Log in

Archive for April, 2011

Grand Junction consensus on Obama’s B.C.

April 30th, 2011 by


This story ran on the 5 and 10 p.m. NBC news network, Channel 8, in Grand Junction (fly-over country).  In reading the numerous remarks the story generated, about half of the people think it's an intentional diversion from something else.

 In reading the numerous remarks the story generated, about half of the people think it's an intentional diversion from something else.  The general consensus is that only an idiot
would make such an apparently altered document available unless he/she wanted it to become the focus for news over the weekend.  MB

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — Even after the White House offered up President Obama's birth certificate, there are still those who are questioning it's legitimacy.

One Grand Junction man who works as a graphic artist says he has discovered something strange about the certificate. "There's no doubt that it has been edited and quite significantly," James Colby said.

He's been involved in graphic arts since 2004 and has never had a reason to doubt our president's birthplace. In fact, he says he is politically independent. Yet, Colby says he can't ignore the obvious.

After downloading the birth certificate straight off of the White House's website, he started noticing the apparent flaws in a computer program called Adobe Illustrator.

"Legitimate digitized, scanned documents will always have [a] faded appearance… There are too many jagged features, here." he said as the scoured the certificate. "So, it's not a single document, it's actually 'composit' layers."

Colby says scanned images should only have one digitized layer. He says President Obama's birth certificate has almost 50 layers. "You can see the layers flash yourself just by rapidly zooming in and out in your web browser. That means that the browser is rendering different layers."

Colby concedes that there are some instances where scanned images produce multiple layers. "It's a program called OCR that converts text in the images into computer readable text," he said. "But, it would never work on signatures. So, the fact that the signatures have been edited discounts the possibility of it being OCR."

Colby continued pointing out the apparent problems. "You'll notice the white background behind these letters, which is also super-imposed, actually covers up a little bit of the 'D' in this word," he explained. "Even his name has been edited, all except for the 'R' in 'Barack.'"

But, Colby cannot figure out why the White House would release something so obvious. "The question is why is it so obvious," he said. "Maybe the original certificate was damaged, maybe it was faded, maybe someone was just trying to clean it up. [But,] you'd think if that was the case, they would supply the original certificate just so there would be no suspicions."

Colby says as strange as the edits are, they don't prove a thing. But, he believes that they do point in one direction. "It's definitely been edited in it's entirety, so the indication would point to the probability of it being fake," he said. "But, nobody can really make that claim."

Colby isn't alone in believing the birth certificate has been altered. Other graphic artists and various conservative groups from across the country are saying the same thing.


In the little minds of Obama’s supporters, they probably think it’s to his advantage to keep the public division open and hotter.

Divide and Conquer!


April 29th, 2011 by

Obama is ‘not’ constitutionally eligibleto be President

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 04/28/11) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama on August 21, 2008 challenging Obama’s lack of “Constitutionally Eligibility” to serve as President of the United States stated that Obama’s release of this document that Obama calls his long form Birth Certificate raises further questions of the legitimacy of the document itself.  Moreover, even if it were a legitimate birth certificate, which it is not, it still does not answer the question of Obama’s Constitutional Eligibility.

Berg said, “The Birth Certificate issued by Obama on national Television, have missing factors: Mother’s address; length and weight of baby; and where the signature of Stanley Ann Dunham appears, it says “mother or informant”.  Additionally, the authenticity of the document itself is already being questioned for many reasons”

Berg continued, “Even if Obama could produce a long form Birth Certificate, which is highly doubted, it fails to answer the questions of Obama’s adoption in Indonesia.”

Berg said, “I have received many calls claiming Obama could not have lost his U.S. citizenship by his mother’s acts of expatriation.  In part this is true, however, he Nationality Act of 1940, revised 1952, Section 318(a) states, “A former citizen of the United States expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents and who has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents may be naturalized upon filing a petition for naturalization before reaching age of Twenty-Five [25] years and upon compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws with the following exceptions:  (b) No former citizen of the United States, expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents shall be obliged to comply with the requirements of the immigration laws, if he has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents, and if he has come or shall come to the United States before reaching the age of twenty-five years. (c) After his naturalization such person shall have the same citizenship status as if he had not been expatriated.”

Berg continues, “Renewing an Indonesian Passport after the age of 18 is an affirmative act, as you are swearing allegiance to another Country. 

Soetoro/Obama renewed his Indonesian Passport when he traveled to Pakistan that is why he had to stop in Indonesia first.  Remember, in 1981, Dunham was divorcing Soetoro in Hawaii and was not in Indonesia.  Obama/Soetoro admits to traveling to Indonesia first and then onto Pakistan.  Soetoro/Obama claims in his book “Dreams from my father” that he stopped in Indonesia to visit his mother.  But again, his mother was not in Indonesia, she was in Hawaii with Maya, divorcing Lolo Soetoro.  In addition, the State Department has stated in response to a FOIA [Freedom of Information] request that they do not have a U.S. Passport application on file for Barack H. Obama.”

