Categories » ‘Executive Orders’
August 29th, 2015 by olddog
By Joyce Rosenwald
On the night of December 23, 1913 the United States Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act and thereby committed the greatest act of TREASON in history. It surrendered this nation’s sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of arch-charlatan international bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer this nation with a money swindle.
The “money” the banks issue is merely bookkeeping entries. It cost them nothing and is not backed by their wealth, efforts, property, or risk. It is not redeemable except in more debt paper. The Federal Reserve Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless “notes” backed by our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to compelled performance for the “privilege”.
From 1913 until 1933, the United States paid the “interest” with more and more gold. The structured inevitability soon transpired: the Treasury was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the United States declared bankruptcy. In exchange for using notes belonging to bankers who create them out of nothing on our own credit, we are forced to repay in substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources, life) in ever-increasing amounts. This may have been the greatest heist and fraud of all time.
When a government goes bankrupt, it loses its sovereignty. In 1933 the United States declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt’s Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, confirmed in Perry v. United States, (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L.Ed 912, as well as 31 USC 5112, 5119, and 12 USC 95A. The bankrupt United States went into receivership, reorganized in favor of 115 creditors and new owners.
In 1913, Congress turned over America… lock, stock and barrel to a handful of criminals whose avowed intent from the beginning was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer, and enslave the people of the United States of America and eliminate this nation from the face of the earth. The goal was, and is, to absorb America into a one-world private commercial government, a “New World Order.”
On March 9, 1933 President Roosevelt called for the passing of The WAR POWERS ACT TITLE 12 USC. Section 95 (a) and 95 (b). This act declared all United States Citizens to be the enemy of the United States Government, and placed us under permanent Emergency Rule, bypassing Constitutional constraints on government.
With the Erie R.R. v Tompkins case of 1938, the Supreme Court confirmed their success. We are now in an international private commercial jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law Merchant. We have been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property, freedom, common law, Article III Courts, and The Bill of Rights has been statutized into “civil rights” in commerce. You have destroyed the Republic. America has been stolen. We have been made slaves, i.e. permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, renderedcommercial “persons,” “residents,” and corporate franchisees known as “citizens of the United States”
Since 1933 what is called the “United States Government” is a privately owned corporation of the Federal Reserve/International Monetary Fund. It is merely an instrument whereby the bankers administer their ongoing subjugation and plunder of what was once considered “the last great hope of human freedom.” All “public servants,” officials, Congressmen, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, States and their various agencies, etc., are the express agents of these foreign principals – see Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; 22 USC 286 et seq, 263A, 185G, 267J, 611(C) (ii) & (iii); Treasury Delegation Order #91 – who have stolen the country by clever, intentional, and unrelenting fraud, trickery, treachery, non-disclosure, miss-representation, intrigue, coercion, conspiracy, murder. If there is a greater tragedy in human history it is hard to know what it is.
An insidious aspect of this is that “officials” like you may think you are “public servants,” are upholding the “law,” or other hoaxes. In truth you are conscientiously and assiduously serving the archenemies of yourselves, your own rights, your fellow citizens, continued human rights, life, and freedom in general. YOU are seditiously administering the plunder, bankruptcy, conquest, destruction, dismantling, and elimination of your country. YOU are systematically defrauding, extorting, impoverishing, and injuring human life on the basis of crimes and lies of such magnitude, depth, and proportions as to be beyond human comprehension.
Now you believe you can sell this nation to foreign powers with the stroke of a pen by Executive Order 12803, April 30, 1992.
By so doing, you are committing TREASON and PERFIDY so immense as “to make the angels weep.” If you and your fellow “officials” do not understand the real situation, you are ignorant, naive, deceived, and conned. You are sheer dupes. If you do know and are parties to it, you are guilty of evil and heinous BETRAYAL. You are in such case TRAITORS and CRIMINALS. All of you “in power” are therefore, either fools or knaves, either of which eminently invalidates your “authority” and renders null and void absolutely all-moral obligation to pay allegiance or to obey the TREASONOUS SYSTEM you enforce with such mechanical viciousness.
If, you, “public servants” had any shred left of humanity, awe, heart, clarity, sanity, access to your true being and conscience, you would instantly resign and do everything possible to inform the American people of their plight and help us retrieve our rights and our country. Only by such means can you even begin to atone for your endless crimes against humanity, the lives you so arrogantly and mindlessly butcher with the “meat-grinder of the law.”
What do you think the American people will do as they discover that they have no more country, that they are slaves to mortal enemies, that they have been tricked and betrayed by their “leaders” who sold them out? What do you think they will do when they realize that all their alleged “public servants” are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, bankruptcy, subjugation, and ruin of their lives and country?
There is no acceptable excuse for what you have done. You cannot engage in bringing harm to life and, like the Nazi’s defense at Nuremberg, presume that because you do so under the “authority” of an imaginary, abstract, unreal legal fiction called “government” you are freed of the consequences of your acts. Moral and natural law are not obviated by ignorance, hubris and self-righteous militancy. Your entire system – from the ground up – is deceit and fraud. It is illicit in essence and ab initio. As Broom’s Maxims 297, 729 put it: “A right of action cannot arise out of fraud.” Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses. The color of the cloth one wears cannot cover up the usurpations, lies, and treachery. “When black is fraudulently declared to be white, not all will live in darkness.”
More and more Americans are awakening to the truth. What do you think the American people will do as they discover that they have no more country, that they are slaves to mortal enemies, that they have been tricked and betrayed by their “leaders” who sold them out? What do you think they will do when they realize that all their alleged “public servants” are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, bankruptcy, subjugation, ruin and destruction of their lives and country? Thomas Jefferson wrote: “An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.” Lincoln said: “Just as I would not be a slave, neither would I be a master.”
I will not participate in your corrupt, arrogant, and cruel fraud, either as perpetrator or victim. I will no longer sit here and writhe. The TYRANNY over this nation MUST END! End Emergency Rule. Repeal all laws passed under Emergency Rule. Give us back our substance and our law. Give us back our Republican form of government.
If you continue with this course, you will have natural and moral law and higher powers to answer to, not to mention all those you have wronged under color of law. You will have your own laws turned against you, as you have turned the law against us. To transform the shield of protection into a sword of exploitation, subjugation, and plunder is perfidy. I am an American. My destiny is to live as a freeman on the land my forefathers conquered and that I will fight to keep.
You have now been placed on notice. All further actions on your part will be willful!
Resolutely, from an American who demands their country back
See also Parens Patriae – Government as Parent
Joyce Rosenwald died in July 2011. While her web site has disappeared, Angela Stark of My Private Audio has maintained a web page in her honor which includes an excellent interview with Joyce as well as some of her research. Joyce lived in California and exposed some really important facts regarding the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and its judges. Web page for Joyce Rosenwald
August 28th, 2015 by olddog
By Shane Smith
It’s 3:00 in the morning. Your wife and young children are asleep. You hear a commotion outside, followed by the sound of a window rattling. You get up, grab your 12 gauge and creep down the stairs. You hear window glass breaking. A black-clad man scrambles in, and while he does, you exercise your right to defend your house and shoot. The man dies.
In a free society, this would be an acceptable, indeed, admirable, use of force in defense of your home and family. There’s only one catch: the man you shot is a cop. In a free, sane society, the benefit of the doubt would be given to you. You saw a masked thug climbing into a broken window, and for all you knew, intended to kill you and your family. You used justifiable deadly force to repel an attack against your home.
The fault would lie with the team of officers who attempted a highly dangerous operation that got a fellow officer killed, and they would be punished accordingly for acting so stupidly. Am I right? BUT, we don’t live in a sane society do we? We live in a 50k SWAT raid-per-year society, a society that worships police and when something like this does happen, the police are given a pass and the man defending his home from an unknown threat is charged with murder.
Killeen, Texas resident, Marvin Louis Guy, is just such a man, in just such a situation. You see, the Killeen SWAT team thought it would be a grand idea to execute a no-knock raid on Guy’s house at 5:30 in the morning. As they were breaking through his window, Guy opened fire on them, killing Charles Dinwiddie and wounding three other officers. They were acting on a bogus tip from an informant who promised that bags of cocaine would be found. Nothing of the kind was recovered. Charges against Guy do not stem from any drug crime, but solely from his successful attempt to fend off an attack on his home.
From KDH News: In Texas, anyone who kills a peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty can be charged with capital murder and could face the death penalty, if convicted.
Texas officials should be far more concerned with the lawfulness, and wisdom, of allowing officers to engage in this type of behavior than whether to sentence Guy to life or the needle. Stories like this always bring the mind back to the senseless, artificial nature of the Drug War. The Drug War paved the way for Dinwiddie to meet his demise on that early morning. Without the Drug War he would still be alive. Guy’s life wouldn’t currently be hanging on the slender threads of fate in Texas. The Drug War is the most reality-denying public policy being pursued today, and the body count daily climbs higher as it is allowed to continue.
Back to the beginning hypothetical: If black-clad men were breaking into your home in the middle of the night, would you use lethal force to defend your home? And if you did, and the dead intruders turned out to be police, what would it say about the society you lived in when you were sentenced to death? How much criminal activity can hide behind a badge? How far can an officer go before a citizen of a free republic has a right to intervene? And if those who are officially tasked with enforcing the law become the principal threat to the law of a free society, when will citizens put an end to the contradiction?
A man breaks into a home and the owner pulls a trigger to end a threat to his property and life. That is law; that is just. A society that recognizes it as such will draw nearer to the ideal of liberty. A society that turns a blind eye when innocent men and women are prosecuted for defending their homes will not remain free for long.
When police break into homes in the middle of the night, unannounced, they are taking their lives into their hands. It’s dangerous and stupid in the extreme, and as a result, many end up dead. There are many other examples of police killing and getting killed by barging into houses in the middle of the night. It seems senseless, but these SWAT raids are a direct outgrowth of the War on Drugs.
End this ridiculous crusade against the personal choices of citizens and the SWAT raids will end. Departments will have to give up their warzone goodies, as they won’t be needed any more. People will get high safely, and ditch the synthetics and prescription drugs, which have been given a market due to the War on a Plant.
The government knows this; however, the Drug War is their means into our wallets and lives, and a backdoor to our liberty. It’s their cash cow, their Golden Goose, it justifies billions in government jobs and departments. It’s the excuse for the Police State itself. The black-market crime wave that the Drug War gins up gives state and federal government the excuse for more legislation, more police, more abuse. It incentivizes employing more violent, authoritarian personalities in law enforcement positions. If you are in search of the hive, the Mother Brain of the American Police State, you will find it residing within the Drug War bureaucracy. Attack that bureaucracy by attacking the Drug War itself.
Legalization will deal the mortal wound to the hydra that has coiled itself around our lives and liberties. We can use its reaction as a compass. If full legalization gains steam throughout the country, every base emotion will be appealed to in order to prevent it. The creature will appeal to your fear, your anger, your patriotism, vanity, envy, pride … everything will be summoned to prevent the stake from being driven home. Ignore its screams, and act knowing full well that you act for the liberty of not just your generation, but the generations to come.
There is only two ways that cops are getting in my home alive, and that is to knock on the door with a warrant in their hand, or stepping over my dead body. If the reader disapproves of this, and finds solace in being compliant to tyranny, I pity your family.
August 27th, 2015 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
Trapped within the fanfare Chinese Black Monday and the American stock market plunging almost 600 points yesterday, suspicious explosions in China and on an American military base, there has been a very important, but quiet development ,which is escaping the attention of both the American people and the Independent Media.
The Corker Bill Spells the End of the Second Amendment
We are safe from the ravages of the UN Small Arms Treaty, aren’t we? In fact, many Senators have openly stated that they refuse to ratify this controversial treaty. Well, that is not exactly true. There is a new process established by the new Corker bill may very well have changed the way treaties are passed from here on out.
Under our Constitution, a full two thirds vote from senators for ratification to approve any kind of a treaty. This provision of the Constitution is very clear on this point and it is designed to prevent a treasonous subversion of the Constitution. However when one is living under a criminal enterprise, such as the one presented by the present criminal enterprise in power, who worries about following the rules? As a case in point, under the Corker bill, in order to have stopped the Iran nuclear deal, a two thirds vote to stop it from being implemented by the White House. This is not what the Constitution says and this out and out treason against the people of the United States as the Corker bill is a back door to taking our guns while nullifying the second Amendment.
