convention! Everything that has happened in government during the past 224 years has been an “illusion” and the original organic Constitution remains in tact and valid!

NOTE: The US Printing Office reprints the organic Constitution; the Articles of Confederation; the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Territorial Treaty, every four years. These four documents are the laws of the land or the foundation of all American law and can be researched at the US Printing Office.

QUESTION 9: Why was this “mission statement” published and taught by all government controlled public and parochial schools, as the one and only organic Constitution of America?

ANSWER 9: The purpose behind this decision and their procuring educational control, was to dumb down the American public and control what we are taught, know and believe using fraudulent information and various other constructive forms of propaganda through altered publications, the media, the press and movies. The organic Constitution needs stricter controls but would have actually prevented the federal usurpation, propaganda, oppression, fraud, commercial slavery and theft that has occurred throughout the years but no one in the American Republic was paying attention to what was to happening and they placed far too much trust in their elected representatives! In all fairness, we were a nation of immigrants and the bulk of our ancestors were illiterate, so it was actually quite easy for Congress to carry out this usurpation and conspiracy.

NOTE: If you incurred a lot of debt for an education, you’re going to really be upset to learn that in a free society your college degree and most of your education will be absolutely worthless. You will probably need to be deprogrammed and then re-educated.

QUESTION 10: Up to the year 1871, why is it that out of the sixteen US Presidents, who had previously served, was Washington and Lincoln, the only US Presidents memorialized by the Congress?

ANSWER 10: The corrupt efforts of Washington and Lincoln’s Administration did the most to undermine the American Republic and to further the goals of the private foreign corporate partnership and their commercial piracy of American labor and industry! That made Washington and Lincoln hero’s in the eyes of the Congress and so we were taught and conditioned like trained monkeys, to laud these two Presidents’ as Great American Hero’s! The Nobility regard us as their slaves and so we are conditioned to celebrate their beliefs, holidays and hero’s!

How could this have happened, you ask? Certainly somebody should have caught on to this federal plot before now? Well they did, and all it took was a little government propaganda claiming that those individuals are mentally ill, drug dealers or are involved in a terrorist organization and plot to destroy this country! Next, incorporate the full weight of the FBI, to take those Patriots into custody on false charges and everyone stops paying attention to the message and the evidence these true Patriots were attempting to expose!

Still don’t believe that this was all possible? Well, consider this: What is the first thing we do when a baby cries? We distract them with funny faces, baby talk, rocking or play peek-a-boo and if we discover the right distraction, the baby stops crying! This is exactly how our state and federal politicians “handle” us and the three best distractions they discovered were, “fear, debt and war!”

These Traitors and Pirates don’t do anything in a hurry because time is always on their side. Some of their plans have taken as long as one hundred years to fulfill and some will never be fulfilled but that has never deterred them.

HISTORIC SYNOPSIS: In 1871 the “slave question” and “Lincoln’s election” divided a Nation and set the stage for a conspiracy to create a new private foreign corporation designed to convert the federal government into a business and pirate America’s labor and industry. The next step was to divert the public’s attention by creating a distraction using fear, debt and war. Hence, the south secedes; the federal government implodes; Martial Law is imposed and Lincoln suddenly enjoys the power of a Dictator by and through “Executive Privilege.” [Sounds allot like today, doesn’t it!] Fort Sumter is attacked, War is Declared, and patriotism and prejudice is force fed to the American public! Fear, Debt and War creates hardship for the Republic while Commerce flourishes and fills the pockets of the Politicians and their partners in crime, the European Royal and Elite owners of the Virginia Colony Corporation!

During all this distraction, the private foreign corporation called, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is created and filed; the organic Constitution is copied as a corporate “mission statement,” absent Article XIII and both replace the Municipal Charter for the District of Columbia! All that remained was to destroy all copies and references to the organic 13th Amendment and then convince the American public that this fraudulent rewrite is the one and only Constitution of the United States of America! CHECKMATE! And this devious example became a paradigm for all future historic events!

The New Hampshire Legislature was coy and subtle in their recent effort at transparency, by suggesting that the removal of Article XIII [the missing 13th Amendment] was merely an “omission” and that the fraudulent Constitutional rewrite in 1871 was intended to be used only as a corporate “mission statement” for the District of Columbia. Obviously some habits are hard to break!

What they haven’t said is that: We AMERICANS are really SOVEREIGN and that all American governments, courts and agencies are unconstitutional private foreign CORPORATIONS for profit; that have absolutely NO authority or jurisdictional power over the SOVEREIGN AMERICAN REPUBLIC! The Supreme Court admitted this in the year 2000, in their decision of [Bond v. United States, 529 US 334, 2000] and our government controlled media swept it neatly under the carpet! In an attempt to avoid repercussions, the government created a false case and decision titled [US v. Bond] before the federal appeals court reversing the US Supreme Court. Some of you would never realize that there is NO body of law that can reverse the US Supreme Court; it’s the highest court in America even under their corporate regulations but then creating “illusions” and lying to the American Republic is second nature to them!

I choose to believe that these New Hampshire Legislators are subtlety circumventing a nefarious history in which they and their brotherhood continue to play an integral part in! I also believe that the members of that state legislature now foresee their future arrest, loss of liberty and political demise and that this recent attempt at transparency, is actually an intelligent attempt to solicit some degree of leniency and forgiveness from the American public. You be the Judge!

Blessings, Judge Dale, retired

 From the ACS Editor:

Let’s not forget that in 2000 the so-called Supreme Court was pressured into unconstitutionally deciding the Gore v Bush election.  So by then, the Bush cabal had the ability to manipulate the Supreme Court.  The fact that this criminal regime (in control of the federal corporation) could and would bury a court decision like Bond v. US (2000) is certainly within the realm of probability, just as Judge Dale reported. 

 

BATFE Ruling Creates New Hurdle To Private Gun Manufacture

January 7th, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/batfe-ruling-creates-new-hurdle-to.html

 

1-7-2015 12-06-11 PM

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

It only took two days before the anti-gun American bureaucracy began chipping away at the Second Amendment in areas where Congress and the President, despite being backed by billion dollar NGOs and Foundations, have so far been unsuccessful.

On January 2, 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) issued its ruling regarding “whether Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL), or unlicensed machine shops, may engage in the business of completing, or assisting in the completion of, the manufacture of firearm frames or receivers for unlicensed individuals without being licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.”

The ruling that was made in order to address the issue that ATF Ruling 2015-1 has called into question – whether or not the ability of American citizens to produce their own weapons, pass them down, and modify those weapons in specific capacities will remain a viable option.

Thankfully, the BATFE is not attempting to entirely eliminate the ability of individuals to manufacture their own weapons, but the agency is attempting to limit that ability.

So far, the policy of the BATFE’s Firearms Technology Branch (now called the Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch) as it was enumerated in 2010 remains the same. The BATFE states that “For your information, per the provisions of the GCA, an unlicensed individual may make a ‘firearm’ as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.” The FTB continued by stating “Also, based on the GCA, manufacturers’ marks of identification are not required on firearms that are produced by individuals for personal use.

Prince Law Offices analyzed the policy statement and concluded that “it is completely lawful, as acknowledged by ATF, for one to manufacture his/her/its own firearm, provided there is no intent to sell or distribute it.” However, the lawyers’ blog also asked another pertinent question, “but what about when that individual is incapable of turning a block of metal or 80% lower into a functioning firearm?

Regardless, the ruling from the BATFE was justified on the grounds that the agency had been receiving “inquiries from the public” on the issue of private gun manufacture. Of course, given the history of the BATFE, one would be justified in wondering whether or not these “inquiries” in fact existed.

Nevertheless, the BATFE began its ruling by explaining part of the issue at hand – that some individuals purchase “castings or machined/molded or other manufactured bodies (sometimes referred to as “blanks,” or “80% receivers”) that have not yet reached a stage of manufacture in which they are classified as ‘firearm frames or receivers’ under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).” Many of these individuals are not able to complete the manufacture of the gun, particularly the fire control cavity, and, for that reason, seek out a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) or a machine shop in order to assist them in the remaining steps of the procedure.

True to form, the BATFE has ruled that not only are FFLs and gunsmiths not allowed to complete the process of manufacturing these guns, but private machine shops are not allowed to complete the process either, even if the machine shop is merely allowing its equipment to be used by the individual producing the gun.

The ruling states,

An FFL or unlicensed machine shop may also desire to make available its machinery (e.g., a computer numeric control or “CNC” machine), tools, or equipment to individuals who bring in raw materials, blanks, unfinished frames or receivers and/or other firearm parts for the purpose of creating operable firearms. Under the instruction or supervision of the FFL or unlicensed machine shop, the customers would initiate and/or manipulate the machinery, tools, or equipment to complete the frame or receiver, or entire weapon. The FFL or unlicensed machine shop would typically charge a fee for such activity, or receive some other form of compensation or benefit. This activity may occur either at a fixed premises, such as a machine shop, or a temporary location, such as a gun show or event.