Berg said, “Despite the above however, Indonesia required Obama/Soetoro to do a bit more upon his 18th birthday.  In fact the Indonesian law gives until the age of Twenty-One [21].  Soetoro/Obama would have had to sign an Affidavit relinquishing his Indonesian citizenship and said Affidavit had to be sent to the Indonesian Government before reclaiming any U.S. citizenship he may have once held.

When it comes to the citizenship of individuals in other countries, we are prevented from interfering, Hague Convention 1930.  During the late 60′s all the way up until 2006 Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship.  In 2006, Indonesia changed their laws to permit dual citizenship; however, Indonesia has had its battles with enforcing their new law permitting dual citizenship.

From the legal research we have done, it appears that Soetoro became an Indonesian citizen.  When Soetoro/Obama was approximately four [4] years old his parents divorced and thereafter, Soetoro/Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.  Evidence points to the fact that Lolo Soetoro either signed a government form legally ‘acknowledging’ Soetoro/Obama as his son, or ‘adopted’ Soetoro, either of which changed any citizenship status Soetoro/Obama had to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia.

At the time Barry Soetoro was in Indonesia, all Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga.  The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.

Soetoro/Obama was registered in a public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government. There was no way for Soetoro/Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958.  These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States. and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A according to the Indonesian school records.  See, Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education).  Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen. See, Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).

Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once an Indonesian citizen adopts a child, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child and the child takes the name of his step-father, in this case, Soetoro. See Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.

The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship.  Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship.  Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when ‘both’ countries agree); and since Obama/Soetoro was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930.”

As a result of Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian ‘natural’ citizenship status, Soetoro/Obama could never regain U.S. ‘natural born’ status, if he in fact ever held such, which we doubt.  Soetoro/Obama could have only become ‘naturalized’ if the proper paperwork were filed with the U.S. State Department, after going through U.S. Immigration upon his return to the United States; in which case, Soetoro/Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship indicating ‘naturalized’. 

Berg continued, “Regardless, we have been unable to locate any records indicating that Soetoro/Obama attempted to and/or actually did take the proper steps through the State Department in order to be here in our Country legally”

Further, there is no evidence that Soetoro/Obama ever ‘legally’ changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama – therefore his legal name is still ‘Barry Soetoro’.


Folks, it looks to me like this nappy headed liar pulled one over on America, and don't bother looking for an apology from him, or me.



April 29th, 2011 by



By J.B. Williams

April 29, 2011

[Disclaimer:The opinion expressed in this article are solely those of JB Williams and not necessary the opinion of NWV, it's staff or other writers.]

As the media blitz to silence questions about Obama’s eligibility for office become shrill, Obama finally releases his so-called “long form” birth certificate (aka, a birth certificate), confirming once and for all that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States in compliance with Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Let the impeachment begin!

The document posted on the White House web site, reported to be Obama’s actual birth certificate, appears to be a very poor forgery even to the untrained eye. But that’s not really the big story here…

The release of this document actually proves a few things much more important at this stage of the debate.

• Obama lied – having claimed for two years to have already released his birth certificate, which birthers correctly identified as only a COLB (Certification of Live Birth). Now he has released his birth certificate, allegedly.

• The press lied – swearing to Obama’s lie, also claiming over and over and over again for two years, that Obama had already released his birth certificate. He had not. Now he has, maybe.

• Barack Hussein Obama I is his natural birth father – and since he was never a citizen of the United States, Barack Obama II cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States.

• Most people don’t know what natural born citizen means.

To be or not to be a natural born citizen

The official definition of natural born citizen is as follows –

1. natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

2. those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

3. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens

4. in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

For those still having trouble following along, a natural born citizen is one born the natural offspring of a father who was at the time of birth, a U.S. citizen.

Now that Obama has confirmed that his natural birth father was a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. He has confirmed that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

As a result, the U.S. Constitution says he cannot be president of the United States, just as birthers have claimed for over two years. Article II – Section I – Clause V of the U.S. Constitution is very clear on the matter –

“No person except a natural born citizen, (or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,) shall be eligible to the office of President;”

Case closed!

As the confirmed natural born son of a foreign father who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and he cannot be president of the United States, just as many suspected and the constitution states unequivocally.

However, now that all Americans know the truth, what can they do about it?

Impeach immediately!

Some have claimed that Obama cannot be impeached because he was not legally elected, as a candidate who was a fraud from the start. I’m not a lawyer, but I disagree.