Under the Corker bill, the following paragraphs describe what we are in for.
The Plot to Disarm America Is Commencing
The evidence is mounting that Obama and his colleagues at the United Nations are preparing for complete gun confiscation of civilian owned American guns. There is a new document, previously held secret, which has surfaced and clearly signals the intention of the United Nations to engage in gun confiscation in the relatively near future. The document is damning, however, the existence of the document is not even needed to prove the point that there is a major confrontation brewing between the American people and an international peace-keeping UN force, and it’s coming right around the corner.
Another Nail In America’s Coffin
The following is a smoking gun document that presents seven sequential steps designed to culminate in the total disarmament of the American nation. For those of you that know your history, you will note that there were 17 genocides in the 20th Century and in each case, these genocides were preceded by gun confiscation by the host government. According to theDemocide Project located at the University of Hawaii, governments killed far more people, an estimated 26o million victims, than even war. History shows that if we ever allow government, the UN, or the U.S., to ever be able to seize our guns, we are signing our death warrant!
The following document is a declaration of war against the United States people. For those who find the document to be on the blurry side, scroll down to the Appendix to view a clearer copy.
The UN and its cohorts have accomplished steps 1-5 (see below). They are now working on steps 6 and 7 which would constitute complete disarmament of the American people.
If one examines the first five steps of the plot, it is easy to ascertain the pattern of gun confiscation that Obama has attempted to follow. I do not believe that Obama has to completely implement steps 1-5 before moving to enforce steps 6 and 7. Therefore, even though Obama has not completely implemented the first five steps across the country, he has done enough to usher in Steps 6 and 7 in this United Nations disarmament plan. Steps 6 and 7 are listed below:
“6. Finally, codification of laws to completely makes any and all firearms illegal to own, possess or use outside of military and law enforcement usage.
Creation of a United Nations Police Taskforce with the specific mission of assisting member nations with the collection of weaponry from civilian hands”.
The proof for the validity of the intentions signaled by this document does not lie in the authenticity of any single document. The smoking gun evidence that Obama is progressively moving towards seizing all 300,000,000 civilian guns in this country, lies in the ubiquitous manner in which Obama has pursued sequential and progressive steps toward the disarming of the American people. As it has been said, “Judge a man by what he does, not by what he says”. The cases in point would be what Obama has tried to accomplish after the Boston Marathon Bombing, the Batman Aurora, CO. shootings and the Sandy Hook event. With some very sloppy bootstrapping steps following these events, Obama has progressively attempted to make guns more difficult to obtain and he has greatly expanded what is defined as “military grade weapons” and to limit what is considered to be “appropriate” for hunting as he has tried to block Americans from obtaining as many of these weapons as possible.
“1. Classification of military grade weapons to be made illegal for possession”.
“4. Codification of laws to begin the restricting and strict licensing of hunting grade firearms.”
I am certain that most people familiar with present Second Amendment debates will recognize the various and omnipresent “gun buy-back” programs funded with your tax money designed to remove guns from civilian hands.
“2. Creation of programs to provide reasonable compensation for voluntary surrender of said arms”.
How many times have we witnessed Obama standing before the cameras and national press corps and threaten to take unilateral action against our gun rights following each one of the false flag events mentioned above? In each instance, Obama has used thinly veiled excuses that he only wants to take away guns that “military grade weapons”.
“1. Classification of military grade weapons to be made illegal for possession.
- Codification of laws to restrict the sale of, and possession of ammunition and components to manufacture ammunition”.
Connecting the Dots for Gun Confiscation
Even if the the UN document designed to disarm America, listed above, was not genuine (and it is), the following, very public document has been proven to be very authentic.
Under the heading, “Hiding in plain sight”, the United Nations has been advertising for the following position for over a year:
Posting Title: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer, P4
Job Title Code: DISARMAMENT, DEMOBILIZATION AND REINTEGRATION OFFICER
Department/Office: Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Duty Station: New York
Job Description: A minimum of seven years of progressively responsible experience in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration or related area. Experience working within peacekeeping, peace-building or development programmes operations is desirable. Experience with small arms control, conflict/post-conflict crisis management, economic recovery is desirable. Experience coordinating multiple partner agencies, funds or programmes is desirable.
Secretary of State, John Kerry, signing away America’s freedom, security and longevity as he signs the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
There is even more fuel to throw on this raging fire as we consider the fact that, at the behest of President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry illegally, and in direct violation to the Constitution of the United States, signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The UN Arms Trade Treaty contains all 7 provisions listed above in the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations.
We should also be focusing on the military invasion that is about to unfold in this country. This will be the military invasion that will be UN sponsored and it will be the one that seizes our guns. Take a look at the following images of UN military vehicles spotted and photographed in our country in the past 14 months.
An occupation force is being mobilized.
Thanks to Congress, Obama has found a backdoor way around the Second Amendment by subverting our treaty process. The stealth in which this is occurring is mind-boggling. I hope that many of the readers will share this information with friends and neighbors. Americans cannot comply with the treason that will arise out of this act.
August 24th, 2015 by olddog
THE REPUBLIC STANDS! IT IS THE CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE AN ILLUSION. THE CORPORATIONS DO NOT EVEN LAWFULLY EXIST! THEY ARE THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD ON THE PEOPLE.
FRAUD NEGATES EVERYTHING!
TIME TO JUST ARREST AND PROSECUTE THE CRIMINAL IMPERSONATORS.
- HOW LONG WILL THE PEOPLE REMAIN IGNORANT TO THIS?
The impostors would have you believe differently. Who do you believe?
The enemies of freedom?
Welcome to the Phantom of the United States Corporation… It is all Theater. An illusion!
ASIDE FROM THAT MAJOR POINT, MR. MAHNKE SEEMS TO BE CORRECT!
On Aug 23, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Dan Mahnke <email@example.com> wrote:
We The People, Sheriffs, and Larry Klayman,
As long as the Corporations that are in control of your city, county, and State Governments still make the rules and regulations to support the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are to disregard the Original 13th Amendment, for to disallow Nobility to Government Officials, when Virginia did Ratify it with its own laws in 1819, and the Corrupt Governments have even the War of 1812 to hide it, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as the United States is still under Martial Law from 1862, by Congressional Agreement and kept Quiet to the People, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to comply with the Orders of a Corporation that was voted into Law to be your Government by an Unconstitutional Congress, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to comply with contracts for which you have no knowledge of even signing them, yet you are to accept them as voluntarily signing them, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are an Official United States citizen and NOT an American State Citizen, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to file the Proper Government Forms and in the correct order to remove yourself as an Official United States citizen to become Sovereign, when it was Congress or the people that voted into laws to make you NOT Sovereign, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to pay the Income Tax to the IRS for a Truly NON-Ratified 16th Amendment, which 100% of the funds go to your IRS of Puerto Rico, the City of London, the Vatican, and the Rothschilds, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to fill out forms and have personal Licenses of any kind to be in the 50 States, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People were made Collateral for the Bankrupt THE UNITED STATES, INC. with the HJR 192 of JUNE 5, 1933, for which ALL Your Debts were to be Paid For as you became their Credit, yet you are prohibited to claim that except for a Bank Signature for which the Banks are allowed to Receive Money Out Of Thin Air, and Law Enforcement fails to take actions, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People that are convicted of a Crime and the Judges of the Profit making BAR Association can have you fill out a form for the Courts to Receive the Treasury Direct Account funds, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as a President has made an Executive Order to claim you People as Human Capital for which their Corporations have control, and thus you are a Slave, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People cannot get up to 1% of your population to take actions against the Government Corporations, then We The People have NO Republic.
The population of 30,000 in a city only needs 300 people to wake the rest up to inform them that Treason has been going on for over 200 Years.
The population of 300,000 in a county only needs 3,000 people, only 10 cities of those size, to wake the rest up to inform them that Treason has been going on for over 200 Years.
The population of 3,000,000 in a State only needs 30,000 people, only 10 counties of those size, to wake the rest up to inform them that Treason has been going on for over 200 Years.
By this time for the population of 300,000,000 in the USA there should be enough of you only needing 3,000,000 people to cover the country to wake the rest up for; the Republic for the united States of America to be established and NOT a Public Vote to decide it.
Are you going to be the one that Steps Up To The Plate to take action to get the Republic back, or are you going to approve of the possible New World Order that may be Mentioned in September?
Live Affidavit to: Common Law Citizen’s Grand Jury HQ and John Daresh
Proposing the Original 13th Amendment
Lincoln Starts With 37th Congress, 1861
Martial Law Instigated, 1862
Organic Act of 1871
Trading with the enemy Act, 1917
House Joint Resolution 192 of JUNE 5, 1933
Executive Order 13037, 1997 (Slavery)
August 19th, 2015 by olddog
By Brandon Smith
The average person is a statist, whether he realizes it or not. It is important that liberty activists recognize and accept this fact because the truth of our limitations as a movement determines the kinds of solutions into which we should ultimately put our time and energy. The fantasy of a final grand march of an awake and aware majority on the doorsteps of power is just that: a fantasy. Some people might argue that given more time, such an event could be organized or could happen spontaneously. But these people seem to forget that the immediacy of any crisis inspires awareness and cuts the bindings of complacency for only a certain percentage of any given population. With “more time” often comes more complacency, not less.
So, history becomes a kind of balancing act, with crisis generating the necessity of intelligent and moral action in some people but rarely, if ever, in most people (even during the American Revolution, in which patriots represented a stark minority). The reason that the culture of freedom consistently plateaus and remains stuck at underdog status is because human beings are, first, often acclimated to the idea that crises are things that only happen to other people, and, second, they are obsessed with the idea that governments should retain prohibitory and administrative power over the public as a means to “prevent” crisis from occurring (the sheepdog and sheep mentality).
Not all people necessarily “love” their current government, but many citizens tend to see the idea of government as an inevitability of a stable society. They assume pre-eminence of the state because they have never known anything else. Not only that, but as people separate into political and ideological factions, often based on false paradigms (such as the false left/right paradigm), they covet government as a kind of tool or weapon that can be used for “the greater good” if only their side had total control of it. Very few people in this world want to shrink government down to a manageable size comparable to that which existed just after the American Revolution, and even fewer would entertain the idea of erasing central governments entirely. The allure of the federalized state as a means to impose ideological control over others is intoxicating.
Central planning acolytes see society as a a single unit, or engine, in which all the people are parts rather than autonomous individuals. They believe that if any part acts outside of the bounds of the engine, the entire machine could break. According to their fuzzy logic, everything you do as an individual affects everyone else, therefore, the collective state must mold and control each individual’s behavior in order to ensure that what you do as a singular person does no harm to the whole. This philosophy is the primary rationale for EVERY push for centralization, but it is based on a faulty premise.
Governments are run by people, people commonly more flawed and corrupt than the average citizen. Central planners adore the use of government as a means to rein in populations and to compel conformity and “oneness”, but centrally planned systems always revert to a divided structure in which a criminal minority separates itself from the collective in order to rule over that collective. The elites actions violate the integrity of the engine as they attempt to drive the engine according to their own twisted ideals, leading to disaster and the end of the supposedly safe environment which the central planners had originally claimed was the benefit of central planning. Thus, the central planning model is an inherently self destructive and foolish one.
At bottom, the only viable purpose of any central government is to safeguard individual liberty. All other claims and supposed benefits are irrelevant. Infrastructure, food and water, health, education, public security, etc: All of these issues can be provided for voluntarily at a local level by common people without the aid of a central authority. The original intent of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights was to LIMIT government to the job of ensuring the continuance of a free citizenry. One could certainly argue that that role has been lost; not because of the constitution itself, but because of the lack of vigilance needed to defend the integrity of the constitution. One could also argue that the very nature of a federal government is one of inevitable corruption; many of the founding fathers did as the document was drafted, after all.