A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements under the GCA simply by allowing individuals to initiate or manipulate a CNC machine, or to use machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion or control to perform manufacturing processes on blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or incomplete weapons. In these cases, the business controls access to, and use of, its machinery, tools, and equipment. Following manufacture, the business “distributes” a firearm when it returns or otherwise disposes a finished frame or receiver, or complete weapon to its customer. Such individuals or entities are, therefore, “engaged in the business” of manufacturing firearms even though unlicensed individuals may have assisted them in the manufacturing process.

Held, any person (including any corporation or other legal entity) engaged in the business of performing machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other manufacturing process to create a firearm frame or receiver, or to make a frame or receiver suitable for use as part of a “weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” i.e., a “firearm,” must be licensed as a manufacturer under the GCA; identify (mark) any such firearm; and maintain required manufacturer’s records.

Held further, a business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA by allowing persons to perform manufacturing processes on blanks or incomplete firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery, tools, or equipment.

Held further, this ruling is limited to an interpretation of the requirements imposed on persons under the GCA, and does not interpret the requirements of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5801 et. seq.

While not a ruling on the level of a gun ban or a direct ban on the private production and manufacture of guns, it is nonetheless an example of the chipping away of the Second Amendment rights of American citizens bit by bit, minuscule ruling by minuscule ruling.

While I can understand the rationale behind the determination where the individual is under the “instruction or supervision ” of an unlicensed machine shop, as the machine shop or its employees would seemingly be causing the machine to perform the modifications to the 80% lower, I cannot understand or see any (legal) rationale, where the non-licensed machine shop only makes available the equipment and does not provide any instruction or supervision. If the machine shop merely offers individuals the opportunity to utilize its equipment for either a set fee or hourly rate, as a number of machine shops and vocation technical schools offer, the business or school is not involved in any distribution of the firearm nor is it engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms, as the individual retains absolute possession and control in the manufacture of the firearm. The ridiculousness of this determination and logical outgrowth suggests that any manufacturer of drills, drill presses, drill bits, CNC machines, 3d printers…etc is also involved in the distribution of firearms and engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms, even though they only sold a product that the end user elected to utilize in a particular way. If the machine shop only offers its equipment for rental, and does not provide any supervision or guidance, it is no different than the manufacturer of the equipment being utilized.

To be clear, this ruling does not end the practice of manufacturing one’s own firearm. It does, however, put a serious financial dent in the process not only for the individual producing their firearm but for the myriad of companies that produce what is known as “80% lowers.” By ruling that individuals must be able to complete the entire process with their own tools, the number of individuals able to do so (due to their lack of all the proper tools) is likely to go down drastically and thus, the amount of firearm parts and accessories sold and manufactured will be vastly reduced.

The Prince Law Offices, the organization that was largely responsible for revealing the recent BATFE ruling, commented further on the “plethora of concerns” raised by the ruling by asking,

What if the individual borrows a tool from a neighbor? What if the equipment utilized is jointly owned (such as marital property)? Can a company offer membership, whereby any member is entitled to utilize the company equipment for free, and the member complete his/her/its firearm on the company equipment since the business would not be engage in the business? Do machine shops now need to inquire of the individual as to what he/she/it is going to be utilizing the machinery for?

In addition to an analysis of the ruling from a legal standpoint, the blog for Prince Law Offices provides an excellent appraisal of the ruling from more personal, Constitutional perspective. The blog states,

Clearly, there is opportunity for anyone or entity aggrieved to challenge ATF’s Ruling but will anyone from the Industry step up to the plate? With a few recent exceptions, our Industry has generally declined to push-back against ATF’s overarching determinations. Many in the Firearms Industry believe that they can make a deal with the devil and not get burnt (ATF-41p anyone?) or that if they make any waves, they’ll be in the cross hairs of the out-of-control agency known as ATF. Unfortunately, both of those positions have led us to where we are today. We take it on the chin, time after time, and allow ATF to do as it wishes. Either, we need to start pushing back (as some are now doing) or there won’t be an Industry to fight for and our Industry isn’t just an industry, its the Second Amendment.

While the reports of this new ruling will undoubtedly produce a chorus of criticism against those concerned by and opposed to it, with proponents and apathetic observers suggesting that the ruling is no big deal and that, if you can afford to pay the machine shop you can afford the tools, it should be remembered that the issue is not owning tools or mere changes in minor details, it is the ability of free individuals who have a Constitutional and a natural right to own and produce guns for purposes of self-defense that we should be concerned with. What could not be accomplished (yet) with laws passed by Congress or even Executive Orders signed by the President is being accomplished bit by bit as a result of minute rule changes by any one of the myriad organizations that govern the private facets of gun ownership, transfer, and production.

1-7-2015 12-06-49 PM

The game is simple – what cannot be accomplished by law or decree can be accomplished through small and incremental rule changes that go largely unnoticed and unopposed at the time of their implementation. As time progresses, America acclimates to the “rules.” We may not like them but that’s the way it is. It should be clear enough by now that it is high time for Americans to straighten up their backs and change “the way it is.”

10 13 11 flagbar

 

2015 Reminder: Government Word is Worthless

January 5th, 2015 by

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2015/01/05/2015-reminder-

government-word-is-worthless/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=

email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

By Robert Barsocchini

As US government figures and departments, such as the “FBI” (which, according to its own documents, tried to “destroy Martin Luther King, Jr.”), continue to make and act on “official pronouncements”, let’s remember that these people have less than no credibility.  They have used lies, extreme violence, and stolen property to build themselves the most massive garrison/exploitation/surveillance state in human history, and are thus the very last people who should be taken at their word.

1-5-2015 10-59-40 AM

 

We can review innumerable current and recent lies and their consequences, but we should always keep in mind that they are nothing new.

Here are two grave examples of lies by the US government industry that we must continue to talk about, as most people are still entirely unaware of them thanks to a corporate/government information system that benefits from fostering nationalistic support for US global terrorism.

1.

Pentagon historians write (ch. 18) that in June, 1964, a top US official relayed a secret message to the military commander of the brutal and hated US puppet-dictatorship in South Vietnam that “…the United States Government would in the immediate future be preparing U.S. public opinion for actions against North Vietnam.

Within two months, on August 2, 1964, the United States Government carried out its planned, coordinated Gulf of Tonkin disinformation campaign.  US officials fabricated an entire event, then announced the fake event to the US public via various media outlets, to justify a massive escalation of the USA’s ongoing genocide against the people of Vietnam and Indochina generally.

US officials said, straight to the faces of the US public, that Vietnam attacked a civilian US ship in international waters.  In reality, it was a US military ship illegally invading Vietnamese territorial waters, andit was never attacked.  The US followed this up by entirely fabricating yet another such story.

Having thus “prepared” US public opinion through mass, coordinated, brazen lying, the US proceeded to kill millions more people in Indochina and send tens of thousands more young US men (many under forced death-labor, or “draft”, “laws”, which US officials also made up) to their violent deaths.  At the same time, the US was persecuting and brutally repressing people at home for peacefully speaking out against the war, jailing them as well as firing live rounds into crowds, killing or crippling several young people.

2.

After the biggest instantaneous terrorist attack in world history, the nuclear wipe-out of the bustling civilian city of Hiroshima, Truman looked straight into the faces of the US people and said the US had just detonated the first atomic bomb “on Hiroshimaa military baseThat was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This should tell you something about the value of such official statements.  They are not only worth nothing, but are in fact poison, justifying and “preparing US public opinion”, through coordinated, outright deception, for the continued killings of millions of people.  These preposterous lies about wishing to avoid the killing of civilians continue today, repeated essentially verbatim by US government/industrial figures at all levels regarding every crime and massacre they perpetrate.  The stolen Pentagon Papers show that the only effective check on intentional US mass-killings of civilians is how much they can get away with without causing a revolution at home or utter denouncement internationally, the latter of which they have beenincapable of avoiding.

On PBS, a WWII “documentary” I happened to catch (one of innumerable dishonest, nationalistic, US-state-terror-propagating WW2 “documentaries” produced for US TV) featured the above, televised statement in which Truman announced the US nuking of Hiroshima.  However, PBS cut out the part where he lied and said Hiroshima was a military base and that the US chose to attack it because it was trying not to hit civilians.  Clearly, they didn’t want to show how wholly and brazenly the highest, most exalted “leader” will calmly, casually, confidently lie to the face of every captivated, heavily taxed outsider.