From the moment that Supreme Court Justice Roberts administered the oath of office to Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, he has sat in the people’s White House as the official president of the United States and has in fact made a disaster of our nation and much of the free world while sitting in that chair.

Not only can he be impeached, he must be. He must be impeached, removed from office and maybe put in prison for life for his intentional outright fraud.

Further, all in his administration, in congress and in the Supreme Court who knew he was a fraud and did nothing to stop this nightmare, must immediately resign and be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud as well.

In any free representative republic, there is nothing more vital than the integrity of our system. Once the people have lost faith in the integrity of the system, there is no system. No individual or group of politicians is more important than the preservation of our system of self-governance. All who were complicit must be held accountable in order to protect and preserve our constitutional republic.

1. I call for the immediate impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for the high crime of fraud and breach of the public trust.

2. I call upon House Representative Allen West to initiate impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama at once.

Allen West is a retired Military Colonel who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the people of the United States, twice, as a soldier and as a House Representative.
He took an oath to protect and preserve against all enemies, foreign and domestic and he currently has the confidence of the American people as an honorable man.

Last, the main stream press who has lied on Obama’s behalf, misleading the American public for almost three years regarding the fraud in the people’s White House, must be held accountable too. I call upon all American citizens to boycott all of the media outlets and personalities that carried water for the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.

The United States Patriots Union is making its secure People’s Lobby software available to the public, free of charge, for the purpose of contacting your House representatives regarding the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Patriots prepared to take action can do so by contacting their House Representatives here. Join a Patriots Union discussion on this matter Friday night at 9:00 PM ET.

© 2011 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the  legal citizens of America.

Web site 1: www.freedomforce.us/

Web site 2: www.jb-williams.com/

E-Mail: JBWilliams09@gmail.com



Con Games and Currency Destruction

April 25th, 2011 by





Con Games and Currency Destruction


by Gary North

Back in the era of World War II, a goldbrick was a slacker in the military. He was the guy who always seemed to be able to find a reason not to pull his own weight, as the phrase went.

The low-level Army grunts who wore the boots that were on the ground had a saying: "Never volunteer for anything." But you weren't supposed to be a slacker. Somewhere in between unofficial status as a red hot and a goldbrick was where most people wanted to be.

The term "goldbricking" has been extended to life outside the military. We read this on Wikipedia.

Goldbricking, in today's terms, generally refers to staff who use their work internet access for personal reasons while maintaining the appearance of working, which can lead to inefficiency. The term originates from the confidence trick of applying a gold coating to a brick of worthless metal.

Goldbricking is the creation of an illusion of value. The successful goldbrick keeps his employer in the dark about his productivity. He seems to be working. He isn't. He seems to be producing value. He isn't.

In business, people can hide in the shadows of the salary system. If you work 100% on commission, you can't hide. The reality of your output is measurable and objective. But salaried positions are not equally clear. Goldbricks operate in the zones of guesswork.


Four large formerly Third World nations are rapidly becoming competitive in world markets. They are Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Their acronym is BRIC.

It may seem strange that Russia is on the list. For two generations, from 1900 to 1930, economists told the world that the Soviet Union was a powerful competitor. The USSR proved that central planning was effective. In fact, it was a charade. The USSR was a basket case economically. It was a facade. It was, in fact, the greatest goldbrick nation in history. It was a giant illusion. It appeared to be productive, but it wasn't. The government published fake statistics. Western academics believed these statistics.

A few economists issued warnings about the unreliability of the Soviet statistics, but their peers did not take these warnings seriously. It took a journalist, Richard Grenier, to correctly identify the reality of Soviet economy. He called the USSR "Bangladesh with missiles."

Right up until the collapse of the USSR, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson wrote in his widely assigned textbook on economics that the USSR proved that central planning could achieve high output. Economist Thomas DiLorenzo has offered two choice quotations from Samuelson's textbook.

"Every economy has its contradictions …. What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth." – 1985 edition.

"Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that … a socialist command economy can function and even thrive." – 1989 edition.

Yet by 1989, it was clear to everyone that the USSR was bankrupt. Soviet Premier Gorbachev was coming to Western governments and bankers, begging for more aid.

Two years earlier, the unknown economist Judy Shelton had sounded the warning: the USSR was about to collapse economically. She got a polite hearing, but there was no bandwagon effect. Samuelson tried to head off this loss of faith among economists.

Admittedly, Samuelson may not have written these words. Maybe co-author William Nordhaus wrote them. By that stage, Samuelson had long since retired. The book's royalties had made him a multimillionaire. Intellectually speaking, he was by 1985 a very rich goldbrick. He appeared to be working, but he wasn't.