I will say that the constitution and the Bill of Rights are representations of natural law and inherent conscience, and it has taken elitists over two centuries to mostly dismantle them. At this point, a complete end to any form of federalization may be called for, but the founders certainly tried their best to create a government system that could be controlled by the people.
It was war, of course, that was used to dismantle constitutional protections…
Most of the outside or foreign threats we face today as a nation (threats often used to rationalize centralized government and standing armies) or have faced in the past century were directly or indirectly CREATED by our own government apparatus and by the banking class through covert means. Funding and training of Americas future enemies has been a grand pastime for the power brokers and politicians that reside in this very country. Without such people and the structures they exploit, it is not outlandish to suggest that the past hundred years could have been a period of peace and prosperity rather than mass death through engineered war, state culling, and mass enslavement through artificial debt constructs.
In a culture where vigilance is encouraged rather than labeled paranoia, in a culture where productivity is enabled rather than obstructed, in a culture where free thought is treated with interest rather than disdain, government holds no value.
The only people who understand the true nature of government and still value the existence of an overreaching state are the people who would like to take advantage of the unchecked power such a state affords. We often call these people “elitists.” They often call themselves elitists. Big government serves only the interests of these elites. Everyone else is either a hapless victim of it, a useful idiot in service of it, or a revolutionary opposed to it.
When a government becomes a power mechanism for a select few, it has lost all relevance. When a government like ours here in America violates the tenets of individual liberty despite its constitutional mandate, in the name of “protecting” individual liberty, that government no longer serves any purpose. Even further, when a government’s policies are designed only to ensure its own continued dominance rather than the freedom and prosperity of the citizenry, that government becomes separate from the people and is, by extension, an enemy to the citizenry.
Governments and the elites behind them retain control over populations through the use of central planning. Central planning is essentially a bureaucratic structure that bottlenecks productivity, resources, academia and ideas until all progress and expression require approval. That is to say, central planning is a machine that turns rights into privileges. It also sets up bureaucracy as the final arbiter of who is considered an authority in any particular field and who is a “layman.” These designations are not based on individual ability, intelligence or accomplishment. Rather, they are based on subservience and the level of blind faith in the establishment each person is willing to display in order to attain professional status.
Some of the most ignorant people in any given field or profession are often those deemed “experts” by establishment institutions, from politics, to law, to medicine, to economics, to science, to history, etc. The sad fact is mainstream experts are rarely the most knowledgeable, but they are the most indoctrinated.
As central planning gains ground, it moves away from more subtle institutional dependencies into full-bore tyranny. The line between permission and despotism is razor-thin, and this is where we in the U.S. stand today. Most nations around the globe are socialized nations, with central planning as the very foundation on which their societies stand. For the most part, these cultures are disarmed and servile with a modicum of perceived freedom that is treated as a privilege granted by the state rather than an inborn right of natural law. Yes, many societies have “freedoms,” as America does; but the difference is that these societies can have their freedoms confiscated at any given moment on the whim of the political elite. They have no recourse to obstruct such an action and no power to remove the offending system that rules over them when they finally get fed up.
In the U.S., central planning is surely prevalent and socialization is on a fast track. But Americans, whether they know it or not, still retain the ability of independent response — as we saw at Bundy Ranch, for instance, or in the defense of shopkeepers in Ferguson, Missouri, despite threats from government. We will lose our advantage of independent action if we allow the following changes to occur within our culture without a fight.
A disarmed population is utterly useless, philosophically and organizationally impotent, and easily ruled. Take a look at simpering weakling societies like the U.K., which prohibits anyone under the age of 18 to purchase plastic knives and punishes victims of crime for physically defending themselves. Governments that seek to undermine personal liberty ALWAYS disarm their respective populations if they can get away with it. In America, the only reason we have not yet been disarmed is because the establishment understands that revolution would immediately follow any attempt and that revolution would be seen as justified. I believe ultimately that disarmament in the U.S. will not be fully attempted until after a national crisis has been triggered.
Centralized Health Standards
The real purpose of Obamacare was not to provide universal health insurance. Such a task is utterly impossible in an economic system that is in the midst of decline with an aging population and reduced profit opportunities for the young. Socialism works only as long as there is someone from whom to steal money and resources. No, the purpose of Obamacare was to bond the healthcare industry to government in such a way as to make it an official appendage of the state.
Already, we have seen the push for the use of doctors as government informants, the issuance of forced vaccinations regardless of religious orientation or philosophical objection, increased taxation in the name of “harmonization” of care, etc. Beyond all this, the system must continue to perpetuate its own usefulness. And, I have no doubt that one day we will see such things as mandated health appraisals of individuals up to and including psychological health, as well as restricted care based on age, life habits or even ideological orientation. If the state can have your flight status restricted merely for your political beliefs, then why not one day have your access to medical care restricted?
We have heard it said many times that people should be required to attain a “license” before they are allowed to have children, but who gets to decide who is eligible for the “privilege” of children? Well, under a population planning scenario the state and its central planners do, of course. And what makes such people so ethically competent as to deserve this power over the right to family? Not a thing. In many cases, bureaucrats are the most psychopathic and unintelligent people in any given society.
Some people might argue that this kind of development is unthinkable in America and not a legitimate concern. But already in the U.S. we have seen instances of Child Protective Services abducting children belonging to parents with political conflicts with the existing establishment and living habits outside of the mainstream. We also live in a system in which many parents are forced by law to hand over their children to state-controlled schools for half of every weekday (as home-schoolers are attacked as aberrant child abusers). We are only a short step away from a world in which having a child invites as much government intrusion and restriction as rearing a child.
Overt Militarization Of Police
Yes, many people would claim that overt militarization of police has already occurred. I would say that they haven’t seen anything yet. We do not yet live in a country where jacked out cops with armor and M4 carbines stand on every street corner 24/7, but it won’t be long before this becomes our everyday environment. With politicians openly suggesting extreme measures to combat “lone wolf terrorists,” up to and including internment camps for “disloyal Americans” (thanks for at least being honest about your intentions, Wesley Clark), all it would take is one large-scale attack to inspire enough confusion in the population to provide cover for a full-blown police state. Central planning survives and thrives through fear. Fear is defeated through preparedness, planning and mindset.
A person cannot plan or prepare for crisis if he is not allowed to manage his own resources. In Venezuela today, the government has locked down all food production and is rationing out necessary supplies through sophisticated electronic tracking due to economic crisis. Make no mistake, America is just as vulnerable to financial disaster as any Third World nation, if not more so. Resource management will be the inevitable result. In fact, the Obama administration has already positioned itself for resource management through his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order. Government officials will call preppers “hoarders” and argue that no one person should be allowed to have more than he needs. Once again, the argument will be that the self preservation mentality of individuals actually harms the collective.
We already have a centralized and socialized economy for the most part, but private trade and production are still possible. Central planning is designed to wipe out alternative forms of trade and subsistence so that all people can be made dependent on the singular state. As in Venezuela, we should expect that economic declines will be used as a rationale for a clampdown on individual trade. The only way to fight these kinds of measures is for average people to become avid producers and be willing to fight back physically against confiscation and government-controlled rationing.
Beyond trade controls, centralization will culminate in economic “harmony” through multilateral currency schemes, ending in a one-world currency. A single currency system by default calls for a single economic authority, and this by default calls for a single political authority. A one-world currency is not only a fiscal coup for central planners; it is also a stepping stone toward world government.
A cashless system is a kind of unholy grail for central planners because it allows for total control of economic trade. Electronic-based currency systems can be dictated from the comfort of a computer, and savings can be erased or limited arbitrarily. Cashless systems also allow banking structures to operate without the normal consequences of supply and demand fundamentals. Today, even in our massively corrupt financial system, one cannot get around the concrete effects of diminishing demand, endless debt obligations and criminal fiat creation. We are seeing these effects vividly so far in 2015, just as we saw then in 2008. In a completely cashless system, though, debts can vanish, capital can be stolen and shifted away from the public in a more precise manner, taxes can be excised without waiting for taxpayers to comply, and demand can be artificially generated with digital fiat directed to the correct accounts without any trail to follow.
Of course, there will be damages. But, those damages will be foisted upon the general public incrementally until Third World living standards become normal, and no one will be the wiser after a couple of generations. Control of the population would be absolute, while any dissent could be met with immediate financial reprisal, as activists are sentenced to starvation.
The examples listed above may be measured as extreme, but every single one has support within our existing government structure either legally or through actual programs already being implemented. The speed at which they might occur is an unknown, but the desire for them by central planners is absolutely certain. There is no good or benevolent form of central planning. There is no scenario in which the system will not be abused because such power concentrated in the hands of any group of human beings invites abuse. Therefore, the only prudent course, the only solution to the absolute terror of complete state power, is to reduce government down to a shell of its current size or to remove its existence entirely and focus on localized systems and independent trade and infrastructure development. If the federalized state as an edifice no longer exists, then it can no longer be exploited by evil people.
Alt-Market is currently running our annual Summer Donation Drive!
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: firstname.lastname@example.org
August 18th, 2015 by olddog
Posted on http://olddogsletters.blogspot.com/ Friday, November 28, 2008 by OldDog
Those who believe the U.S. Constitution is still the supreme law of the land are just as delusional as those who believe America has free and honest markets.
The Constitution is selectively enforced by government corporations, acting in obedience to the international bankers, just as our founding fathers predicted.
American’s are totally beguiled by THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION, which is a Washington D.C. Corporation acting as elected politicians, with the sole objective of draining America of its natural resources, devaluing its currency through the excessive accumulation of national, and personal debt, and indoctrinating each generation into a dependency on the government to solve their problems, and take care of them.
Our present concern is for getting arrested for not obeying all the un-constitutional laws being passed by a rogue Congress, preserving the ability to earn a living, and stopping the transformation to a Global Electronic Currency, and Global Government.
As each generation of indoctrinated children mature, and each generation of self reliant individuals die off, America becomes a nation of intellectual cowards who obediently accept economic slavery.
Communitarianism then becomes America’s GOD, technology will no longer be needed to update character databases, and personal freedom will no longer be desired. Americans will be happy slaves!
I started researching on American sovereignty in 2004, and in 2008 I started a blog named http://inpursuitoffreedom.blogspot.com/ then shortly after that I started http://olddogsletters.blogspot.com/ then I started http://anationbeguiled.com/ and https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/ as a backup, and even with the proliferation of other patriot web-sites over these eleven years, the vast majority of American citizens still don’t have a clue about the real state of the union. They don’t know that America is NOT a sovereign Nation of Independent States, they don’t know that their brain washed children went off to Profit making wars and died for the International Banking Cartel, they don’t know that they are listed as assets, and not as free living persons, or their personal possessions like houses, cars, trucks, and bank and saving accounts are not their own private possessions, and this is just the short list of how they have been robbed, raped, and mutilated! Will someone please tell me just what the hell it takes to reach their little minds? Are the majority of my fellow Americans so stupid they have no survival instinct? No Pride! No Rage for having been beguiled their entire life! Is one hour of daily reading too much of a burden? If that is too much, will you at least read one 276 page book? I have been trying to make sense of the fiasco in America for several years and re-publishing articles showing the vast number of un-constitutional actions preventing us from enjoying a Constitutional Government. Finally I found a Retired Lady Judge through http://scannedretina.com/ (Anna von Reitz) in Alaska and discovered her book which brings all the pieces of the puzzle together. This book will change your life and help you understand the degree of tyranny you have suffered. It is available here: http://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Something-Wrong When/dp/1491279184
You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause.
Paperback – June 14, 2015
August 17th, 2015 by olddog
By Philippe Gastonne
This Saturday marks one full year since the US military began its still-undeclared war against Islamic State that the government officials openly acknowledge will last indefinitely. What do we have to show for it? So far, billions of dollars have been spent, thousands of bombs have been dropped, hundreds of civilians have been killed and Isis is no weaker than it was last August, when the airstrikes began.
But don’t take it from me – that’s the conclusion of the US intelligence community itself. As the Associated Press reported a few days ago, the consensus view of the US intelligence agencies is that Isis is just as powerful as it was a year ago, and they can replace fighters faster than they are getting killed.