What these documentaries and Hollywood movies never reveal is that the US government did not enter WW2 to help the Jews or the Chinese.  The US, for profit and power reasons and knowing very well what the fascist groups were doing (persecuting Jews, bombing/exploiting civilians), supported both the Japanese fascist/colonial invasion of China and European fascism/colonialism (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco).  Support continued (Hitler was – you guessed it – a “moderate”) until US government-industrial planners determined that these groups were starting to get too strong, to horn in too much on raw materials (natural resources) and labor markets that the US wanted to dominate, potentially enabling these countries to shake off their dependency on US industry.  Had these fascist groups curbed their ambitions a bit, they would today very likely still exist as US puppet/client regimes, like the fascist Saudi theocracy, which became a US client in the 1930s when Saudi oil was discovered, and remains one today.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

LIARS – LIARS – LIARS

WE ARE DROWNING IN LIARS

Since most of you folks believe you put these scumbags in office, instead of the International Investment Banking Cartel. Who is to blame for your continued participation in this game of “fool the people”? The people are running around like headless chickens, while the Banker-Butchers laugh their ass off. If you really want honest government in America, I suggest you get involved in research and wake up a few thousand sheep. Remember; the big corporations are also controlled by the Banker-Butchers! Also remember that the best way to stop a war is to get rid of the generals. In this case it’s the Banker-Butchers. If you want to continue living the good life, EARN IT!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

1000 Plus people killed by cops in 2014 FBI Trying to Falsely Report Actual Numbers

January 3rd, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/1000-people-killed-by-cops-in-2014-fbi.html

1-3-2015 9-30-38 AM

Justin King
Activist Post

Another year has come to an end, which means another set of Unified Crime Reports (UCR) will be published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The reports are supposed to be the most authoritative set of data on crime in the US.

As has become the habit with most federal documents, the numbers are cooked. They could have honestly just made them up. In 2013, the FBI reported that there were 461 people killed by cops in the US.

461 seems to be a fairly good number. It fits with the estimates of 500 per year that most believe to be accurate. The problem is that the actual number of people killed by cops in 2013 is much higher.

On May 1st, 2013 activists began keeping track of

Corporate news reports of people killed by nonmilitary law enforcement officers, whether in the line of duty or not, and regardless of reason or method. 

Inclusion implies neither wrongdoing nor justification on the part of the person killed or the officer involved. The post merely documents the occurrence of a death.

 

Even though they missed the first four months of the year, they logged over 763 people killed by cops from May until the year’s end.

The results can be found here, complete with links to the stories about the individual killings.

2013 wasn’t an exceptionally high year. The website catalogs over 1000 people killed by police in 2014. The UCR has never reported anything even remotely close to this number.

Readers are left with choosing from three options:

  1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency known for investigating things, simply can’t count up news reports of people killed by cops.
  2. The FBI has set the criteria for inclusion in the report so narrowly that more than half of those people killed by cops just don’t make the cut.
  3. The FBI is intentionally lying about the number of people killed.

The answer is a combination of all three.

The FBI has no desire to publicize the number of people killed by cops. After all, this is the same government entity that has shot 150 people, and cleared themselves in every single case. Even in the case that resulted in US taxpayers having to fork over $1.3 million to the victim of an FBI shooting, it was deemed justified. If the government wanted to disclose accurate numbers, they could. It isn’t difficult. Apparently, literacy is not a requirement to work for the FBI because they certainly aren’t reading the papers.

The criteria is exceedingly narrow and vague all at the same time. To be included, the case must involve a justifiable homicide of a felon by a law enforcement officer while on duty. So when cops kill someone for selling loose cigarettes, it isn’t included because it’s a misdemeanor. When a cop guns down an unarmed kid in a Wal-Mart, it isn’t included because there was no crime being committed by the suspect. When an off-duty cop flips out and shoots a woman in the head because he didn’t like her driving, it isn’t included.

In other words, the report intentionally leaves out the cases most likely to be unjustified. People shot for committing petty crimes aren’t included, and those who were shot for committing no crime are not included.

The report is predetermined to only include good, old-fashioned, bad guys that were shot and killed by a cop wearing a white hat before he rode off into the sunset with Miss Kitty while his still-smoking peacemaker hung at his hip.

Given that the FBI has found a way to intentionally filter out cases, and has made no effort to reconcile their report with the facts, it must be concluded that they are intentionally lying to the American public and to the policy makers who rely on this data to make decisions.

If the reader is in the mood to have news of a killing by police hit their Facebook newsfeed about 3 times a day, the Killed by Police Facebook page posts incidents in real time as they are discovered.

Justin King writes for TheAntiMedia.org, where this first appeared. Tune-in to The Anti-Media radio show Monday-Friday @ 11pm EST, 8pm PST. Image credit: Christopher Dick 

 10 13 11 flagbar

The Four Things You Can Count On Following the Collapse of the Dollar

January 1st, 2015 by

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/01/01/four-

things-can-count-following-collapse-dollar/

1-1-2015 2-57-26 PM

 Jan 1 2015 by Dave Hodges

It is easy to misinterpret the signals of our economy from afar when we see people driving cars everywhere and we tend to think that our economy as not being that bad. However, the fact remains that 40 years ago Americans owned those cars that we see them driving. Today, we are renting them as 40% of us are leasing our vehicles. As we drive up and down our neighborhoods, we see people living in houses and we lie to ourselves and use this as a  false barometer to convince ourselves that everything is OK. However, many of these homes we see people living in, have lost all of their equity. The logical answer to the question “When will we have a depression”, should be answered by stating “We have an $18 trillion dollar annual deficit and that is the good news. We have $240 trillion dollars of debt from unfunded liabilities and we have a stunning $1.5 quadrillion dollar debt. So, you better grab all the food, water, guns and ammunition that you can and run for the hills”!  But as long we see people driving in cars and living in houses, most Americans are going to deny the truth. And the last thing that I wanted to do on the first day of a new year, was to be the harbinger of doom and gloom. Yet, I feel compelled to speak the truth, on this New Year’s Day, because I might be able to get one more person to take the steps necessary to help increase the odds of their survival in response to what is coming. History shows that one can count on four things occurring following the collapse of the dollar.

 The Last Great American Garage Sale

On multiple occasions in this column, I have thoroughly documented the following facts which demonstrate that the banksters are stealing our assets in preparation for them to economically survive what is coming:

  1. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appealsruled that when you put money into the bank, you have transferred ownership of that money to the bank. This ruling represents government sponsored theft in the highest order, yet most of us are unaware that this happened.
  2. TheG20 nationsdeclared the money in your bank account to not be money. Therefore, the FDIC insurance for your savings.
  3. The MERS mortgage fraud is ongoing and homeowners are still having their homes stolen without legal justification.
  4. The Federal Reserve, in 2012, began to print money to the tune of $40 billion dollars a month in order to purchase mortgage backed securities.
  5. The banksters have practiced stealing the secured accounts of American in the MF Global (MFG) scandal, resulting in the loss of $6.3 billion dollars of secured investment funds.Nobody went to jail.
  6. In April of 2013,  the banksters are manipulating the price of gold as evidenced by the actions of “Goldman Sachswho told their clients earlier that they recommend initiating a short COMEX gold position.” After investors were duped into panic selling, the banksters bought up massive sums of gold. The banksters were buying gold while getting out the American Stock Market and the megabanks. Why? Because the dollar is on the verge of collapse.
  7. This past week, the banksters signaled that they were no longer attempting to gain control of any more gold as they began to repatriate goldwith their rightful owners in Europe. This means that the crash could happen at any time.

The only thing left to do is for the banksters to steal your bank accounts. The correct “crisis” will bring about the collapse of the dollar now that the wealth transfer has largely been accomplished.

What America Will Look Like Following the Collapse of the Dollar

The aftermath of an economic collapse can take different forms, however, history demonstrates that there are some universal things you can count on:

#1 Obamavilles

1-1-2015 2-59-54 PM

1-1-2015 3-00-49 PM

#2 Dramatic Food Shortages

1-1-2015 3-05-33 PM

Because of “Just In Time” deliveries, the American food industry operates on quick and multiple deliveries and survives only as the result of the rapid payment of invoices. As the failing economy reaches to the service industry, most of these business will fail in very large numbers. Who then, will be delivering the food?

#3 Food Riots

1-1-2015 3-08-08 PM

1-1-2015 3-09-08 PM

Because of the food shortages, riots and organized gang violence will occur. The military is trained to isolate these areas, but will not intervene. If you call 911, nobody will be answering. This will be the time that you wished you had listened to many in the alternative media because this is the time that America will begin to see a large loss of life.

  1. Martial Law Will Be Declared

DHS and the military have already practiced for this development. Travel will be limited and it will stopped all together in areas where the civil unrest is at its worst.

The  2012 and 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), will allow government officials to “disappear” anyone they want to and for any reason, or no reason at all.  The NDAA suspends habeas corpus, provides for indefinite detention and this is done on the premise that certain kinds of Americans are threats (e.g. Second Amendment supporters, Bible-believing Christians). This is where the present harassment of Christians will turn into the outright persecution of Christians.

I think the public has a right to know how its government plans to handle future protests. Is America the new Venezuela, Egypt, or Ukraine?  A previously secret document which was leaked online; entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF).