But his view on the USSR had not changed. One critic has reminded us of this.

In the 1973 edition of his famous textbook Economics he predicted that though the Soviet Union then had a per capita income roughly half that of the United States, it would catch up to the United States in per capita income by 1990, and almost certainly would by 2015 because of its superior economic system.

Paul Samuelson was the premier goldbrick in the economics profession in the second half of the twentieth century. He appeared to be working hard, but his output was substandard. He got very rich teaching millions of freshmen how to have careers as goldbricks: how to give the illusion of valuable work, but never producing anything that could be applied profitably to the economy. Keynesianism is goldbrick economics.


In recent days, we have been fed news reports about a meeting of officials of the BRIC nations. They supposedly are about to abandon the U.S. dollar. They supposedly will establish trading agreements with each other based on a currency other than the dollar. An April 14 report published by Reuters is typical.

The BRICS group of emerging-market powers kept up the pressure on Thursday for a revamped global monetary system that relies less on the dollar and for a louder voice in international financial institutions.

This means precisely nothing. Whose louder voice? What is a loud voice? What is the exchange rate of loud voices?

Meeting on the southern Chinese island of Hainan, they said the recent financial crisis had exposed the inadequacies of the current monetary order, which has the dollar as its linchpin.

What was needed, they said in a statement, was "a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty" – thinly veiled criticism of what the BRICS see as Washington's neglect of its global monetary responsibilities.

I see: stability and certainty. Certainty. How do we get certainty in a changing world? The only certainties are death, taxes, and central bank currency manipulation.

There was a system that brought some stability and reduced uncertainty. That was the international gold standard. It ended in 1914, when World War I began. It had been a compromised system. It rested on fractional reserve banking and central banking. That is, it rested on IOUs from banks: "Yes, you can withdraw your gold coins at any time." It was a fraud, and World War I exposed this fraud. The banks quit redeeming the IOUs for gold, and the central banks confiscated the gold from the commercial banks.

The BRICS are worried that America's large trade and budget deficits will eventually debase the dollar. They also begrudge the financial and political privileges that come with being the leading reserve currency.

I see. But how, exactly, does the United States run these annual trade deficits? Because the central banks of the BRIC nations buy U.S. Treasury debt with newly created fiat money.

Why do they do this? To keep up the value of the dollar in relation to their currencies. Why do they do this? To subsidize their own export sectors.

The BRIC nations can bring down the American trade deficits at any time. They stop buying Treasury debt. Simple. But that will reduce exports to the United States, because it will make their currencies more expensive. The politicians in the BRIC nations do not want that.

So, they gripe. Something must be done – something that does not reduce exports, something that keeps the dollar high, and something that does not give an advantage to American consumers. What might that be?

In a word, nothing. There are no free lunches. There are no mercantilistic policies to subsidize exports that do not thereby subsidize the lifestyles of the customers in the other nations that buy the exports.

"The world economy is undergoing profound and complex changes," Chinese President Hu Jintao said. "The era demands that the BRICS countries strengthen dialogue and cooperation."


Dialogue. Yes. Bureaucrats will talk to each other. I ask: What is the exchange value of talk among bureaucrats? How many flat-screen TVs will a week of dialogue purchase?

In another dig at the dollar, the development banks of the five BRICS nations agreed to establish mutual credit lines denominated in their local currencies, not the U.S. currency.

The head of China Development Bank (CDB), Chen Yuan, said he was prepared to lend up to 10 billion yuan to fellow BRICS, and his Russian counterpart said he was looking to borrow the yuan equivalent of at least $500 million via CDB.

Can you believe this? The banker is named Chen Yuan. That would be like an American banker named Dollar Bill.

Anyway, he will lend the Russians money. How does he think he will get this money back? The Russians are notorious for not repaying. The country is run by ex-Communist apparatchiks – Putin being #1 – and criminal syndicates. It has moved from being Bangladesh with missiles to Sicily with missiles.

"We think this will undoubtedly broaden the opportunities for Russian companies to diversify their loans," Vladimir Dmitriev, the chairman of VEB, Russia's state development bank, told reporters.

The Russians are about to make the Chinese an offer they can't refuse.

These are criminal syndicates with printing presses.

The leaders reviewed the global role of the Special Drawing Right, the IMF's accounting unit and reserve asset, which some experts believe could grow into a partial substitute for the dollar.

But they stepped around the issue of whether the yuan should join the SDR, saying only that they welcomed discussion of the composition of the SDR's basket of currencies.

We are seeing the equivalent of a meeting among the gangs in "The Godfather." They all came to China to talk over how they will divide up the territories. They all want a say in the matter.