Like it does for every stagnant and endless war, this inconvenient fact will likely will only lead others to call for more killing, rather than an introspection on why continuing to bomb the same region for decades does not actually work. Perhaps we’re not firing missiles at a high enough rate, they’ll say, perhaps we need a full-scale ground invasion, or perhaps we need to kill more civilians to really damage the enemy. – The Guardian, Aug. 8, 2015
Like the proverbial frog in a kettle, the American public is almost completely unaware that its president is waging an illegal war. President Obama has been spending American blood and treasure in and around Syria for a full year now.
Whether attacking the Islamic State is necessary or advisable is beside the point. The War Powers Resolution clearly requires the president to withdraw from hostilities within 60 days unless Congress consents. It has not.
The administration contends that the 2001 authorization for military force against al Qaeda gives it authority to attack the Islamic State as an allied force. Yet al Qaeda and Islamic State are not even remotely allied. They are bitter enemies, in fact. By bombing the Islamic State, the U.S. is actually helping al Qaeda.
Why does Congress not defend its prerogative? Because our representatives and senators are cowards. Taking a vote would mean taking a stand, either for or against the action. The members fear (correctly) that opponents will use this stand against them in subsequent elections. Dodging responsibility is far easier. They retain the option to either claim credit or blame Obama, whichever is more expedient.
Keep in mind, this same Congress claims Obama has overstepped his authority in other areas and has taken many symbolic votes to prove it. They have filed lawsuits against him on matters far less serious than an illegal war. Yet in this case, they are happy to let him keep bombing. Why?
The real answer is that war is very profitable. The Pentagon must replace the expended weaponry, buy parts for its aircraft and pay contractors for all sorts of tasks. One man’s waste is another man’s profit margin. Those who profit from U.S. military action use their influence to make sure it continues.
War is a racket. It always has been and will always be so. The racketeers succeed because they have help from a cowardly Congress and a public obsessed with its bread and circuses.
Any Nation obsessed with immorality, diversity, self-centeredness, and cowardice will not survive if WAR is their only attribute. Sadly, America is at the point of imminent destruction and no-one seems to care enough to stand up and publically declare the right to reorganize its own Government. Let it be clear that we were given that right the second we were born, so why are you standing on the tracks while waiting on the train? I don’t mean to say that every person has the ability to be a leader, and to be honest a real leader is few and far between, but if the majority do not believe that the present danger exist, that capable person is certainly intelligent enough to avoid certain death. My fellow Americans, unless you find a capable person to rally around and pledge your life to protecting him/her, and show the deadheads you will die for your freedom from economic tyranny and immorality then you most certainly will have to accept slavery FOREVER! It could begin by finding a capable Governor for each State who can organize a resistance in his/her own State against the tyrannical Corporation in D.C. and together compose a new contract between each State, and then appoint potential candidates for protector of the contract. We don’t need an all powerful nation to show the world our strength, all we need is to be a good neighbor. That begins by EDUCATING THE PEOPLE and being honest with ourselves.
August 15th, 2015 by olddog
By James Corbett: War On Terror
Syria is once again the center of attention with Washington and Ankara agreeing on “ISIS-free zones” that each partner is interpreting in its own way. Joining us to explore those interpretations is Sibel Edmonds ofBoilingFrogsPost.com, just back from the region with intel on a possible timeline for increased military action in the country.
In this conversation James and Sibel discuss Turkey’s battle against the Kurds and how the Kurdish population are being used by the US and Israel as pawns in a complex chess game. We also examine the recent bombing in Suruc and signs that it was a false flag provocation.
It’s amazing the psychopaths in Nato and the us can read from the same broken playbook over and over and the American people can figure it out.
It is my opinion that the average American has been conditioned to be a complete idiot.
Soon, the oppressors will turn on the American people for their cowardice alone.
Acting like a doormat only brings about boots on your face.
Just remember this America, you can cower in fear to avoid the bullies for now, but when they run out of victims they will come for YOU.
A PEOPLE DESERVE ANY REGIME THEY ENDURE!
“The duty of a Patriot is to protect his country from its government.” – Thomas Paine
Apathy is the real villain of history.
“Tolerating evil in any form at any level only brings about more evil. As a result, the true cost of tolerating the intolerable is a totally intolerable society, from which you can never draft good government.” – JB Williams
“It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H.L. Mencken
August 12th, 2015 by olddog
By John Whitehead
Being a citizen in the American corporate state is much like playing against a stacked deck: you’re always going to lose.
The game is rigged, and “we the people” keep getting dealt the same losing hand. Even so, most stay in the game, against all odds, trusting that their luck will change.
The problem, of course, is that luck will not save us. As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the people dealing the cards—the politicians, the corporations, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the bureaucrats, the military, the media, etc.—have only one prevailing concern, and that is to maintain their power and control over the citizenry, while milking us of our money and possessions.
It really doesn’t matter what you call them—Republicans, Democrats, the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.
Incredibly, no matter how many times we see this played out, Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not).
As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton’s values are any different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots).
Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion.
In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same. It’s no secret that both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.
Most of all, both parties enjoy an intimate, incestuous history with each other and with the moneyed elite that rule this country. Don’t be fooled by the smear campaigns and name-calling. They’re just useful tactics of the psychology of hate that has been proven to engage voters and increase voter turnout while keeping us at each other’s throats.
Despite the jabs the candidates volley at each other for the benefit of the cameras, they’re a relatively chummy bunch away from the spotlight, presenting each other with awards (remember when Jeb Bush presented Hillary Clinton with a Liberty Medal for her service to the country), attending each other’s weddings (Bill and Hillary had front-row seats for Trump’s 2005 wedding), and embracing with genuine affection.
Trump’s various donations to the Clintons (he donated to Hillary’s Senate campaigns, as well as the Clinton Foundation) are not unusual. Remember, FOX News mogul Rupert Murdoch actually hosted a fundraiser for Hillary’s Senate reelection campaign back in 2006 and contributed to her presidential campaign two years later. In fact, FOX News has reportedly been one of Hillary’s biggest donors for the better part of two decades.
Are you starting to get the picture? It doesn’t matter who wins the White House, because they all work for the same boss: Corporate America. In fact, many corporations actually hedge their bets on who will win the White House by splitting their donations between Democratic and Republican candidates.
We’re in trouble, folks, and picking a new president won’t save us.
Just consider how insidious, incestuous and beholden to the corporate elite the various “parts” of the government mechanism have become.
Congress. Perhaps the most notorious offenders and most obvious culprits in the creation of the corporate-state, Congress has proven itself to be both inept and avaricious, oblivious champions of an authoritarian system that is systematically dismantling their constituents’ fundamental rights. Long before they’re elected, Congressmen are trained to dance to the tune of their wealthy benefactors, so much so that they spend two-thirds of their time in office raising money.
The President. With the 2016 presidential election shaping up to be the most expensive one in our nation’s history, with estimates as high as $10 billion, “the way is open for an orgy of spending by well-heeled interest groups and super rich individuals on both political sides.” Yet even after the votes have been counted and favors tallied, the work of buying and selling access to the White House is far from over. Such access comes with a steep price tag.
The Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court—once the last refuge of justice, the one governmental body really capable of rolling back the slowly emerging tyranny enveloping America—has instead become the champion of the American police state, absolving government and corporate officials of their crimes while relentlessly punishing the average American for exercising his or her rights. Indeed, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky makes a compelling case that the Supreme Court, whose “justices have overwhelmingly come from positions of privilege,” almost unerringly throughout its history, sides with the wealthy, the privileged, and the powerful.
The Media. Of course, this triumvirate of total control would be completely ineffective without a propaganda machine provided by the world’s largest corporations. Besides shoving drivel down our throats at every possible moment, the so-called news agencies which are supposed to act as bulwarks against government propaganda have instead become the mouthpieces of the state. The pundits which pollute our airwaves are at best court jesters and at worst propagandists for the false reality created by the American government.
The American People. “We the people” now belong to a permanent underclass in America. It doesn’t matter what you call us—chattel, slaves, worker bees, drones, it’s all the same—what matters is that we are expected to march in lockstep with and submit to the will of the state in all matters, public and private. Through our complicity in matters large and small, we have allowed an out-of-control corporate-state apparatus to take over every element of American society.
Our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall.
Now we find ourselves once again caught up in the spectacle of another presidential election, and once again the majority of Americans is acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change—as if the new boss will be any different from the old boss.
Come on John, admit it you’re working both sides of the table until you give up your bar credentials. You are also laying a smoke screen between what you call Corporate America and the International Investment Banking Cartel. How about publishing all of their names and the hierarchy ranking.
August 11th, 2015 by olddog
By: J. D. Heyes
The police and surveillance state predicted in the forward-looking 1940s classic “1984” by George Orwell, has slowly, but steadily, come to fruition. However, like a frog sitting idly in a pan of steadily-warming water, too many Americans still seem unaware that the slow boil of big government is killing their constitutional liberties.
The latest sign of this stealth takeover of civil rights and freedom was epitomized in recent Senate testimony by FBI Director James Comey, who voiced his objections to civilian use of encryption to protect personal data – information the government has no automatic right to obtain.
As reported by The New American, Comey testified that he believes the government’s spy and law enforcement agencies should have unfettered access to everything Americans may store or send in electronic format: On computer hard drives, in so-called i-clouds, in email and in text messaging – for our own safety and protection. Like many in government today, Comey believes that national security is more important than constitutional privacy protections or, apparently, due process. After all, aren’t criminals the only ones who really have anything to hide?
In testimony before a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy” Comey said that in order to stay one step ahead of terrorists, as well as international and domestic criminals, Uncle Sam’s various spy and law enforcement agencies should have access to available technology used to de-encrypt protected data. Also, he believes the governmentshould be the final arbiter deciding when decryption is necessary.
What could go wrong there?
Find more articles on the police state at PoliceState.news
Government, at all levels, is responsible
During the hearing, TNA reported, technology experts warned the panel that giving the FBI limitless access to the personal electronic data of Americans would open it up to exploitation by “bad actors.” But Comey was having none of that.
“It is clear that governments across the world, including those of our closest allies, recognize the serious public safety risks if criminals can plan and undertake illegal acts without fear of detection,” he told the committee.
“Are we comfortable with technical design decisions that result in barriers to obtaining evidence of a crime?”
So, in essence, Comey – like many before him, especially since the global war on terror was launched – believes that, in the name of national security Americans ought to give up more of their individual and constitutional rights because that’s the only way we can be adequately protected.
Perhaps realizing that his Senate hearing testimony was public, Comey gave the Constitution a passing glance, noting that the government should respect the “requirements and safeguards of the laws” and the country’s founding document. However, as Americans now know, spy agencies during the past two presidential administrations have been tasked increasingly with conducting warrantless, unchecked surveillance of Americans’ electronic data and communications.
But all of this is not on men like Comey and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Congress bears its share of responsibility, too.
This is the way it is – shut up and take it
When such activities of the National Security Agency were exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, many in the media and among the American electorate were quick to blame the agency, as if it was somehow acting out of rogue instinct.
The reality is, however, that the agency is tasked to perform its duties– either by statutory law (think the USA Patriot Act) or by presidential directive (think Bush’s order after 9/11 to conduct warrantless surveillance).
“We are not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority, but rather we are asking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to the legal authority that Congress has provided to us to keep America safe,” Comey said during the Senate hearing.
What does all this mean? It simply means that at every level, government considers its own citizens hostile.
OH, AND THERE’S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT!
Supreme Court: Citizens cannot challenge government surveillance laws
By J. D. Heyes
A “sharply divided” U.S. Supreme Court erected yet another barrier between the people and their government on Feb. 26 by ruling that ordinary citizens don’t have standing to question government surveillance laws.
In a five to four ruling, a majority of justices threw out a bid by a group of lawyers, journalists and other organizations to challenge a 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, ostensibly because they could not prove the government would monitor their conversations in addition to those of potential intelligence targets and terrorist operatives.
In writing for the court’s majority, Justice Samuel Alito said his colleagues “have been reluctant to endorse standing theories that require guesswork.”
Your concerns are not founded, slave
The act first became law in 1978. It gives the government authority to monitor conversations of foreign spies, terrorist subjects and others abroad for the purpose of collecting intelligence.