RIOT FORMATIONS

H-42. Quick-reaction force teams should be established with a minimum response time. Because of the physical nature of riot control, individuals in riot control formations should not carry rifles. Nonlethal attachments should follow closely behind the riot control formation. Lethal coverage must be provided for this entire formation. (See FM 3-22.40.)

DESIGNATED MARKSMEN

H-43. During a nonlethal engagement, the use of designated marksmen provides confidence and safety to those facing a riot. If a lethal threat is presented, the designated marksmen in overwatch positions (armed with appropriate sniper weapons mounted with high-powered scopes) can scan a crowd and identify agitators and riot leaders for apprehension and fire lethal rounds if warranted. Additionally, they are ideally suited for flank security and countersniper operations. (See FM 3-22.40.).

1-1-2015 3-11-22 PM

Travel restrictions will be a part of this process.

Government Control Over All Fuel and Transportation

These are some of the things that government can do to you courtesy of several executive orders.

Executive Order 10990

Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.

Executive Order 11003

Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

Executive Order 11005

Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

Executive Order 10997

Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

Government Control Over All Food and Water

Executive Order 10998

Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms

 The Ability to Enslave the American People

Executive Order 11000

Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

Executive Order 11001

Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.

Executive Order 11002

Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.

Executive Order 11004

Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

Ability to Grant the President Total Dictatorial Control

Executive Order 11051

Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

Executive Order 11310

Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

Executive Order 11049

Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

There are more examples, but I think you get the idea. Your government has practiced to subjugate and even murder you in times such as these.

Conclusion

Is there anything that can be done to stop the egregious violations of our civil liberties? The short answer is no! However, there are some things that can be done to mitigate the threat and to soften the landing following an economic collapse and this will be the subject of my next article in this series.

 

US Power Centers Splinter as Chaos Rises

December 24th, 2014 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35933/US-Power-Centers-Splinter-as-Chaos-Rises/

By Staff News & Analysis

Investigators Said to Seek No Penalty for C.I.A.’s Computer Search … A panel investigating the Central Intelligence Agency’s search of a computer network used by staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who were looking into the C.I.A.’s use of torture will recommend against punishing anyone involved in the episode, according to current and former government officials. Its decision not to recommend anyone for disciplinary action is likely to anger members of the Intelligence Committee, who have accused the C.I.A. of trampling on the independence of Congress and interfering with its investigation of agency wrongdoing. The computer searches occurred late last year while the committee was finishing an excoriating report on the agency’s detention and interrogation program. – New York Times

Dominant Social Theme: Government officials should have more legal leeway than the average person because they make more important decisions.

Free-Market Analysis: The US is splitting apart: Some 60 years of expanding authoritarianism has created political and economic facilities that are now beginning to face off against each other.

There are dozens of intel agencies, hundreds of military specializations, vast bureaucracies at local, state and federal levels – all supported by a worldwide dollar economy that virtually forces other nations to hold dollars in order to buy oil.

Increasingly, as the struggle for resources grows more pronounced, each of these entities will involve themselves in growing “turf wars.” It is not, of course, just a Western problem. Europe has similar woes and its fringe parties are becoming more extreme.

What is going on in the US is both significant and rapid. We can see that the CIA is now in a confrontational position regarding Congress, according to the New York Times. In fact, CIA officials who wiretapped Senators will not be punished.

This is just one of several newsworthy items reported over the weekend. Another was the aggregate shooting of three policemen over the weekend, two in New York and one in Tarpon Springs Florida.

While these are terrible tragedies from a purely human perspective, there is good evidence that such incidents are increasingly being used as fodder for power struggles. The New York Times reported on tensions between the Mayor and police in the aftermath of the New York Shooting:

For de Blasio, Attack Comes Amid Tension Over Police … Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke in sober terms at a news conference on Saturday at Woodhull Hospital after two police officers were shot and killed in Brooklyn … It is the sequence that every mayor dreads: the ominous report, the scramble to the hospital and the confirmation that, yes, an attack against the police has proved fatal.

But for Mayor Bill de Blasio, the tragedy on Saturday — when two police officers were shot and killed in an ambush in Brooklyn, according to the authorities — arrived at a particularly trying moment, amid an already fractious relationship with the police.

Police union leaders and officers could be seen turning their backs to the mayor and the police commissioner, William J. Bratton, as they walked past, in a video taken at the hospital where the two held a news conference on Saturday.

A written message from Edward Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, addressed the mayor directly. “Mayor de Blasio,” it read in part, “the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands.”

The anger seems unusually fierce between the mayor and the police. Meanwhile, the tension between police and local communities, especially communities of color, seems to be growing. AP reported the following yesterday:

New Jersey‘s state police union has issued an email alert to the group’s 33,000 members warning them to take extra caution after two NYPD officers were murdered.

New Jersey State PBA Executive Vice President Marc Kovar said in the email Sunday morning that all members and officers should take extra caution and change up routines in the coming weeks.

He cites heightened hostility from nationwide protests that he says has led to a “fever pitch of anti-police sentiment.”

Our interpretation involves dominant social themes and what we call “directed history.” To be blunt: In our view, the West is being leveled by historical forces as well as elite determination to expand global governance.

For over a decade the BRICS have been celebrated as a group of increasingly powerful countries capable of creating a kind of capitalism that can compete with if not win out over Western capitalism. In fact, recently, China surpassed the US in various measures of industrialization and output.

The US dollar is gradually being replaced in Asia and, of course, Russia, too, as tensions rise between the US and Russia over Ukraine and other military and industrial issues.

Various measures such as NAFTA and CAFTA have drained US industrial might while an increasingly intrusive regulatory and tax regime has further splintered US industrialism and entrepreneurialism.

The US now seeks to collect taxes from its citizens all over the world and to penalize banks that don’t cooperate with its new policies. Is it unfair to conclude that US political and banking elites are actually working against the best interest of the US as a successful country? Is that too harsh?

We have believed for a long time that US political, economic and military problems are in some sense manufactured and then exacerbated. The mainstream media, for instance, inflames problems by reporting on them copiously and repetitively.

And the system itself, corrupt as it is, is yet borne up on tidal waves of money. The Pentagon has never even made an effort to discover the US$2 trillion Donald Rumsfeld admitted to losing before 9/11. Meanwhile, US intel continues to multiply with some 16 separate spy agencies, many of them focused on the citizenry itself.

The FBI and Homeland Security have issued advisories declaring certain “constitutionalist” views to be questionable and even suspicious. The upshot of all of this is an alienated citizenry and increasing governmental paranoia. Here’s more from The New York Times:

The computer search raised questions about the separation of powers and caused one of the most public rifts in years between the nation’s intelligence agencies and the Senate oversight panel, which conducts most of its business in secret. It led to an unusually heated and public rebuke by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is the committee’s chairwoman.

Three C.I.A. technology officers and two lawyers had faced possible punishment. In their defense, some pointed to documents — including notes of a phone call with Mr. Brennan — that they said indicated that the director supported their actions, according to interviews with a half dozen current and former government officials and others briefed on the case.

… The panel’s specific conclusions are still being finalized, and it could be weeks before they present a report to the C.I.A. But officials said that the five agency employees had been informed that the panel would recommend that they not be disciplined. …

“What did he know? When did he know it? What did he order?” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, said in an interview last week. “They haven’t answered those basic questions.”

There have been other times in US history when the nation and its institutions seemed to be divided against themselves. Most notably, of course, the Civil War comes to mind. But today’s adversarial situations are complicated, in our view, by the Internet.

As a result, those who have in mind socioeconomic destabilization of the US can create the necessary elements but they cannot control the outcomes.

As events unfold, the potential is for more chaos not less. Lately, we’ve been writing about various ways that people ought to position themselves and their loved ones given Western societies’ evolving difficulties.

Second passports, purchases of precious metals, overseas business and residential locations are all suggestions that people are acting on as Western economic progress continues to sputter while social stresses build. (See other article this issue for more on High Alert’s planned expat community in Colombia.)

People – especially those with means – increasingly anticipate urban unrest and diminishing domestic economies; but what has not been clear until recently is the possibility that the US’s many elaborate sociopolitical and economic power centers may take to quarreling with each other.

The result will surely be even more chaos and polarization, where people gradually give up the concept of fair outcomes under the law and expect increased levels of authoritarianism.

As governance begins to fail, there will arise cries for yet more authoritarianism and this will surely further the expansion of a kind of police state, not just in the US but throughout the West.

Conclusion

The failure of governmental legislative and enforcement agencies will likely feed on itself and the outcomes cannot be seen as positive.

5-24-2014 8-56-32 AM

10 13 11 flagbar

Common Core Leftist and Islamic indoctrination

December 22nd, 2014 by

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/common-core-leftist-and-islamic-indoctrination?f=must_reads

12-22-2014 9-45-10 AM

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
The fundamental transformation of the United States is a euphemism for destroying American values and traditions fostered by an unholy alliance of America’s radical left and militant Islam, in essence, to take down the country from within.