The IMF is supposed to be the cover. The problem is this: the IMF has no power. It is a clearing house for loans. Western nations, mainly the United States, have provided the cover. They guarantee loans made to the IMF. Investors in the West who want secure loans buy IMF bonds. Governments toss in extra money from time to time. There is no IMF currency. There are no futures exchanges in SDRs. The IMF is said to have gold. Buy this gold was contributed by Western governments long ago in order to bail out emerging nations.

A member-country official said the group was split on whether China's currency, which cannot be freely exchanged except for trade and investment purposes, met the criteria for being part of the SDR.

We have China, which issues IOU nothings, looking to be a player. What does the IMF issue? Promises to lend IOU nothings issued by Western nations.

This has been going on for 60 years.

"There is a need for a broad-basing of the international monetary system. The SDR is an instrument to do that, but we still have no unanimity on the inclusion of the Chinese currency in the SDR as of now," said the official, who declined to be identified.

Right. Some gutless functionary tells the reporter that China's IOU nothings that you cannot present at a bank for redemption may not qualify for entrance into the SDR world, where the IMF extends loans in various IOU nothings – loans that can be redeemed at Western banks.

China holds more IOU nothings from Western governments than any other nation, yet the other BRICs don't think China's IOU nothings qualify.

Though keen on a more diverse global monetary order, Beijing has given no indication that it is ready to make the yuan freely tradable or to dismantle capital controls as the price for the prestige of being part of the SDR.

This is Alice through the looking glass. This is Abbott and Costello doing "Who's on first?" This is the world of international central banking.

The BRICS caucus is a work in progress. Thursday's brief meeting, held under tight security at a beach-front hotel, was only its third summit and the first to include South Africa.

I'll say it's a work in progress. It's a goldbrick work in progress. People are going through the motions of working. Nothing of value is being produced, but the exercise gets reported in the media.

"Our economic potential, political influence and our development prospects as an alliance are exceptional," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.


This is sound and fury, signifying little. This is grist for journalistic mills. This is chaff, not wheat.

We live in a world of illusion. The goldbrick central banks with their paper gold and endless promises keep us dancing to their tunes. But there is not one tune. There are many. Cacophony rules.

Central bankers have only two policies, as gold coin dealer Franklin Sanders has pointed out: inflation and blarney. We are getting lots of both.



April 24th, 2011 by


NOTE:  Although some of you researched this information in the past, and you failed to see the connections, there is new information coming to light about it.  British intelligence officers have given us great information. 

Plus, the Crown Sisters (like Lynn Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, etc.) have been exposed.  There husbands are dubbed the "Man in the Middle" for The Crown activities in the world.  (Go to www.abeldanger.net/ and to the Audio Archives or access the transcribed archives starting with May 19, 2010.)

LEARN …the drum beat of globalist NWO is quickening.  The Royal Wedding coming this weekend brings potential activities that you might need to understand . .. learn.  The banking cartel has the USA in checkmate, and soon the board will be swept clean.  The game begins again … LEARN.

R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Reporter

VIDEO-World Super Power
LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGhl7ysL_1U



The London city-state became a sovereign state in 1694. 

King William III of Orange privatized the Bank of England and handed it over to the bankers.

In 1812, Nathan Rothschild crashed the English Stock Market and scammed control of the Bank of England. [ADDENDUM]

Today the City-State of London is the world’s financial power center and the wealthiest square mile on the face of the earth.

It houses the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Lloyd of London, London Stock Exchange, all British banks, the office of 384 foreign banks, and 70 U.S. banks.

It has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag, and its own police force.

It is not part of greater London, or England or the British Commonwealth, and pays no taxes.

The City-State of London houses Fleet Street’s newspaper and publishing monopolies.

It is the headquarters for English Freemasonry, and headquarters for the money cartel known as The Crown.

Contrary to popular belief, The Crown is not the royal family or the British Monarch.

The Crown is the private City-State of London.

It has a council of 12 members, who rule the corporation under a mayor called “The Lord Mayor.”

The Lord Mayor and his 12 member Council serve as proxies, or representatives, who sit in for 13 of the world’s wealthiest most powerful banking families.

This ring of 13 ruling families includes:  the Rothschild family, the Warburg family, the Oppenheimer family, and the Schiff family.

These families and their descendants run the Crown Corporation of London.

The Crown Corporation of London holds the title to worldwide Crown land and Crown colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

The British Parliament and the British Prime Minister serve as a public front for the hidden power of the ruling Crown families.

Like the City State of London and the Vatican, a third city state was officially created in 1982, that city-state is called the District of Columbia, and is located on 10 square miles of land in the heat of Washington.

The District of Columbia flies its own flag, and has its own independent constitution.  Although geographically separate, the city-state of London, Vatican and D.C. are one interlocking empire called The Empire of the City.