In 2008, new FISA amendments “allow the government to obtain from a secret court broad, yearlong intercept orders, raising the prospect that phone calls and emails between those foreign targets and innocent Americans in this country would be swept under the umbrella of surveillance,” The Associated Press reported.
However, without actual proof that the law would directly affect American citizens, Alito said in the court’s ruling that citizens would not be able to sue.
Regardless of their documented concerns, along with the expense of activities some Americans have taken to make sure they aren’t swept up in officially sanctioned government monitoring, they “have set forth no specific facts demonstrating that the communications of their foreign contacts will be targeted,” Alito added.
He also said the expansion of FISA only authorized, but does not direct or mandate, the government surveillance. And because of that provision, “respondents’ allegations are necessarily conjectural.”
“Simply put, respondents can only speculate as to how the attorney general and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target,” Alito wrote.
He was joined in his decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, the man who invented the constitutionality of Obamacare out of thin air, along with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The minority gets one right
Writing in dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have permitted the lawsuit to move ahead because he thinks “the government has a strong motive to listen to conversations of the kind described.”
“We need only assume that the government is doing its job (to find out about, and combat terrorism) in order to conclude that there is a high probability that the government will intercept at least some electronic communication to which at least some of the plaintiffs are party,” Breyer said.
The majority of justices are incorrect when they describe the harm threatened plaintiffs as “speculative,” Breyer added.
He was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Originally, a federal judge threw out the lawsuit, saying plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. However, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit. The high court was not considering the constitutionality of the law’s expansion, but rather whether lawyers could file a lawsuit to challenge it in federal court.
High court’s solution: Wait until you’ve been violated
Jonathan Hafetz, a former ACLU attorney and an expert on national security and privacy issues who also teaches at Seton Hall University‘s law school, told AP, “The decision effectively insulates the government’s increasingly broad surveillance powers from meaningful court review, threatening constitutional liberties in the name of secrecy and security.”
The ACLU represented the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court.
In writing his opinion, Alito emphasized the court’s role, saying the ruling did not prevent the expansion of FISA from judicial scrutiny or review, even going so far as to suggest a couple of ways in which a challenge to the law could be brought to court.
“It is possible that the monitoring of the target’s conversations with his or her attorney would provide grounds for a claim of standing on the part of the attorney,” Alito said. “Such an attorney would certainly have a stronger evidentiary basis for establishing standing than do respondents in the present case.”
In late December, President Obama quietly reauthorized FISA, which was set to expire at the end of 2012. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
August 10th, 2015 by olddog
By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
August 9, 2015
The Fox News Republican debates Thursday night had a record-breaking audience of 24 million.
I don’t know the size of the audience for the earlier debate which hosted presidential candidates Senator Lindsay Graham, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Senator Rick Santorum, and former New York Governor George Pataki.
What became apparent in the early debate is that Governor Gilmore and Carly Fiorina belong onstage with those we consider serious candidates for the Republican presidential race and the others belong exactly where they are… junior varsity.
In the Big Star Debate that same night, entrepreneur real estate mogul Donald Trump, the strong leader in the race, appeared with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, former Arkansas Governor and former Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
The word used most often during the debate was “conservative.” The candidates know they cannot win a Presidential election without the votes of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and make sure their comments feature any conservative actions, thoughts or deeds to which they can lay claim. Equally, those audience members who truly are conservative are left wondering what candidates mean when they say “I’m conservative.” Some of their “I support this or that” comments shout “I’m a neo-conservative” or “I’m a social liberal.”
The hosts of the show did not clarify the term and they should have done so. They made the journalistic mistake of not requesting clarification of a term everyone was using but which was being interpreted differently by different candidates. They assumed that everyone has the same definition of the word “conservative.” They did not.
Whenever Jeb Bush and John Kasich use the word, it translates to “fiscal conservative, social liberal.” In other words, they are part of the neo-conservative family of politics. How do I know that? Both support Common Core. Both support amnesty for illegal aliens in one form or another. You can put all the lipstick on that pig you want, it’s still a pig.
How do you define “conservative?” First, it’s a philosophy of life, not an independent action (or a series of actions). For example, someone who supports building a wall to cease illegal alien entry into our country may call him or herself a “conservative.” But if that person also supports some form of amnesty their conservative credentials should be questioned. Why? Because conservatives believe first and foremost in the rule of law that flows from the Constitution and the first thing illegal’s do when they enter America is violate our laws. It’s sad that they entered our nation illegally and built an illegal life here and even sadder that their children may have been born here and call this country home, but it doesn’t change that their very presence shows disregard for our Constitution and laws that tell them how to legally become an American.
A conservative is a constitutionalist. First and foremost, that is what a conservative is. Second, you don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you support and reject those parts with which you disagree. It’s an all or nothing deal which, when honored under one set of circumstances but not another, indicates the person is like President Obama, believing he or she has the right to set aside this or that constitutional law when they feel like it. A real conservative doesn’t believe that.
Because conservatives are constitutionalists, they believe in the Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution. You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you respect. Either you respect and obey them, or you work to change them. You don’t break laws… not even when you’re out for a Sunday drive and want to exceed the speed limit. I admit that when government becomes tyrannical and passes bad or unlawful laws, it is time to protest and if that doesn’t work, to disobey. Government and its laws must be kept in check.
Conservatives value and respect the truth. They do not ignore reality. They do not live their lives as if things are as they want them to be rather than how they really are. They identify problems and search for solutions. They do not put on rose-colored glass while ignoring reality, letting things get worse. Or, worse yet, they don’t compromise truth with lies thinking they have somehow advanced an otherwise hopeless cause. To compromise truth with lies and expect truth to shine through is to mix milk with coffee and expect the coffee to remain black.
Perhaps rather than asking a question about whether everyone on stage will support the Republican candidate who gains the nomination (regardless of who it is), Fox moderators might ask candidates if they believe in and support the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and if they value truth over political correctness. If they don’t want to ask those questions, they might ask each candidate to define what he or she means when they use the word “conservative.” Without that definition, an audience cannot make logical sense out of the answers given by debate participants who apply the word differently from one another.
If you look at the answers given Thursday night with those three things in mind, you will find Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, and Rand Paul are constitutionalists. And, it may surprise you, but so is Donald Trump. From the earlier debate, so is former business executive Carly Fiorina.
When you look at the issue of abortion, Mike Huckabee gave a truly conservative answer to that particular question. De-funding Planned Parenthood as supported by Senators Cruz and Rubio is a good band-aid, but it’s only a band-aid – and it doesn’t solve the real problem. The question that needs to be answered is when can what a woman carries in her womb be defined as “human life” deserving of the protections the Constitution gives all Americans? Huckabee, however, supports Common Core… a socially liberal position.
Scott Walker opposes abortion on the grounds of personal belief – and God blerss him for it. So, too, do John Kasich and several other debaters. The Constitution, not any individual’s personal beliefs, however, is what needs to guide the behavior of any lawmaker and certainly the behavior of our President. Walker is right that there are better, less risky alternatives than late-term abortion to save the life of a woman in the late stages of pregnancy… but even that is a humanitarian, not a constitutional, reason late-term abortion is wrong.
When you look at the issue of privacy violations that result from the NSA’s gathering of data that tells them who all citizens of the United States talk with on their telephones or email daily, Rand Paul clearly placed the Fourth Amendment into the debate. He was right. It is a constitutional answer.
As it relates to the candidates, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Governor Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, and Rand Paul appear to be real conservatives based on the questions asked and my definition of the word. Some of the others appear to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Some appear to merely be politicians trying to enhance their political reputations by running for the presidency. Donald Trump remains a question mark relative to whether he is a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.
Marco Rubio removed himself from my list of possibilities when I learned his first major speech after the announcement of his candidacy was given at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Most of the problems in America today had their start at the CFR which controls far too much of what goes on in Washington, D.C.
Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal are not natural born Americans. That is a constitutional requirement for a person to hold the office of the President. I love Ted Cruz and would vote for him, but this is a major roadblock. The fact that his wife, Heidi, has worked for Goldman Sachs for years is another.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any definition other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. The most often quoted Supreme Court case is Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) but USA We the People makes available several Supreme Court decisions that define “natural born.” They all say it means an American citizen born of two American citizens.
A lot of Americans don’t take the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution very seriously. Perhaps they have bought the liberal/progressive line that a legitimate candidate for the Presidency need only be a citizen – born in the United States. A lot of anchor babies whose mothers unlawfully come across the border to give birth in San Diego or El Paso are born every year. They can, using this definition of “natural born,” become President – even if they were raised and educated in Mexico. The point is, “natural born citizen” is a very important qualification for anyone wanting to become President of the United States – and it is part of our Constitution.
To believe otherwise is a very dangerous, anti-constitutional position for several reasons – including an acceptance by the Republican Party that Barack Obama was always a legitimate candidate (and in my opinion he is not and never has been). Obama’s birth certificate has nothing to do with it. His father’s Kenyan birth has everything to do with it. He is not and has never been a natural-born American citizen because his father was not a citizen of the United States at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.
By approving the idea that to qualify for the Presidency all you need to do to run for president is be born in America makes what Obama did lawful – and it is not. To accept one of these three men – Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio – as a legitimate Republican candidate for the Presidency removes the possibility that Obama’s Presidency (and all of the programs and appointments put in place under his pretend Administration) will one day be declared unlawful because he was unqualified to be President (not a natural born American). Think about it. What a great way to get rid of most of the Obama Administration’s bad legislation, including Obama Care. If a Republican candidate who is not a natural born American is accepted as the legitimate Republican candidate, the possibility of one day declaring Obama’s Presidency void due to natural born citizenship non-qualification is dead.
As for Donald Trump’s performance Thursday night, had I been standing on the stage with him I would have raised my hand with him. There are people running for the Republican nomination that I would not support just because the Republican Party says this is the person they want elected to office. They also recommended John Boehner and Mitch McConnell who have kept none of the Republican promises made before the 2012 and 2014 elections.
I respect Trump for his honesty. What puts me off about The Donald is that he relates himself to the problems of the world (rather than relating the problems of the world to himself) That is a text book definition of a narcissist and we’ve had more than six years of watching a narcissistic President in action.
Trump may not be a narcissist. Maybe he relates himself to the problems of the world because he lacks a record as Congressman or Senator or Governor and his personal success is what he has to relate to when he speaks of problems and solutions.
The Donald can dissipate the view many people have of him – that of narcissist – by talking about solutions to problems rather than just pointing out the problems and telling us how stupid politicians are. Though in most instances he’s right telling us how stupid they are, it tells us nothing of how he would have been smarter in solving the specific problems the “stupid” politicians have failed to solve.
He can talk about how to create jobs, not just point out something we all know: Jobs must be created. He can talk about how to stimulate independent business growth, not just point out that the current Congress and White House are destroying independent banks which removes access to credit needed by independent businesses (which employs the largest percentage of America’s workers). We’ll see if he has specific suggestions in mind or if his campaign is just going to point out problems most of us know exist.
It’s hard for me to say this because when Carly Fiorina was fired from Hewlett Packard, I wrote a relatively nasty article about her. After watching the first debates, she stands out solidly as the best prepared, the clearest thinking, the most knowledgeable candidate on the long list of Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential race. We need to know more about her.
I’m not into wars against women or feminism, but I think it would be a riot if Republicans elected the first women President of the United States of America… if a woman is the most qualified to hold that job.
© 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
August 8th, 2015 by olddog
By Washington’s Blog / globalresearch.ca
Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.
But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:
The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike
Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):
In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Moreover (pg. 512):
The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):
I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.
Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:
I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):
It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:
The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):
[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:
Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):
When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:
The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]
British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”
On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”
Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?
Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.
For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):
I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…
It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…
General George Marshall agreed:
Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.
Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed
Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.
As historian Doug Long notes:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).
Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):
The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.
Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):
In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.
Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?
If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?
One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:
On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”
However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.
Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:
“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.
Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:
We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.
Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).
The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.
The Real Explanation?
In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.
New Scientist reported in 2005:
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”
[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.
John Pilger points out:
The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.
We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:
Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.
Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.
The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.
Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.