This totalitarian marriage of convenience is distinguished by the traits they share – their hatred of Western civilization and a belief that the United States is the embodiment of evil on earth. While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.

Central to the success of the America-haters is “submission,” either to the state or sharia, and a rejection of the belief that individuals “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

That is, the core of Western Judeo-Christian ideology maintains that the individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, can discern the Divine Will and seek “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” unmediated by commissars and mullahs.

In response, America’s domestic enemies promulgate notions that attack the basis of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which emphasizes the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual. They also promote policies that weaken the ability to transmit to the next generation the values and traditions upon which the United States was built.

Anti-American, messianic political movements can only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined, not by personal destiny endowed by the Creator, but by the destiny of the community, endowed by a ruling elite.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a one-size-fits-all, top-down national education system, embraced by Democrats and big government Republicans like Jeb Bush, does just that, turning schools into re-education camps for leftist and Islamic indoctrination – as most universities and colleges already are.

Under Common Core students are asked to rewrite sentences containing subliminal anti-American messages such as “The commands of government officials must be obeyed by all” and “he (the president) makes sure the laws of the country are fair” and “the wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation.”

Presumably, that includes blind obedience to Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, an acceptance of Marxist-style wealth redistribution and a dilution of the Bill of Rights.

Todd Starnes of Fox News reported that a high school in Farmville, North Carolina, promotes Islam and the Prophet Muhammad in a Common Core vocabulary assignment handed out to seniors in an English class.

The worksheet says: “In the following exercises, you will have the opportunity to expand your vocabulary by reading about Muhammad and the Islamic word.”

One sentence reads: “The zenith of any Muslim’s life is a trip to Mecca.” For using the word “erratic,” the lesson included this statement: “The responses to Muhammad’s teachings were at first erratic. Some people responded favorably, while other resisted his claim that ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammad his Prophet.”

Another section required students to complete the following sentence:

“There are such vast numbers of people who are anxious to spread the Muslim faith that it would be impossible to give a(n)___ amount.”

This is not the first controversy caused by Common Core. One assignment asked students in California to question the Holocaust. Another lesson teaches a messianic view of Barack Obama, while a third falsely claims white voters rejected Obama due to race. A Common Core lesson taught in Arkansas asked students to remove and replace two amendments from an allegedly “outdated” Bill of Rights.

Courtesy of the Obama Administration, Common Core has become both a means to remove parents and the local community from the educational process and a vehicle for leftist and Islamic indoctrination, designed not to teach children how to think, but what to think.

Consequently, unless such anti-American brainwashing is stopped, future generations may not only lose their liberty, but they may, quite literally, get their heads handed to them.

12-21-2014 7-40-05 AM

10-15-2013 5-26-05 PM

10 13 11 flagbar

Western Bankers Have Committed Two Acts of War Against Russia

December 20th, 2014 by

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/12/17/western-bankers-have-committed-two-acts-of-war-against-russia/

12-20-2014 9-35-05 AM

12-20-2014 9-35-29 AM

 BDave Hodges

 In the past several days, Western bankers have committed two overt acts of war against Russia, namely, the plunging of oil prices and the recent cutting off of all liquidity to Russian banks. This reminds me of the days before World War II in which the United States followed a doctrine called the eight point plan which was designed to provoke Japan into attacking America so Roosevelt could use this as the excuse to get involved in World War II. As Mark Twain once said, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme”.

Ditching the Ruble

Has the American public received any reasonable explanation on how oil prices have plummeted at a time of year when they historically spike in order to price gouge holiday travelers? Of course there isn’t going to be any new revelations on this point. Here is the real story behind dropping oil prices.

Zero Hedge first reported  that brokers are now advising their clients that any existing Russian Ruble positions will be terminated without any further notice because of concerns related to the lack of Russian “capital controls”. At least that is the excuse that Western banks are using to run from the Ruble. The truth of the matter is that the West has declared war on Russia and its BRICS partners for undermining the Petrodollar.

 No Turning Back

Ditching the Ruble marks a shift in Western banking strategy directed at the Russians. This change was necessitated because the West’s scheme to plunge the price of oil is not having an immediate effect on Russian economic actions. Although American consumers are reveling in their recent good fate with regard to the collapse of oil prices which have resulted in cheaper prices at the pump, there are some very dire consequences attached to American consumer’s good fortune.

The price of a barrel of oil is reaching the point where it will not be cost efficient to even ship the oil because to ship the oil is becoming more costly than the middle men transporting agents can  make. This will result in an artificial shortage of available gasoline. In the United States, shortages will soon appear and prices will spike to unimaginable levels. This will undoubtedly collapse our fragile economy.

The strategy of dropping oil prices in order to bring the Russians to their knees, will not work says Walker Todd. In a reported conversation with my colleague, Paul Martin, Todd told Martin that the low oil prices will not make Putin immediately blink because of (1) inflation and (2) Putin has a year’s reserve of oil and cash. In other words, the fuse has been lit for World War III. Does anyone think that Putin will allow his reserves to be depleted?

 The Time Parameters for World War III

The Russian financial situation is about to go critical, despite their ability to temporarily whether the storm related to falling oil prices. The WSJ is reporting, the next driver of the Russian crisis is unquestionably going to begin in the Russian banking system because as the WSJ stated “…global banks are curtailing the flow of cash to Russian entities, a response to the ruble’s sharpest selloff since the 1998 financial crisis.” In other words, Western banks are cutting off all financial liquidity to Russia. This will soon paralyze the Russian economy.  

Russia’s banks are now isolated from the Western world. This is an act of war! The only question remaining is when will Putin launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike upon the West in order to preserve its economy? Will Putin wait until 25% of his oil reserves are gone? Will he wait until 50% of his oil reserves are spent? Before you answer, keep in mind that Putin will need his oil reserves to fight World War III.

After receiving this news, yesterday, I reached out to my contacts with the information hoping to have these developments debunked. Unfortunately, my sources provided  information which seems to collaborate the fact that we headed for war.

 Disturbing Developments

I have learned that leaves for critical military personnel have been canceled effective on January 1, 2015. The leaves are not uniformly canceled across the breadth of the military. However, I have learned that military leaves for personnel serving in the nuclear command structure and specific elements of the nuclear submarine fleet are now canceled. The implication should be obvious as to what someone as to what the Pentagon believes is coming.

Schlumberger International is the largest oilfield corporation in the world employing 126,000 people in 85 countries. Recently, the son of Texas talk show host, Vinnie Pope, stated that Schlumberger has canceled all travel anywhere in the world. This travel ban began immediately after Thanksgiving. Clearly, Schlumberger is anticipating that something big is ready to happen. One could assume that whatever is coming is related to oil since this is the business of Schlumberger. It is interesting to note as an aside that  four years ago on my talk show, researcher Dianne Hunter reported the interconnections between Schlumberger to the Nature Conservancy and ultimately to the Queen of England.  These connections are worthy of further investigation which will be forthcoming

 Conclusion

Clearly, something big is anticipated by people/corporations who are in position to know. I am hopeful that this article will shake the bushes a little bit in order to get a better grasp of the particular nature of what’s coming. One thing is for sure, Putin’s tolerance level for these sanctions will soon be exceeded.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Reject Politically Correct Censorship, Protect Right of Students to Wear American Flag T-Shirts to School

December 19th, 2014 by

 http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82887b643445&id=c11472a24c&e=84f74f6a6a

WASHINGTON, D.C —The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a lower court ruling that declared it unsafe for California public school students to wear American flag t-shirts to school. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Dariano v. Morgan Hill, in which several students were ordered by school officials to cover up their American flag t-shirts on May 5, 2010, allegedly because officials feared that other students celebrating the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo would be offended, Rutherford Institute attorneys note that the school should have focused on controlling unruly students and not on stifling patriotic speech protected by the First Amendment.

The Rutherford Institute’s petition for certiorari in Dariano v. Morgan Hill is available at www.rutherford.org.

“There are all kinds of labels being put on so-called ‘unacceptable’ speech today, from calling it politically incorrect and hate speech to offensive and dangerous speech, but the real message being conveyed is that Americans don’t have a right to express themselves if what they are saying is unpopular or in any way controversial,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “Whether it’s through the use of so-called ‘free speech zones,’ the requirement of speech permits, or the policing of online forums, what we’re seeing is the caging of free speech and the asphyxiation of the First Amendment.”