The flag of the District of Columbia has 3 red stars, one fo reach city state in the three city empire.

This corporate empire of 3 City-States controls the world ECONOMICALLY through London’s inner city, MILITARILY through the District of Columbia, and SPIRITUALLY through the Vatican.

The constitution for the District of Columbia operates under a tyrannicalRoman Law known as “Lex Fori” which bears no resemblance to the U.S. Constitution.

INSERT: Definition of Lex Forifrom Black’s Law Dictionary – “The law of the forum, or court; that is, the positive law of the state, country, or jurisdiction of whose judicial system the court where the suit is brought or remedy sought is an integral part.  Substantive rights are determined by the law of the place where the action arose, “Lex loci,” while the procedural rights are governed by the law of the place of the form, “lex fori.”  (Mitchell v. Mitchell, La.App. 5 Cir., 483 So.2d 1152, 1154.) 

When Congress passed the Act of 1871, it created a separate corporate government for the District of Columbia.  This treasonous Act allowed the District of Columbia to operate outside the original constitution of the U.S. and outside of the best interest of the American citizens. 
ADDENDUM for information purposes only

Nathan Mayer Rothschild

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the 18th and 19th century financier. For his grandson, see Nathan Mayer Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild.


Nathan Mayer Rothschild(16 September 1777 – 28 July 1836) was a Londonfinancierand one of the founders of the international Rothschild familybankingdynasty. He was born in Frankfurt am Main, the fourth child of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812) and Gutle Schnapper (1753–1849).





In 1798, at the age of 21, he settled in Manchester and established a business in textile trading and finance, later moving to London, England and making a fortune in trading bills of exchange through a banking enterprise begun in 1805.

In 1816, his two elder brothers were granted noble status (Freiherr or Baron) by the Emperor of Austria. They were now permitted to prefix the Rothschild name with von or de. Their device of four arrows became five when in 1818 Nathan too was elevated, although he chose not to use his aristocratic title Nathan Mayer, Freiherr von Rothschild.



On 22 October 1806 in London he married Hannah Barent-Cohen (1783–1850), daughter of Levi Barent-Cohen (1747–1808) and wife Lydia Diamantschleifer and paternal granddaughter of Barent Cohen and wife, whose other son Salomon David Barent-Cohen (d. 1807) married Sara Brandes, great-grandparents of Karl Marx.[1] Their children were:

  1. Charlotte Rothschild (1807–1859) married Anselm von Rothschild
  2. Lionel Nathan (1808–1879)
  3. Anthony Nathan (1810–1876)
  4. Nathaniel (1812–1870)
  5. Hannah Mayer (1815–1864) married Hon. Henry FitzRoy (1807–1859)
  6. Mayer Amschel (1818–1874)
  7. Louise (1820–1894) married Mayer Karl von Rothschild


He operated first as a textile merchant in Manchester, then from 1804 he began to deal on the London stock exchange in financial instruments such as foreign bills and government securities.

From 1809 Rothschild began to deal in gold bullion, and developed this as a cornerstone of his business. From 1811 on, in negotiation with Commissary-General John Charles Herries, he undertook to transfer money to pay Wellington's troops, on campaign in Portugal and Spain against Napoleon, and later to make subsidy payments to British allies when these organized new troops after Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign.

His four brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold – and information – across Europe.This private intelligence service enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers.[2]

In 1818 he arranged a £5 million loan to the Prussian government and the issuing of bonds for government loans formed a mainstay of his bank’s business. He gained a position of such power in the City of London that by 1825–6 he was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis.

In 1824 he founded the Alliance Assurance Company (now Royal & SunAlliance) with Moses Montefiore.

In 1835 he secured a contract with the Spanish Government giving him the rights to the Almadén mines in southern Spain, effectively gaining a European mercury monopoly.[3]

Nathan Meyer Rothschild was known for his role in the abolition of the slave trade through his part-financing of the £20 million British government buyout of the plantation industry's slaves.[4] However in 2009 it was claimed that as part of banking dealings with a slave owner, Rothschild used slaves as collateral. The Rothschild bank denied the claims and said that Nathan Mayer Rothschild had been a prominent civil liberties campaigner with many like-minded associates and “against this background, these allegations appear inconsistent and misrepresent the ethos of the man and his business”.[5]

He set up his London business, N. M. Rothschild and Sons at New Court in St Swithin's Lane, City of London, where it trades today. He also purchased a country house at Gunnersbury Park near Acton in western London.