With what has been learned about the power of the International Banking Cartel, who in their right mind would doubt they controlled the Political Powers who committed this unspeakable scourge on humanity? Only when people world wide understand how and why humanity has been beguiled will they rise up and demand these monsters be burned at the stake. They are the purest form of evil, and deserve unspeakable deaths. Likewise, the Popes who have participated in the destruction of Christianity should surely be acknowledged as the Bankers assistants. Enlighten yourself and ACCEPT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY!
August 6th, 2015 by olddog
By Philippe Gastonne
When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. [William J.] Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country.
His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story.
He has appeared as an expert witness in criminal trials, civil cases and disciplinary hearings, and before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers on how to think differently about police shootings that might appear excessive.
A string of deadly police encounters in Ferguson, Mo.; North Charleston, S.C.; and most recently in Cincinnati, have prompted a national reconsideration of how officers use force and provoked calls for them to slow down and defuse conflicts. But the debate has also left many police officers feeling unfairly maligned and suspicious of new policies that they say could put them at risk. – New York Times, August 2, 2015
Police shootings have been a major news topic for a year now, dating back to when a Ferguson, Missouri officer killed Michael Brown in August 2014. Social media and video evidence have convinced many Americans police kill citizens far too frequently and without just cause.
Even if we believe this (as your correspondent does), we must also admit that some police shootings are justifiable. Law enforcement officers often have to enter dangerous situations and sometimes they must defend themselves or others with deadly force.
Police officers have the same right to self-defense as civilians, but they also have an additional legal duty that citizens do not. Their oaths obligate police to protect the public from harm, even at the risk of the officer’s own life.
People are forgetting that last clause. Note the last sentence in our NYT excerpt. Police officers are “suspicious of new policies that they say could put them at risk.”
To be a police officer is to have an inherently risky occupation. We do not conscript anyone into the police. They accept the obligation freely, with full awareness of the risks that go with it. Society gives them privileges like carrying weapons, and protective equipment like body armor. These reduce potential harm, but the risk of harm never disappears.
Police leaders sometimes say their officers’ #1 job is to “come home alive.” That is completely wrong. The police officer’s #1 job is to protect and serve the people in his jurisdiction. That duty overrides his own right to self-preservation. If the two ever conflict, protecting the innocent must outweigh protecting the police.
Consider an example. Suppose a police officer encounters a young child, say 8-10 years old, carrying what appears to be a real pistol. The child raises the object as if to fire. Should the officer fire first?
I would argue the answer is no. No adult, police or civilian, may ever legitimately kill a child. Children are prima facie innocent of criminal intent.
The police officer in this example should not even draw his own weapon because shooting the child should not be an option. He can try to subdue the child with non-lethal force, but he must not kill.
If this reaction costs him his own life, then we should mourn and honor his sacrifice. He acted heroically. A child now lives because he died.
Shooting the child would have been the opposite of heroic: an act of pure selfishness.
Situations are never so clear in reality, of course. Maybe it was a toy gun or some other innocuous object. If it was real, then whoever gave it to the child deserves severe punishment, but the child does not deserve to die. Police must protect the innocent even at the cost of their own lives.
We who are not police officers should not envy the split-second decisions they must make. Yet they are in that position because they asked to be in it.
Policing is an intrinsically risky occupation. Those who do not wish to take these risks should find other work. Someone who can’t recognize the limits of his own right to self-defense has no business wearing a badge.
I make no apologies for past comments on killer cops, but the author is dead on in this clear as a bell commentary. If the cops are more concerned about their own welfare than the people they serve and protect, they should not be cops. PERIOD! However, I still hold the entire force accountable for not standing up and making the changes themselves. That’s a part of serve and protect. They should have never allowed this system of tyranny to exist to begin with, and should not have to be forced to change it. You can always tell there is a problem when they are unfriendly and refuse to engage in conversation.
August 1st, 2015 by olddog
Grand Juries Not So Grand
In the beginning, back about 1215 AD in Europe, grand juries were comprised of 25 good and honorable men who stood as a shield to protect the people from corrupt bureaucrats and overly-aggressive prosecutors; and a sword to bring wrongdoers to justice.
Fast-forward to the beginning of the 1900s in America: grand juries stood as an obstacle to the greed and corruption of the legal profession and their co-conspirators, the judiciary (sometimes referred to lawyers on steroids). With a little help from their other partners in crime, lawyer/legislators, statutes were passed, gradually bringing grand juries under control of the courts and the state attorneys, and away from any effective connection with the People. ‘Can’t have all them little people running around thinkin’ for themselves, now, can we?’
Today, Grand Juries are a plaything, a rubber stamp, for state attorneys, paying nothing more than lip service to our Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” An infamous crime being any infraction that could result in loss of property or liberty (fines or jail).
Anything less than a grand jury review is obstruction of justice and lack of due process.
“If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
Which pretty much sums up where we are—garbage in, garbage out. A
grand jury can only consider the information they receive. If the court determines who is on the grand jury, and the state attorney decides information they receive, the results are 99.9%, the state attorney gets what he wants.
How does that serve the People? Obviously it can’t.
So, what can we do about it?
It would be pretty good to have a place to go where someone will listen to your concern and actually has the power to do something about it.
First let’s find out who has the power. According to the Constitution, “All power derives from the People.” So that would lead us to believe the People have the power. Second, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” –Tenth Amendment.
Since there are no provisions for the federal government to control grand juries, that leaves the states or the People to decide.
When the states decide (and many states simply decided to do away with grand juries) their decisions are always on the side of what best benefits Bar Association members.
That leaves the People—remember, the ones with the power? Some People decided, enough is enough and are joining a rapidly-growing trend by setting up their own grand juries. Some call themselves Citizen Grand Jury, others Common Law Grand Jury, or The People’s Grand Jury. Regardless the name, the purpose and process is much the same: secrecy of deliberations, independence of influence, and, self-managed, of, by, and for the People.
This may not be the answer to all our problems, but it’s a really good start. For more info: email@example.com
Hello from James P. Harvey aka Olddog,
http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com
Not having the education or intellect to properly investigate, research, and write my own articles I have resorted to re-publishing the works of my betters as the only course of action I can control. Please reflect on the word control, because as I see it a citizens Grand Jury is, and will remain impotent unless they acquire the power to convict and control the verdict, and an educated public supports them.
Please inform me of who would enforce a Grand Jury conviction, as I stand ready to give my life to reverse the tyranny of our government.
I will be 75 on 10-19-15 and live with a rage that only the very best word-smith could elucidate. My former ignorance of the real state of the Union was much more comfortable to live with.
I commend you and all who want freedom from tyrannical governance, but the very best minds have designed this state of affairs and presently have the muscle to enforce their decisions, while we dream of revenge. Our results so far can only be compared to intellectual masturbation.
From: Jury Foreman [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Subject: Re: Grand Juries not so Grand
Attachments: Grand Jury Authority.doc
There is nothing wrong with your ability to express yourself, Sir, you do quite well, and I thank you for your kind words. To be clear, Sol Wachtler was a New York prosecutor credited with making the ‘ham sandwich’ statement. I wrote the article, but because of my direct involvement in the Grand Jury, I use a pen name to deflect attention.
Enforcement of our presentments or True Bills is in the domain of the state attorney or law enforcement office. For a public official to ignore notification of convincing evidence a crime has occurred makes them susceptible to charges of obstruction, malfeasance of office, misprision of felony, violation of oath of office, ad infinitum.
We use their statutes to enforce our laws. See attached. If there is anything else I can answer, I welcome your communications, anytime. Also, if you want to form your own People’s Grand Jury in your county, let us know.
As you can see by the conversation above, I was convinced there was nothing we could accomplish besides exposing juries to civil retribution. But things have recently changed with new information received. Retired Judge Anna Maria Retzinger and James Clinton Snover have authored a book explaining the sequence of events that was used to enslave we the people and now the real accumulation of power can commence. Once we have a hundred million people read and understand the Real State of the Union which will happen as they read this book, then we will have a force so powerful, freedom can be obtained.
So, with hope firmly in mind, please do everything in your power to obtain and read this book, which will give you the courage through understanding to make our demands on the tyrannical tyrants lording over us.
As Moses said, LET MY PEOPLE GO!
It is available here: http://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Something-Wrong-When/dp/1491279184
276 pgs $11.22 + shipping
You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause Paperback – June 14, 2015
This will empower you through, Comprehension, Hope, Courage and Motivation.
July 30th, 2015 by olddog
By Alex Newman
In a radical attack on the due-process rights of Americans that received virtually no media attention, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to give the Obama administration the unilateral power to strip you of your passport and right to travel without a trial or even criminal charges. The scheme does not even include a way to challenge your status as a non-person involuntarily trapped inside U.S. borders on orders from the secretary of state. Lawmakers, some of whom could themselves be caught in the dragnet along with myriad administration officials, praised the effort as a way to stop alleged terrorists from travelling. But critics said it was yet another attack on the fundamental rights of Americans, such as due-process protections, and that it must be resisted.
As if to illustrate how out of touch with the U.S. Constitution most members of Congress have become, the legislation, HR 237, also known as “FTO (foreign terrorist organization) Passport Revocation Act,” did not even receive a recorded vote — supposedly because it was so “uncontroversial.” It passed after 15 minutes of alleged “debate.” Bill sponsor Ted Poe (R-Texas) claimed the measure, adopted under a “suspension of the rules” typically used for trivialities such as renaming post offices, was passed unanimously. Of course, in an age in which the White House openly claims the unilateral authority to murder or indefinitely detain American citizens without even charging them with a crime, passport revocations likely seem trivial by comparison. But opponents of the measure said it was a big deal nonetheless.
Under the bill, “the Secretary of State may refuse to issue a passport to any individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization,” the text states. “The Secretary of State may revoke a passport previously issued to any individual” whom Secretary of State John Kerry, or future administrations that could be even more radical, unilaterally decides may have done any of those things. The terms are left undefined, opening up widespread potential for abuse, and there is no appeals process outlined in the legislation.
In essence, if approved by the Senate and signed into law by Obama, one man — far-left radical Kerry, for now — would have the power to strip you of your unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Under the measure, individuals targeted by Kerry or his successors would have no right to due-process of law — no trial by jury, no chance to contest the findings in open court (or anywhere else), no right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty, not even a right to see the accusations. Indeed, even actual criminal charges are unnecessary under the scheme for somebody to be permanently trapped in or out of the United States based on secret evidence, with no mechanism to appeal.
Lawmakers who supported the measure, though, put a different spin on it. “Daily, deadly attacks around the world remind us that radical Islamic terrorists are spreading their murderous rampage worldwide,” said Rep. Poe, who sponsored the legislation and has a 70 percent cumulative score on the Freedom Index. “The threat to America from these groups has never been greater. But some of our own citizens have travelled to the terrorist hotbeds in Syria and beyond to fight for the other side. These Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens.”
Of course, after being proven guilty of terrorism or treason in a court of law, actual terrorists and traitors would — and regularly do — lose the rights guaranteed to Americans in the U.S. Constitution. However, Rep. Poe fails to mention that, and instead of a trial by jury to determine guilt, individuals would lose their rights merely on the word of one administration official. “This will help law enforcement locate these individuals by making it easier to flag the individuals who are trying to travel internationally,” Poe continued. “Most importantly, this legislation will help prevent turned Americans from coming back to the United States undetected.”
“The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors,” Rep. Poe added, without explaining the implications of giving the Obama administration the unilateral authority to declare somebody a “traitor” without any semblance of due process. “It’s time for the Senate to quickly do the same. These people are not returning to America to open coffee shops; they are coming back to kill. Let’s stop them from coming back at all.” Other Republican lawmakers issued similar statements in support of the measure. Existing U.S. statutes already allowed Americans’ passports to be revoked for “national security,” but apparently the administrative appeals process available under that program was too much for Congress.
The handful of critics who were aware of the scheming ahead of the vote slammed a wide range of provisions in the measure. “The bill provides no ability for someone wrongly denied a passport to challenge the Secretary of State’s findings that they helped a terrorist,” explained Norm Singleton, vice president for policy at the Campaign for Liberty and a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. “So much for due process and reining in executive power.” Before the vote, he urged supporters of due process to call their representatives and tell them to oppose the scheme, but it was approved in the House the next day anyway.