On May 5, 2010, three Live Oak High School students wore patriotic t-shirts, shorts and shoes to school bearing various images of the U.S. flag. During a mid-morning “brunch break,” the students were approached by Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, who told the students they could not wear their pro-U.S.A. shirts and gave them the option of either removing their shirts or turning them inside out. The students refused, believing the options to be disrespectful to the flag. Rodriguez allegedly lectured the group about Cinco de Mayo, indicating that he had received complaints from some Hispanic students about the stars and stripes apparel, and again ordered that the clothing be covered up to prevent offending the Hispanic students on “their” day. Principal Nick Boden also met with the parents and students and affirmed Rodriguez’s order, allegedly because he did not want to offend students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

Arguing that the decision by school officials constituted viewpoint discrimination against pro-U.S.A. expression, Rutherford Institute attorneys filed suit on behalf of the students and their parents seeking a declaration that the action violated the First Amendment and injunctive relief against a vague school district policy allowing prior restraints on speech to be imposed upon students. The lawsuit asserted that school officials violated the students’ rights to Free Speech under the First Amendment, and their Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In November 2011, the district court ruled in favor of school officials, citing a concern for school safety. That ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2014. Although the appeals court acknowledged that other students were permitted to wear Mexican flag colors and symbols, it ruled that school officials could forbid the American flag apparel out of concerns that it would cause disruption, even though no disruption had occurred. Three of the nine judges on the Ninth Circuit agreed with The Rutherford Institute that school officials violated long-standing Supreme Court precedent forbidding suppression of protected expression on the basis of a “heckler’s veto,” which occurs when the government restricts an individual’s right to free speech in order to maintain order.

Affiliate attorney William J. Becker is assisting The Rutherford Institute in its defense of the students.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

SO, it’s alright for the wet backs to offend American students, but it’s not alright for the American Students to offend the wet backs. And they call this LAW? The Judges should be required to eat the T-Shirts!

Supreme Court, you can K.M.A!

This is What Happens When You Call The Cops

December 18th, 2014 by

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/01/this-is-what-happens-when-you-call-the-cops/

 12-18-2014 11-58-52 AM

by Martin Armstrong                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY9C6pzxKc 

If you are like me and cannot stand RAP

turn the volume down and watch!

There is a new music video that is going viral entitled This is What Happens When You Call The Cops. It is a shocking video putting together numerous clips of Police Brutality that is very disturbing to say the least. It has captured the stark transformation of the police into a militaristic force far removed from the old days.

12-18-2014 11-59-13 AM

The days of Norman Rockwell are gone and this is what I fear is unfolding as the Domestic War Cycle turns up. We are more likely than not going to see widespread violence targeted against the police after 2015.75. Once the economy turns down, the frustration against government will rise up like the 1960s. This time, it will not just be a black issue. The militarization of the police has no boundary of race, creed, or gender.

This video captures the resentment that is bubbling beneath the surface, Anyone who thinks this is just a race issue better open their eyes. The abuse has no limits. The civil asset forfeiture laws are unleashing criminal activity sanctioned by the courts against the people no different from Rome when its armies sacked their own cities to get paid. Indeed, perhaps the greatest lesson of history is that we never learn anything from it. Amazing.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Yes, I’m old enough to remember when I thought all cops were heroes. Today I answer the door with a 45ACP cocked and UN locked in my hand. How-ever I have noticed many older officers are taking early retirement because of the younger cop’s attitudes. When the people you depend on for your safety turn out to be wannabe killers, it’s time to stand up and fight back in any way you can. Don’t believe this? Try and start a conversation with a young cop in a restaurant next time you see one taking a lunch break. But never! Assume they are all bad, as human nature is such that they will go to extremes before turning on their own. In every group there are always differences in opinion and loyalty. As for me, it has been hard to accept their infiltration by neo conservative extremist political philosophy, and it shows how far back this tragedy was planned. Never forget that some of the most intelligent minds on earth have been designing this scenario for years, and the cops are the first victims. Below is an article especially damaging to the police image in these trying times, and no restitution seems possible when you are broke and cannot defend yourself from the complicit Courts.

Bathing Man Grabbed By Testicles and Beaten SWAT Lied to Get Raid

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/12/bathing-man-grabbed-by-testicles-and.html

Amanda Warren
Activist Post

Chad Chadwick, a Texas man with a clean record, is still trying to live down the multiple nightmares unleashed upon him by a SWAT team three years ago. Because none of those nightmares ended with the lurid and violent raid.

What would precipitate a raid for someone who had never broken the law? A tip, of course. Apparently, a friend reported him to the Missouri City police concerning his emotional well-being. When someone’s down and out – who you gonna call? None other than SWAT – who eagerly went down to business.

They decided they needed some semblance of justification to SWAT this guy. So they unequivocally fabricated a complete lie to a judge in order to get approval.

They said he had taken some hostages…

They knew this was untrue – they came up with it. My Fox Houston also claims that SWAT was aware of his owning a single shotgun, with which he had never threatened anyone.

So on the night of September 27th, 2011 they arrived while Chadwick was napping in the bathtub.
(How do they always know when you’re in the shower?)

This is the series of events:

 

  • SWAT kicks in door, launches stun grenade into bathroom
  • Storms into bathroom
  • Naked Chad’s hands are up so they shoot him with a 40 millimeter non-lethal round
  • Launch second stun grenade
  • Lights are out, four or five guys behind a shield pin Chad against the wall and “beat the crap out of” him
  • Officers shoot him in the back of the head with a Taser, point blank range
  • Grabbed him by one hand and grabbed him by testicles and slammed his face to the floor
  • Beat him some more

They claimed he had “drew down with a shampoo bottle and a body wash bottle.” 

Series of events that followed:

  • Taken to Ft. Bend County Jail with fractured nose, bruised ribs and permanent hearing loss
  • Held in isolation for two entire days
  • Apparently not taken to hospital

Oh, this is still not over….

  • District Attorney John Healy began a series of concocted criminal charges – that stem from the raid!
  • Two felony counts of assaulting a police officer (!)

Misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest (this is the everyman’s charge) – they called over a dozen officers to testify that he resisted arrest.

A grand jury didn’t go for first counts and the misdemeanor charges were finally dropped.

And finally – just one month ago a jury found him not guilty of interfering with police…they proceeded to hug the poor guy!

Chadwick attributes the loss of his kids, his hearing as well as being financially bankrupted as a result of the raid and ensuing litigation where he was repeatedly forced to defend himself from charges of a raid that was based on a lie. 

When asked if taxpayers had been bankrupted for these events, Healy said he “wasn’t keeping tally.” Healy stands by all of his prosecutions.

Any repercussions to the force assembled from multiple cities? Any consequences for lying to a judge? Any retribution for almost killing an unarmed, naked man in his bathtub and then locking him up in isolation? For destroying his whole life?

No, because they aggressively litigate in return and the victim must then put all energy into defense. All focus goes to what happened to the victim after the fact, not on why these people are all still on the force and receiving paychecks.

Chadwick says:
These cops are out of control. They are ruining good people’s lives. I am a good man. I have done everything I can to show that, as a father, as a citizen, as a worker.

Readers: we wish this was a satire but it’s entirely too real and too common. Please share this with friends, especially the kind who hero-ize SWAT thinking they only go after criminals. In all honesty it could be them sharing a story like this someday.
 Watch the short video at this link:

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/12/bathing-man-grabbed-by-testicles-and.html

 10 13 11 flagbar

BIG BROTHER IN BASEL: BIS FINANCIAL STABILITY BOARD UNDERMINES NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

December 17th, 2014 by

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/big_brother_basel.php

By Ellen Brown

Buried on page 83 of the 89-page Report on Financial Regulatory Reform issued by the U.S. Administration on June 17 is a recommendation that the new Financial Stability Board strengthen and institutionalize its mandate to promote global financial stability. Financial stability is a worthy goal, but the devil is in the details. The new global Big Brother is based in the Bank for International Settlements, a controversial institution that raises red flags among the wary . . . .

Big Brother” is the term used by George Orwell in his classic novel 1984 for the totalitarian state that would lock into place in the year of his title. Why he chose that particular year is unclear, but one theory is that he was echoing Jack London’s The Iron Heel, which chronicled the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States. In London’s book, the oligarchy’s fictional wonder-city, fueled by oppressed workers, was to be completed by 1984. Orwell also echoed London’s imagery when he described the future under Big Brother as “a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” In Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money, and the Methods Behind the New World Order (1999), Dr. Dennis Cuddy asked:

“Could the ‘boot’ be the new eighteen-story Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which was completed in Basel, Switzerland, in 1977 in the shape of a boot, and became known as the‘Tower of Basel’?”

The boot-like shape of the building is strange enough to be thought-provoking (see photo), but more disturbing is the description by Dr. Carroll Quigley of the pivotal role assigned to the BIS in consolidating financial power into a few private hands. Professor Quigley, who was Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, claimed to be an insider and evidently knew his subject. He wrote in Tragedy and Hope (1966):

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”

That helps explain the alarm bells that went off among BIS-watchers when the Bank was linked to the new Financial Stability Board (FSB) President Obama signed onto in April. When the G20 leaders met in London on April 2, 2009, they agreed to expand the powers of the old Financial Stability Forum (FSF) into this new Board. The FSF was set up in 1999 to serve in a merely advisory capacity by the G7 (a group of finance ministers formed from the seven major industrialized nations). The chair of the FSF was the General Manager of the BIS. The new FSB has been expanded to include all G20 members (19 nations plus the EU). The G20, formally called the “Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors,” was, like the G7, originally set up as a forum merely for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the international financial system. But its new Financial Stability Board has real teeth, imposing “obligations” and “commitments” on its members.