An anonymous contemporary described Nathan Rothschild at the London Stock Exchange as "he leaned against the 'Rothschild Pillar' … hung his heavy hands into his pockets, and began to release silent, motionless, implacable cunning":[6]

"Eyes are usually called the windows of the soul. But in Rothschild's case you would conclude that the windows are false ones, or that there was no soul to look out of them. There comes not one pencil of light from the interior, neither is there one gleam of that which comes from without reflected in any direction. The whole puts you in mind of an empty skin, and you wonder why it stands upright without at least something in it. By and by another figure comes up to it. It then steps two paces aside, and the most inquisitive glance that you ever saw, and more inquisitive than you would ever have thought of, is drawn out of those fixed and leaden eyes, as if one were drawing a sword from a scabbard. The visiting figure, which has the appearance of coming by accident and not by design, stops just a second or two, in the course of which looks are exchanged which, though you cannot translate, you feel must be of most important meaning. After this, the eyes are sheathed up again, and the figure resumes its stony posture.
During the morning, numbers of visitors come, all of whom meet with a similar reception and vanish in a similar manner. Last of all the figure itself vanishes, leaving you utterly at a loss".[7]



By the time an infected abscess caused his death in 1836, his personal net worth amounted to 0.62% of British national income.[8]


He had also secured the position of the Rothschilds as the preeminent investment bankers in Britain and Europe. His son, Lionel Nathan Rothschild (1808–1879), continued the family business in England.


Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his wife Hannah are buried in the Brady Street Ashkenazi Cemetery in Whitechapel.



In the 19th century a legend began which accuses him of having used his early knowledge of victory at the Battle of Waterloo to speculate on the Stock Exchange and make a vast fortune.[9]

Frederic Morton relates the story thus:[10]


To the Rothschilds, [England's] chief financial agents, Waterloo brought a many million pound scoop.
… a Rothschild agent … jumped into a boat at Ostend … Nathan Rothschild … let his eye fly over the lead paragraphs. A moment later he was on his way to London (beating Wellington's envoy by many hours) to tell the government that Napoleon had been crushed: but his news was not believed, because the government had just heard of the English defeat at Quatre Bras. Then he proceeded to the Stock Exchange.


Another man in his position would have sunk his work into consols, already weak because of Quatre Bras. But this was Nathan Rothschild. He leaned against "his" pillar. He did not invest. He sold. He dumped consols.
…Consols dropped still more. "Rothschild knows," the whisper rippled through the 'Change. "Waterloo is lost."
Nathan kept on selling … consols plummeted—until, a split second before it was too late, Nathan suddenly bought a giant parcel for a song. Moments afterwards the great news broke, to send consols soaring.


We cannot guess the number of hopes and savings wiped out by this engineered panic.


Research by the Rothschild family[11] and others[12] has shown that this legend originated in an anti-Semitic French pamphlet in 1846, was embellished by John Reeves in 1887 in The Rothschilds: the Financial Rulers of Nations and then repeated in other later popular accounts, such as that of Morton. Many of the alleged facts stated are incorrect. For example, it has been shown that the size of the market in government bonds at the time would not have enabled a scenario producing a profit of anything near £1 million.[13] The historian Niall Ferguson states that the Rothschilds' couriers did get to London first and alerted the family to Napoleon's defeat; however, since the family had been banking on a protracted military campaign, the losses arising from the disruption to their business more than offset any short-term gains in bonds after Waterloo. Rothschild capital did soar, but over a much longer period: Nathan's breakthrough had been prior to Waterloo, when he negotiated a deal to supply cash to Wellington's army. The family made huge profits over a number of years from this governmental financing by adopting a high-risk strategy involving exchange-rate transactions, bond-price speculations, and commissions.[14]


See also


1.      ^"Barent Cohen". GeneAll.net. http://www.geneall.net/U/per_page.php?id=318477. Retrieved 2010-07-08. 

2.      ^Victor Gray and Melanie Aspey, "Rothschild, Nathan Mayer (1777–1836)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 21 May 2007.

3.      ^Rothschild (1912-01-01). "Bullion Department". Rothschildarchive.org. http://www.rothschildarchive.org/textguide/?doc=/textguide/articles/bullion#Quicksilver. Retrieved 2010-07-08. 

4.      ^"Hochschild, Adam "Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves" Houghton Mifflin: New York, NY (2005). p.347". Worldcat.org. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56390513. Retrieved 2010-07-08. 

5.      ^[1]

6.      ^Morton, Frederic. (1962). The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait. London: Secker & Warburg. p69.

7.      ^Morton, Frederic. (1962). The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait. London: Secker & Warburg. pp69–70. [Morton does not cite the source of this quotation].

8.      ^Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money (2008), 88.