In a wide-ranging and widely re-published criticism of the legislation, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity chief Daniel McAdams blasted the process used to adopt it, the anti-liberty ideology underpinning it, and the bill itself. “This means the Secretary of State can, unilaterally, with no due process and no oversight, deprive an American citizen the privileges of citizenship, thus relegating him to internal exile inside the United States — a practice most recently perfected in the Soviet Union,” he wrote. “What does the word ‘aided’ mean? No one knows. Is there any wiggle room for inadvertency? No one knows. And what about the very political nature of the US ‘terror’ list in the first place?”
“The U.S. Secretary of State can revoke my passport without meeting any burden of proof that I am actually a terrorist or even that I have ever supported terrorism. He can keep his evidence against me totally secret and will never be required to justify his actions against me,” McAdams continued. “And this is considered ‘uncontroversial’ in the United States? Even in revolutionary France you had the Vendée which resisted the madness of the totalitarian state. Here we have the ‘suspension calendar,’ a modern guillotine of our rights.”
Ironically, as liberty-minded critics such as McAdams subtly pointed out, if the measure had been in effect just a few years ago, a broad range of top current and former officials in both major political parties would have been subject to losing their passports for openly supporting (after being paid big bucks) the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, a designated terror group until 2012 often described as an Islamo-Marxist “cult.” Until 2008, supporters of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, which included top U.S. officials, would have also been targeted. Meanwhile, the Obama administration was exposed years ago openly supporting proud al-Qaeda leaders, first in their war against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and more recently in Syria.
Americans with alleged tax debts are also in Congress’ crosshairs for being stripped of their right to travel and due process, and have been for years. In fact, just this week, the Senate included a provision in the “transportation” bill it introduced that would strip the passports of anyone the IRS claims owes over $50,000. And analysts said this is all just the beginning, with efforts to use passports and citizenship as leverage against Americans — and as a means of bypassing due process — steadily gaining steam.
Under the administration’s outlandish “interpretations” of unconstitutional U.S. statutes, Obama already claims to have the dictatorial power to assassinate or indefinitely detain anyone without even charging them with a crime — much less proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury. Already, the former chief of the CIA and NSA can boast openly that “we kill people based on metadata.” By comparison, then, revoking passports does indeed seem trivial. However, the expanding attack on due-process rights under the guise of the “terror war” has far-reaching implications.
Consider, for example, the Obama administration’s extreme definitions of “extremist” — pro-life activists, opponents of illegal immigration, returning veterans, and more — as outlined in myriad official government reports. Then consider the extremism of revoking individual rights based on the secret word of one government official.
Americans can be sure that without a serious effort to rein in the attacks on the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it protects, the lawless extremism pouring out of Washington D.C. will continue to accelerate.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached email@example.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
UN & Obama Supporting Islamo-Marxist Terror Group in Iraq
IRS Would Revoke Passports for Alleged Tax Debt Under Bill
“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss
DOJ Seeks Dismissal of Case Challenging NDAA Indefinite Detention
Obama Decision on Islamo-Marxist Terror Cult Will Lead to U.S. Funding, Experts Say
Der Spiegel Reveals Loose Standards Needed for Drone Assassination
U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State in Syria
ISIS: The Best Terror Threat U.S. Tax Money Can Buy
Obama’s “Anti-ISIS” Coalition Built ISIS, Biden Admits
Obama and UN Created Terror State in Libya
July 28th, 2015 by olddog
By Ron Paul
The drama over Greece’s financial crisis continues to dominate the headlines. As this column is being written, a deal may have been reached providing Greece with yet another bailout if the Greek government adopts new “austerity” measures. The deal will allow all sides to brag about how they came together to save the Greek economy and the European Monetary Union. However, this deal is merely a Band-Aid, not a permanent fix to Greece’s problems. So another crisis is inevitable.
The Greek crisis provides a look into what awaits us unless we stop overspending on warfare and welfare and restore a sound monetary system. While most commentators have focused on Greece’s welfare state, much of Greece’s deficit was caused by excessive military spending. Even as its economy collapses and the government makes (minor) cuts in welfare spending, Greece’s military budget remains among the largest in the European Union.
Despite all the hand-wringing over how the phony sequestration cuts have weakened America’s defenses, the United States military budget remains larger than the combined budgets of the world’s next 15 highest spending military’s. Little, if any, of the military budget is spent defending the American people from foreign threats. Instead, the American government wastes billions of dollars on an imperial foreign policy that makes Americans less safe. America will never get its fiscal house in order until we change our foreign policy and stop wasting trillions on unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.
Excessive military spending is not the sole cause of America’s problems. Like Greece, America suffers from excessive welfare and entitlement spending. Reducing military spending and corporate welfare will allow the government to transition away from the welfare state without hurting those dependent on government programs. Supporting an orderly transition away from the welfare state should not be confused with denying the need to reduce welfare and entitlement spending.
One reason Greece has been forced to seek bailouts from its EU partners is that Greece ceded control over its currency when it joined the European Union. In contrast, the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is the main reason the US has been able to run up huge deficits without suffering a major economic crisis. The need for the Federal Reserve to monetize ever-increasing levels of government spending will eventually create hyperinflation, which will lead to increasing threats to the dollar’s status. China and Russia are already moving away from using the dollar in international transactions. It is only a matter of time before more countries challenge the dollar’s reserve currency status, and, when this happens, a Greece-style catastrophe may be unavoidable.
Despite the clear dangers of staying on our recent course, Congress continues to increase spending. The only real debate between the two parties is over whether we should spend more on welfare or warfare. It is easy to blame the politicians for our current dilemma but the politicians are responding to demands from the people for greater spending. Too many Americans believe they have a moral right to government support. This entitlement mentality is just as common, if not more so, among the corporate welfare queens of the militarily-industrial complex, the big banks and the crony capitalists as it is among lower-income Americans.
Congress will only reverse course when a critical mass of people reject the entitlement mentality and understand that the government is incapable of running the world, running our lives and running the economy. Therefore, those of us who know the truth must spread the ideas of, and grow the movement for, limited government, free markets, sound money and peace.
This article provided courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
How many of you remember my past warning about building a one hundred million re-educated people force as the only possible way to defeat this foreign owned imposter government we live under. Are you still ignorant of the truth to consider it treason to survive? TAKE THIS TO THE BANK FOLKS, EITHER YOU PARTICIPATE IN RE-EDUCATING EVERY ONE YOU CAN, OR THE REST OF YOUR SHORT LIFE WILL BE HELL ON EARTH!
July 22nd, 2015 by olddog
So, why are we still in the United Nations?
By A. Dru Kristenev — Bio and Archives
After the United States’ president orchestrated the ultimate circumvention of his country’s representative branch of government in order to assist the western world’s archenemy to gain a foothold in the nuclear fraternity, the manner in which Obama achieved his ends must be closely examined. Not only is the president’s rationale questionable, but the five co-conspirator nations must be scrutinized for their complicity in endangering their own citizens.
As much as leaders of the free world praise the arrival of a global economy and each nation’s supposed place in it, the concept of a globally accepted, or acceptable, governing body is yet anathema to the average person. It matters not if they hail from Australia or Uzbekistan, no one is particularly interested in handing over power to an absent agency that, aside from not truly owning real estate in any of the member nations, resembles an absent landlord. The United Nations has become a squalling voice complaining about injustice all the while providing the best path to establish institutional injustice.
Engineering the manner by which the UN was to be used as a surrogate for the United States Congress, Obama laid the foundation with the participation of the Senate. Whether the collusion was attained knowingly or unwittingly, only those senators who voted for the Corker Bill that sidelined their treaty ratification power know for certain. The craftiness that inspired the sly move was accomplished through bending rules of language, something in which the Obama administration has become expert. The fact that Bob Corker and the other assenting senators were sucked into believing the Iran deal (that ensured Iran’s nuclear future) was an ‘executive agreement’ is proof of either their compliance with Obama or their gullibility. Neither description being complimentary, let alone inspiring trust.
Groundwork was laid from the beginning to use the withering body of politically correct UN dupes to do an end run around not just Americans, but the citizens of the other nations at the negotiation table.
The question should then be asked, why does the United States continue to hold membership in an organization that vilifies it, the sponsor nation? A nation that bankrolls a group harboring so-called diplomats from enemy countries who are welcomed inside its borders, walk its streets freely and plot its destruction, is simply dense for continuing any association. All one need do is listen to the Iranian parliament complain that the deal’s ICBM ban isn’t tolerable as it might keep them from developing the method to deliver nuclear missiles overseas and eventually into the laps of the Great Satan… us. That is, after they’ve annihilated Israel.
If Congress has any self-respect, or plain respect for those it represents, the citizens who constituted this nation, then it’s time the Senate and House disassociated the United States from the adversarial United Nations. There is no good purpose in belonging to an organization that makes every effort to bite the hand that feeds it. How much contempt should America endure from a batch of ragtag nations that are perfectly comfortable bleeding us monetarily while threatening our very lives?
The answer should be obvious except for the self-hate that has been fostered by public re-education that rewrites history to demean our heritage.
It is past time to terminate membership in the United Nations and boot them from our shores.
Only the most stupid person, or deviant traitor would let their country and its people – economy – traditions – and every other facet of their lives be dominated by a shadow governing body. People of America please grow a set and demand the U.N. be evicted, dismantled, and disgraced. For God’s sake folks, wake the hell up and make your demands heard. Stop this stupid, idea you can’t do anything about it, because you can! “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas [from Mexico]. (By Paul Craig Roberts)
July 16th, 2015 by olddog
By Lee Duigon
Outrage of the week (for the time being): Oregon public schools offer sex-change “therapy” to children without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
All right, the Fox News report did make it sound kind of like the schools were rushing a lot of kids into sex-change operations. Liberals fired back by resorting to a Snopes.com refutation of the story, the gist of which was, “Move along, folks, move along—there’s nothing to worry about here,” despite the fact that, admitted by Snopes, “Services already approved for this new, covered line [covered by Medicaid, they mean] include psychotherapy, medical visits, and medications to suppress puberty in gender questioning youth.” Did you get that last bit? “Medications to suppress puberty in gender questioning youth.” Does that strike you as entirely innocuous?
Snopes is all wet on this one, and here’s why.
First, although the actual “gender reassignment” surgery is difficult and very expensive, the ideology behind it isn’t. So a doctor would have to be pretty reckless, financially, to perform such an operation on a 15-year-old without the parents’ consent, based on the extremely small likelihood that the teenager would be able to pay for it (“Honest, doc, I’ll pay you just as soon as I finish working off my college student debt”—at which time the doctor might be on the way to his 100th birthday, presuming he’s still alive).
Indoctrination is cheap, and the schools are big on indoctrination. For instance, there’s a school district in Nebraska where the teachers have been told not to call girls and boys “girls and boys” anymore, but “purple penguins,” because calling them girls and boys would be “uninclusive” of other, largely imaginary, “genders”. [Read]
Second, this “trans ed” caper is only part of a much larger agenda to rush children into sex, any and all sex, as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. Parents who send their kids to public schools deny that this is being done. If they admitted it was being done, they would then have to explain why they were allowing it to be done to their children. It’s too bad these parents can’t be loaded onto a bus and forced to attend one of the “sex educators’” conventions I’ve personally covered in New Jersey. This has been going on for years.
Third, not all of the indoctrination is active. Some of it is passive. Here’s a Catholic school where the “religious director” has been fired for being in a lesbian “marriage”. [Read] Although the Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a mortal sin, this woman’s daily presence as religious director at a Catholic school gave the message that this teaching is not to be taken at all seriously. God was just kidding when he said that was a sin.
Stuff like this is bound to happen in any society ruled, top to bottom, by perverts, thieves, liars, and wackos. Lib’ral politicians, university pinheads, powerful teachers’ unions, Hollywood, and the nooze media are all solidly behind this push for child sexualization. Jerry Sandusky must feel like a real chump, sitting in jail for doing what is defended and applauded throughout the academic world.