The Shadowy Financial Stability Board

The Report on Financial Regulatory Reform issued by the Obama Administration on June 17 includes a recommendation that the FSB “strengthen” and “institutionalize” its mandate. What is the FSB’s mandate, what are its expanded powers, and who is in charge? An article in The London Guardian addresses those issues in question and answer format:

Who runs the regulator? The Financial Stability Forum is chaired by Mario Draghi, governor of the Bank of Italy. The secretariat is based at the Bank for International Settlements’ headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.”

Draghi was director general of the Italian treasury from 1991 to 2001, where he was responsible for widespread privatization (sell-off of government holdings to private investors). From January 2002 to January 2006, however, he was a partner at Goldman Sachs on Wall Street, another controversial player. As already noted, “basing” the FSB at the BIS is not a comforting sign, considering the dark and controversial history of the BIS. Dr. Cuddy, writing in 1999, quoted media sources describing the BIS and its behind-the-scenes leaders as “this economic cabal . . . this secretive group . . . the financial barons who control the world’s supply of money” (Washington Post, June 28, 1998); “some of the world’s most powerful and least visible men . . . officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen” (New York Times, August 5, 1995); men who can “move huge amounts of money into and out of markets in a nanosecond” and “topple politicians with the click of a mouse” (ABC’s “Nightline,” July 1, 1998).  

What will the new regulator do? The regulator will monitor potential risks to the economy . . . It will cooperate with the IMF, the Washington-based body that monitors countries’ financial health, lending funds if needed. . . .”

The IMF is an international banking organization that is also controversial. Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist for the World Bank, charges it with ensnaring Third World countries in a debt trap from which they cannot escape. Debtors unable to pay are bound by “conditionality’s” that include a forced sell-off of national assets to private investors in order to service their loans.  

What will the regulator oversee? All ‘systemically important’ financial institutions, instruments and markets.”

The term “systemically important” is not defined. Will it include such systemically important institutions as national treasuries, and such systemically important markets as gold, oil and food?

How will it work? The body will establish a supervisory college to monitor each of the largest international financial services firms. . . . It will act as a clearing house for information-sharing and contingency planning for the benefit of its members.”

In some contexts, information-sharing is called illegal collusion. Would the information-sharing here include such things as secret agreements among central banks to buy or sell particular currencies, with the concomitant power to support or collapse targeted local economies? Consider the short-selling of the Mexican peso by collusive action in 1995, the short-selling of Southeast Asian currencies in 1998, and the collusion among central banks to support the U.S. dollar in July of last year – good for the dollar and the big players with inside information perhaps, but not so good for the small investors who reasonably bet on “market forces,” bought gold or foreign currencies, and lost their shirts.

What will the new regulator do about debt and loans? To prevent another debt bubble, the new body will recommend financial companies maintain provisions against credit losses and may impose constraints on borrowing.”

What sort of constraints? The Basel Accords imposed by the BIS have not generally worked out well. The first Basel Accord, issued in 1998, was blamed for inducing a depression in Japan from which that country has yet to recover; and the Second Basel Accord and its associated mark-to-market rule have been blamed for bringing on the current credit crisis, from which the U.S. and the world have yet to recover. These charges have been explored at length elsewhere. The suspicious might see these failures as intentional. The warnings come to mind of Congressman Louis MacFadden, head of the House Banking and Currency Committee during the Great Depression: “It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all.” David Rockefeller, a key player in international finance, echoed this thinking in 1994, when he said at a UN dinner, “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

The Amorphous 12 International Standards and Codes

Most troubling, perhaps, is this vague parenthetical reference in a press release issued by the BIS, titled “Financial Stability Forum Re-established as the Financial Stability Board”:

“As obligations of membership, member countries and territories commit to . . . implement international financial standards (including the 12 key International Standards and Codes) . . . .”

This is not just friendly advice from an advisory board. It is a commitment to comply, so you would expect some detailed discussion concerning what those standards entail. However, a search of the major media reveals virtually nothing. The 12 key International Standards and Codes are left undefined and un-discussed. The FSB website lists them, but it is vague. The Standards and Codes cover broad areas that are apparently subject to modification as the overseeing committees see fit. They include:

  • Money and financial policy transparency
  • Fiscal policy transparency
  • Data dissemination
  • Insolvency
  • Corporate governance
  • Accounting
  • Auditing
  • Payment and settlement
  • Market integrity
  • Banking supervision
  • Securities regulation
  • Insurance supervision

Take “fiscal policy transparency” as an example. The “Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency” was adopted by the IMF Interim Committee in 1998. The “synoptic description” says:

“The code contains transparency requirements to provide assurances to the public and to capital markets that a sufficiently complete picture of the structure and finances of government is available so as to allow the soundness of fiscal policy to be reliably assessed.”

We learn that members are required to provide a “picture of the structure and finances of government” that is complete enough for an assessment of its “soundness” — but an assessment by whom, and what if a government fails the test? Is an unelected private committee based in the BIS allowed to evaluate the “structure and function” of particular national governments and, if they are determined to have fiscal policies that are not “sound,” to impose “conditionality’s” and “austerity measures” of the sort that the IMF is notorious for imposing on Third World countries? The wary might wonder if that is how the mighty United States is to be brought under the heel of Big Brother at last.

For three centuries, private international banking interests have brought governments in line by blocking them from issuing their own currencies and requiring them to borrow banker-issued “banknotes” instead. “Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency,” Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791, “and I care not who makes its laws.” The real rebellion of the American colonists in 1776, according to Benjamin Franklin, was against a foreign master who forbade the colonists from issuing their own money and required that taxes be paid in gold. The colonists, not having gold, had to borrow gold-backed banknotes from the British bankers. The catch was that the notes were created on the “fractional reserve” system, allowing the bankers to issue up to ten times as many notes as they actually had gold, essentially creating them out of thin air just as the colonists were doing. The result was not only to lock the colonists into debt to foreign bankers but to propel the nation into a crippling depression. The colonists finally rebelled and reverted to issuing their own currency. Funding a revolution against a major world power with money they printed themselves, they succeeded in defeating their oppressors and winning their independence.

Political colonialism is now a thing of the past, but under the new FSB guidelines, nations can still be held in feudalistic subservience to foreign masters. Consider this scenario: XYZ country, which has been getting along very well financially, discloses that its national currency is being printed by the government directly. The FSB determines that this practice represents an impermissible “merging of the public and private sectors” and is an unsound banking practice forbidden under the “12 Key International Standards and Codes.” Banker-created national currency is declared to be the standard “good practice” all governments must follow. XYZ is compelled to abandon the “anachronistic” notion that creating its own national currency is a proper “function of government.” It must now borrow from the international bankers, trapping it in the bankers’ compound-interest debt web.

Consider another scenario: Like in the American colonies, the new FSB rules precipitate a global depression the likes of which have never before been seen. XYZ country wakes up to the fact that all of this is unnecessary – that it could be creating its own money, freeing itself from the debt trap, rather than borrowing from bankers who create money on computer screens and charge interest for the privilege of borrowing it. But this realization comes too late: the boot descends and XYZ is crushed into line. National sovereignty has been abdicated to a private committee, with no say by the voters.

Was Orwell Just 25 Years Too Early?

Suspicious observers might say that this is how you pull off a private global dictatorship: (1) create a global crisis; (2) appoint an “advisory body” to retain and maintain “stability”; and then (3) “formalize” the advisory body as global regulator. By the time the people wake up to what has happened, it’s too late. Marilyn Barnewall, who was dubbed by Forbes Magazine the “dean of American private banking,” writes in an April 2009 article titled “What Happened to American Sovereignty at G-20?”:

“It seems the world’s bankers have executed a bloodless coup and now represent all of the people in the world. . . . President Obama agreed at the G20 meeting in London to create an international board with authority to intervene in U.S. corporations by dictating executive compensation and approving or disapproving business management decisions. Under the new Financial Stability Board, the United States has only one vote. In other words, the group will be largely controlled by European central bankers. My guess is, they will represent themselves, not you and not me and certainly not America.”

A bloodless coup . . . Again one is reminded of the admissions of David Rockefeller, who wrote in his Memoirs(Random House 2002):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Commitments Mandated by the Financial Stability Board 
Constitute a Commercial Treaty Requiring a 2/3 Vote of the Senate.