But parents don’t want to believe that, do they? Because then they would have to explain why they send their kids to public school to be taught all this toxic foolishness.
And the American people react to it with all the vigor of algae on the surface of a pond. Hey, do whatever you want to us! Teach our children that they aren’t boys or girls, but “purple penguins” or whatever. Erase our national borders. Replace the electorate with a whole new majority consisting of illegal aliens and welfare drones who know nothing of and care nothing for American traditions. Give Bruce Jenner a Medal of Freedom for being a lost soul and having himself turned into a sham “woman.” Redefine our basic social institutions anytime you feel like it. We won’t resist. We’ll just watch TV and play video games.
What we are doing is setting up our country for a fall of Biblical proportions.
We are killing our culture, and in the not-so-long run, our culture is going to kill us back.
© 2015 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved
Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on www.amazon.com
I am at odds with the two subjects here as to which is the most ludicrous. For sure, exposing this kind of ideology on children is a putrid betrayal of parental trust. But the success of the frog syndrome on the parents is way beyond my ability to elucidate in acceptable language. I am almost to the point of congratulating the scumbags in our government for their participation in this travesty. After all, this could not have happened without their approval. They are masters at implementing the frog syndrome on an apathetic citizenry. These puke parents only care about their own infatuations. American values are being sodomized while the people play innocent. In my day, I would have dragged any teacher behind my truck over a gravel road for teaching this to my children. Unbeliveable!
July 8th, 2015 by olddog
By Daymond Duck
In Nov. 2010, Pres. Obama travelled to Mumbai, India where he said, “There is going to be a tug-of-war within the U.S. between those who see globalization (world government) as a threat and those who accept that we live in an open integrated (merged) world.” These words indicate that world government is coming to the U.S. and it will cause problems.
On July 22, 2014, at a DNC fund raiser in Seattle, Pres. Obama was talking about the state of the world when he said, “Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people.”
Put another way, Pres. Obama was saying he believes our sovereign government is outdated and holding back his agenda, but the world is not quite ready for the new world order (world government) that will be based on a different set of laws (world laws) and the idea that everyone is equal (citizens of the world not citizens of a nation) and a one-world economic system (wealth redistribution).
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an eleven-nation secret international document that is being written like a treaty, but it is being called a trade agreement. Leaked reports say the TPP has 29 chapters but only 5 are about trade.
The other 24 chapters are about the environment, global immigration, global wealth redistribution, global education (Common Core), human rights (children’s rights; gay rights, same-sex marriage), gun control, healthcare, women’s reproductive rights (abortion), sustainable development (Agenda 21, the Earth Charter) and other global goals.
Critics say the TPP destroys the U.S. Constitution; the U.S. will never be able to go back to the Constitution again. It speeds up the development of the North American Union providing a framework for world government and speeds that up. It provides a framework for a new world economic system; it establishes laws and courts that will dictate to nations (including the U.S.) the laws that they must pass; it changes immigration laws (erases borders in many nations) and places everyone under the control of a ruling elite that ordinary citizens cannot vote for, remove or replace.
Even worse, the House Ways and Means Committee called it a “Living Agreement.” This means in the future the ruling elite can change anything they want to change and all of the agreeing nations will be bound by those changes.
That is like giving someone an unending supply of signed blank checks that they can fill in for any amount they want at anytime they want and the one who signed them has to make them good. Suppose the ruling elite pass a law that everyone has to take a “mark” to buy and sell. Every country will have to change their laws to force people to comply.
The TPA is a second bill that gives the Pres. fast-track authority to negotiate and sign the TPP and at least two other trade agreements (the Trade in Services Agreement or TiSA and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP). U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions said these agreements encompass “three-fourths of the world economy and up to ninety percent of the world economy when including countries whose membership is being courted.”
These agreements require every nation that signs them to have the same laws. Up to ninety percent of the world’s economy will be required to have the same laws. They also allow a controlling economic council to write and impose new binding laws on every nation covered by the agreements. (Could this be the 10 kings?)
Let’s consider some of these things. There is a reason why Pres. Obama wanted to keep them secret and the Republican leadership helped him do it.
Pres. Obama is a committed globalist who has insisted that aspects of the globalist agenda be included in the TPP. The globalist agenda includes deciding who writes the laws and what laws are passed; control over all private property; authority over how all land and resources can be used; the right to decide where all buildings can and cannot be built, and where all roads and utilities can and cannot be built.
The TPP includes the right to tell people where they can and cannot live and work; the authority to protect fish, seals, trees, wetlands; and the authority to stop all kinds of land and water pollution, etc. Globalists want to reduce the world’s population; redefine marriage; tell parents how many children they can have; tell couples how they can and cannot discipline their children, keep abortion legal and legalize euthanasia.
Globalists want to establish a government-approved religion, determine which religious beliefs are acceptable, replace the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter and remove every mention of God from society. Globalists want militaries to deliver food, clean up after natural disasters and control militant citizens instead of fighting wars. They also want to erase all borders and do away with all national flags and monuments.
These Globalist desires are the kinds of things that people can expect to find in the 24 non-trade chapters of the TPA and in the already-planned other three agreements. Control is being given to globalists to write anything they want. The laws they write will be binding on every nation and nothing can be done to stop them. People wish that Obamacare had never been written and it is almost certain that they are going to wish that the TPA had never been written.
The TPP can only be stopped by a two-thirds vote in the Senate before Pres. Obama signs it in late summer or early fall, but many say there is no chance that the Senate will vote it down. In that case, it is just a matter of time until the ten regions of the prophesied one-world government and one-world religion are established.
One final thing: U.S. citizens can go to www.govtrack.us and click on “voting records” to see how their senators and representatives have voted so far. Many have betrayed their constituents for campaign contributions and back-room deals.
Prophecy Plus Ministries
Daymond & Rachel Duck
If you continue to believe our leaders will turn things around and we will all live long and happy lives, it’s very likely you would also buy a bag of turds with your last dollar instead of a hot-dog.
July 7th, 2015 by olddog
by Steven L. Hayes and Charles Adams
Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743. In his lifetime he saw his country transformed from an English colony to a country ruled by its own citizens. Remembered by many as the author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson also served as President and guided the young nation through eight turbulent years. When Jefferson died on July 4, 1826 at the age of 83, he left a country and a people whose commitment to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence seemed firmly in place.
On April 13, just after dinner, there is a knock on your door. When you open the door, you see a tall slender man with red hair. He introduces himself as Thomas Jefferson. You don’t automatically slam the door and call the police but, almost against your will, you invite him in your home. Somehow you accept that this man is not an escapee from an asylum but that he really is Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson is curious about everything and has a number of questions for you. He marvels at all the new technology in your home. He insists on a lengthy explanation and demonstration of all the appliances and machines in your home. Amazed at how quickly he understands the new technologies, you suddenly remember the statement made by President John Kennedy when he hosted a gathering of Nobel Prize winners at the White House. President Kennedy said, “This is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
His attention is drawn to the dining room table and the numerous complicated-looking forms with numbers like “1040” or “W2″ or “1099” on them. He politely asks, “What are you doing?”
You feel uncomfortable, almost as if you have a guilty conscience, but you aren’t sure why. You answer, “Each year on April 15, Americans are required to file an income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service, a branch of the Treasury Department. On this return, we are required to list the source and amount of all our income. The amount of income determines the percent of tax that we pay. The higher the income, the higher the rate of tax.”
Then you continue, “However, the government has tried to make it simple. All Americans who work for others are required to have an estimate of their tax deducted from their earnings before they receive their pay. We call this withholding. Also, the law requires us to place our social security number on all our bank accounts. All banks where we deposit our money and people who sell stocks for us report the amount of money we earned in each account and on each transaction to the Internal Revenue Service. These actions are necessary because the government wants to ensure that all of the income taxes are collected. You see, they really don’t trust the people to pay.”
Jefferson is visibly stunned. “You mean Americans are required to tell an agency of the government how much money they made and where they earned it?”
“Yes,” you answer. Puzzled, Jefferson says to you, “The government must have had a great financial emergency which made such a despotic tax system necessary to pay off a great deficit.”
You sadly explain that there really was no emergency. You explain how the admitted national debt is in excess of $16 trillion and increasing by $1 billion each year.
Jefferson, mostly to himself, says, “In my Second Inaugural Address I warned that we must meet all of the expenses of each year without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burdening them with the debts of the past. All of us had seen the devastating effects of a national debt.”
Then Jefferson asks you if you really said that the more money you earned, the higher the rate of tax you had to pay. You slowly confirm this simple fact. Strangely, it no longer seems harmless.
In a sad voice, Jefferson says, “When we wrote the Constitution, all of us knew history. We knew that great civilizations began to decline when they introduced direct taxation. In the Constitution, we restricted direct taxation because we knew it would yield the same result experienced by other nations using direct taxation-erosion of individual rights and the oppression of the minority by the majority because it could use its political power to use the government to steal from the minority.”
Then Jefferson says to himself, “How can this be? Have Americans forgotten history?” You look at this man who, together with a few others, so eloquently gave birth to the idea of freedom that has pervaded the United States for most of its existence and is being echoed around the world today by countries throwing off despotism. Now embarrassed and truly ashamed, you explain that Americans, like sheep to the slaughter, meekly went along with each new law that stripped away more of their freedom.
In World War II, Americans agreed to income tax withholding as a “temporary measure” to help win the war. Of course, withholding was never ended and has become a permanent fixture. Then came the plausible rule that our social security number should be on all our accounts. In this way, the government ensures that no one evades reporting the income earned in their accounts. Of course, then came the rule that all bank accounts should file information returns and that most transactions should be reported to the government.
You state that the income tax rules are incomprehensible, that no one understands them but that the taxpayer is still responsible for compliance. You tell him that in tax matters, Americans are guilty until proven innocent. You explain how an agent of the government can come into your home and inspect all of your checks and papers and ask you to explain the purpose of each check. If the agent decides that you have not fully complied with the incomprehensible income tax code, he can arbitrarily decide that you owe more tax. If your taxes are not paid, your bank accounts can be seized and your home and other properties auctioned.
“Our people fought a revolution because of government intrusion far less than this,” Jefferson says. “It is inconceivable that any of us would have tolerated this type of government tyranny. A government that has to enforce a tax its people will not willingly pay is a government that should be immediately overthrown. In a letter to James Madison in 1787 I said, ‘I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.’ Are you sure that I am in the right country? There must have been a revolution. Real Americans would never have given up their rights without a fight.”
Seeing your bowed head, he knows the answer. There was no revolution. Now deeply ashamed, you try to excuse yourself by explaining to him that people who refuse to obey the tax laws are often sent to prison, sometimes for 25 to 30 years.
Jefferson just stares at you. In a low, anguished voice he says, “Is this what we risked our lives for? We thought we were giving future generations a free country ruled by the people for the people. What you have done is taken our idea and twisted it. You have freely submitted to despotism much worse than we faced. You may think that you are free, but that is because you choose not to see your chains or the walls that imprison you. No, my friend, you live in a prison. You work for the government, not for yourselves. Your ancestors would not know you. I am sorry for my country and I am sorry for you.”
Without another word, Jefferson walks out the door. As you see his tall figure disappear into the mist, you are sadder than you can remember ever being. You now must admit to yourself what you have been trying to explain away. What Jefferson said is true. What has happened to us is what Thomas Paine predicted would happen if Americans lost their freedom. Our freedoms have not been taken away all at once but a little at a time.
Jefferson could see it. If you really look, you can see it too.
Steven L. Hayes is the Chairman and President of Americans For Fair Tax. Charles Adams is the author of FOR GOOD AND EVIL, THE IMPACT OF TAXES ON THE COURSE OF CIVILIZATION, Madison Books.
© 2013 by Steven L. Hayes and Charles Adams
All rights reserved.
I am not running these intelligent men down, but they remain just as ignorant as I was for most of my life. Yes, I still have a very high respect for Jefferson but he could not possibly be the saintly patriot we all praise him for. Does the Louisiana Purchase ring a bell? That aside, may I direct your attention to a past published article titled Before Things Get Out of Hand Judge Anna von Reitz
So you will finally understand where we stand today. Read it and weep!