Adoption of the FSB was never voted on by the public, either individually or through their legislators. The G20 Summit has been called “a New Bretton Woods,” referring to agreements entered into in 1944 establishing new rules for international trade. But Bretton Woods was put in place by Congressional Executive Agreement, requiring a majority vote of the legislature; and it more properly should have been done by treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate, since it was an international agreement binding on the nation. The same should be mandated before imposing the will of the BIS-based Financial Stability Board on the U.S., its banks and its businesses. Here is a quick review of the law:

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties only with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. The Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure. However, historically the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone. A congressional-executive agreement can cover only those matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President; while a sole-executive agreement can cover only those matters within the President’s authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President. A sole-executive agreement can be negotiated and entered into only through the President’s authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty. Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties). If an international commercial accord contains binding “treaty” commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.

Even with a two-thirds Senate vote, before Congress gives its approval it should draft legislation ensuring that the checks and balances imposed by our Constitution are built into the agreement. This could be done by implementing a legislative counterpart to the FSB with full oversight and corrective powers. The legislatures of the member nations could be required to elect a representative body to provide oversight and take corrective measures as needed, with that body’s representatives answerable to their national electorates.

Orwell’s 1984 made the news again in April 2009, when Queen Elizabeth chose the book as her ceremonial gift for visiting President Felipe Calderon of Mexico. Calderon, who crushed riots with boot-like severity after he was accused of vote-rigging to steal the election from his populist opponent, was said to be an admirer of Orwell’s work. The event provoked suspicions that 1984 had been covertly chosen by a modern-day financial oligarchy as the inspirational model for implementing Big Brother globally. The book ends with the protagonist Winston tortured and brainwashed into accepting the party line. We need to act quickly and decisively to ensure that its historical counterpart has a happier ending.

Posted on GlobalResearch.Ca June 23, 2009.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

12 16 14 THE PRESENT STATE OF THE UNION

December 16th, 2014 by

READ JUST HALF OF THESE ARTICLES AND THEN TELL ME THE COPS ARE DOING A FINE JOB

Cops Arrest Man who Exposed them Beating Man on Video While Promoting Cop

Acting on a Bogus Tip, Cops Raid Innocent Family, Execute Grandfather as He Lay Face Down

WATCH: Ohio cop threatens sobbing girlfriend with jail after police gun down man in Walmart

SWAT Team Admits On Website That It Was Formed To Fight Civil Rights Protesters

Buffalo Cop Suspended Without Pay for Beating Caught on Camera

Photo Evidence, Police Lies Point to Police Cover-up in Death of Miami Artist Killed by Cop Car

Rumain Brisbon Is Just the Latest to Be Shot Dead by a Cop Over a Phantom Gun

California Deputy Tases and Beats Man with Flashlight While Holding his Head Down with Foot

Undercover Cops Attempt to Incite Looting, Pull Gun On #ICan’tBreathe Protesters

Charges against detective show justice’ slow track for law-enforcement defendants

Cop Gets Schooled After Harassing Man for Playing Song, “Fuck tha Police”

NYC Cops Are Blithely Firing A Potentially Deafening Sound Cannon At Peaceful Protesters

Michigan Cop Kills Dog in Wrong Address Warrantless Home Entry

Media Ignores Tens of Thousands of People Marching Against Police Brutality

VIDEO: Man Speeds To Hospital For Asthma Attack, Police Stop Him And Won’t Let Him Go — He Dies

Texas to Set Precedent for Another Shakedown by Cops?

The rape culture that everyone ignores

Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population

The United States is trying to prevent citizens from leaving the country

End of America A movie you must see to believe

Ignorance Is No Excuse for Wrongdoing,

Unless You’re a Cop

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary

/ignorance_is_no_excuse_for_wrongdoing_unless_youre_a_cop

 By John W. Whitehead

“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Terry v. Ohio (1968)

With Orwellian irony, the U.S. Supreme Court chose December 15, National Bill of Rights Day to deliver its crushing blow to the Fourth Amendment. Although the courts have historically held that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law, in its 8-1 ruling in Heien v. State of North Carolina, the Supreme Court gave police in America one more ready excuse to routinely violate the laws of the land, this time under the guise of ignorance.

The Heien case, which started with an improper traffic stop based on a police officer’s ignorance of the law and ended with an unlawful search, seizure and arrest, was supposed to ensure that ignorance of the law did not become a ready excuse for government officials to routinely violate the law.

It failed to do so.

In failing to enforce the Constitution, the Court gave police the go-ahead to justify a laundry list of misconduct, from police shootings of unarmed citizens to SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, and the tasering of vulnerable individuals with paltry excuses such as “they looked suspicious” and “she wouldn’t obey our orders.”

When police handcuffed, strip-searched and arrested a disabled man for no reason other than he sounded incoherent, it was chalked up as a mistake. Gordon Goines, a 37-year-old disabled man suffering from a Lou Gehrigs-type disease, was “diagnosed” by police and an unlicensed mental health screener as having “mental health issues,” apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait, and subsequently handcuffed, strip searched, and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will and with no access to family and friends. This was done despite the fact that police had no probable cause to believe that Goines had committed any crime, was a danger to himself or others, nor did they have any other legitimate lawful reason to seize, arrest or detain him. When Goines was finally released, police made no attempt to rectify their “mistake.”

“I didn’t know it was against the law” was the excuse police used to justify their repeated tasering of Malaika Brooks. Eight-months pregnant and on her way to drop her son off at school, Brooks was repeatedly tasered by Seattle police during a routine traffic stop simply because she refused to sign a speeding ticket. The cops who tasered the pregnant woman insisted they weren’t aware that repeated electro-shocks qualified as constitutionally excessive and unreasonable force. The Supreme Court gave the cops a “get out of jail” card.

“I thought he was reaching for a gun.” That was the excuse given when a police officer repeatedly shot 70-year-old Bobby Canipe during a traffic stop. The cop saw the man reaching for his cane and, believing the cane to be a rifle and fearing for his life, opened fire.  Police excused the shooting as “unfortunate” but “appropriate.”

“He was resisting arrest.” That was the rationale behind Eric Garner’s death. Garner, placed in a chokehold by police for allegedly resisting their attempts to arrest him for selling loose cigarettes, screamed “I can’t breathe” repeatedly, until he breathed his last breath. A grand jury ruled there was no “reasonable cause” to charge the arresting officer with Garner’s death.

And then you have the Heien case, which, while far less traumatic than Eric Garner’s chokehold death, was no less egregious in its defiance of the rule of law.

In April 2009, a police officer stopped Nicholas Heien’s car, allegedly over a faulty brake light, and during the course of the stop and subsequent search, found a sandwich bag’s worth of cocaine. In North Carolina, where the traffic stop took place, it’s not actually illegal to have only one working brake light. However, Heien—the owner of the vehicle—didn’t know that and allowed the search, which turned up drugs, and resulted in Heien’s arrest. When the legitimacy of the traffic stop was challenged in court, the arresting officer claimed ignorance and the courts deemed it a “reasonable mistake.”

I’m not sure which is worse: law enforcement officials who know nothing about the laws they have sworn to uphold, support and defend, or a constitutionally illiterate citizenry so clueless about their rights that they don’t even know when those rights are being violated.

This much I do know, however: going forward, it will be that much easier for police officers to write off misconduct as a “reasonable” mistake.

Understanding this, Justice Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” Sotomayor continues:

Giving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands this authority. One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so.

There’s no need to wonder, because there is no way to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters, not as long as the courts continue to excuse ignorance and sanction abuses on the part of the police.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

Indeed, as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the police and other government agents have, with the general blessing of the courts, already been given the authority to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance.

Just consider the Court’s pro-police state rulings in recent years:

In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the Court declared that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Navarette v. California, the Court declared that police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips.  This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

In Maryland v. King, a divided Court determined police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States allows police to stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike. And in an effort to make life easier for “overworked” jail officials, the Court ruled in Florence v. Burlington that police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.” 

In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King, the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, a majority of the high court agreed that it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. 

And now we’ve got Heien v. North Carolina, which gives the police a green light to keep doing more of the same without fear of recrimination. Clearly, the present justices of the Supreme Court have forgotten that the Constitution, as Justice Douglas long ago recognized, “is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”

Given the turbulence of our age—with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, profit-driven prisons, asset forfeiture schemes, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—it’s not difficult to predict that this latest Supreme Court ruling will open the door to even greater police abuses.

We’ve got two choices: we can give up now and resign ourselves to a world in which police shootings, chokeholds, taserings, raids, thefts, and strip searches are written off as justifiable, reasonable or appropriate OR we can push back—nonviolently—against the police state and against all of the agencies, entities and individuals who march in lockstep with the police state.

As for those still deluded enough to believe they’re living the American dream—where the government represents the people, where the people are equal in the eyes of the law, where the courts are arbiters of justice, where the police are keepers of the peace, and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it’s time to wake up.

We no longer have a representative government, a rule of law, or justice. Liberty has fallen to legalism. Freedom has fallen to fascism. Justice has become jaded, jaundiced and just plain unjust.

The dream has turned into a nightmare.

 

 OLDDOGS COMMENTS

WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!

10 13 11 flagbar


SEO Powered By SEOPressor