9.      ^"Contrary to stories emanating from an article about the family in a late nineteenth-century magazine with decidedly antisemitic undertones, Rothschild's first concern on this occasion was not the potential financial advantage on the market which the knowledge would have given him; he and his courier immediately took the news to the government." – Victor Gray and Melanie Aspey, "Rothschild, Nathan Mayer (1777–1836)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 21 May 2007.

10.  ^Morton, Frederic. (1962). The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait. London: Secker & Warburg. pp53–54.

11.  ^Victor Rothschild – "The Shadow of a Great Man" in Random Variables, Collins, 1984.

12.  ^Ferguson, Niall. The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998, ISBN 0-297-81539-3

13.  ^Approximately £50,000,000 when inflation adjusted to 2006 pounds sterling per MeasuringWorth.com accessed October 27 2007.

14.  ^The House of Rothschild, Volume 1: Money's Prophets, 1798–1848. Niall Ferguson (1999), New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-024084-5


External links


United Kingdom portal


Some of my readers have ridiculed Rebekah in the past for “going too far”.

I say she is the most thorough of all researchers I know.

If you don’t have the time or inclination to follow the links and see what she has done for you, don’t dump your complaints here.

And for all of you dumb asses who still believe we elect our leaders, and everything is their fault for not following the constitution.

Grow up !




April 22nd, 2011 by




Be warned, seeking truth about the history of America is a heart breaking experience, and also finding out what kind of people we really are is an experience that will change your life. This is not what I wanted to learn!

However, the evidence is undeniable and only an informed and heart broken society can change.

If, after you have satisfied yourself that this information is true, and you still support the government that controls all of these atrocities, do not consider yourself an American.








By Al Duncan

April 15, 2011

"War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" Edwin Starr, 1969.

From a rational perspective, this statement is accurate; when viewing it from a political, financial, or ideological perspective it is false.

In 1948, George Orwell wrote the novel 1984. In his magnificently prophetic portrayal of a futuristic world, much like the world we live in today, he makes a number of profoundly factual statements. Orwell writes, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

A word's definition cannot be changed; however, by deviously clever design, the implications certainly can. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind," George Orwell.

Today, U.S. military troops are being sent to annihilate lands, property, homes, buildings, and entire cities filled with people, all under the pretext of what are called Peacekeeping Missions.

The U.S. has troops permanently stationed in over 133 countries. Military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. The defense budget is $708 billion, which is more than all other discretionary parts of the federal budget. There is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily.

"In war, truth is the first casualty," Aeschylus, 525 BC – 456 BC

In December 2, 2009, Brian Ross, a senior U.S. intelligence official told ABC News that "There was an approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan. The small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations. As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda 'cancer' in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country."

According to the L.A. Times, January 13, 2010. There are at least 21,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. With only 100 enemy fighters left, who are they fighting, why are additional troops needed, and why are they still there? It's evident that there are hidden motives behind war, and for certain, this war that is being waged on terror.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act," George Orwell.

President Dwight Eisenhower, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, Four Star General and apparent war mongrel repentant, stated in a 1953 speech, "Every gun that's made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It's spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children."

Today the cost of a destroyer equals 8000 houses, a fighter plane equals food for 6-million people and a bomber equals a modern school in more than 30 cities. "War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent," George Orwell.

Eisenhower was the first to introduce the term, Military Industrial Complex, in his January 17, 1961 Farewell Address, he warned the American people, "in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

"Anyone who trades freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security," Benjamin Franklin.

There are six major components fueling the mightiest industry on earth: the Military, the Defense Industry, the CIA, Population Control, Congress, and Think Tanks, such as the Project For The New American Century. These groups have no accountability to American voters.

The members list for the Project of the New American Century (PNAC), 1997-2006, reads like a who's who of former high-level government and military officials: Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and William Kristol (all CFR or Trilateral Commission members) are some of the members that mold a seamless transition between the financial and the political, while gaining enormous personal and corporate benefits with each transformation. This interlocking connection is now so enmeshed that the financial elites and the political elites are literally the same.

The PNAC said that the U.S. forces are "the cavalry on the new American frontier." They said that the U.S. must "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars as a core mission." They state that "Focuses must be on long-term policy issues such as the strategic implications of defense policies and tactical considerations, including what types of weapons the military should develop," All of this is to be done at the U.S. taxpayer's expense.

One PNAC report contained ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare: "New methods of attack-electronic, non-lethal, biological-will be more widely available… Combat will likely take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes… Development of 'world-wide command-and-control system' to contain dangerous regimes… Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

As far back as 1998 there were reports from the PNAC stating: "The U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan are essential locations that must be controlled." All of this is at the expense of the American solider and the U.S. taxpayers.

We learn from a study released from The Center For Public Integrity, March 28, 2003, that states, "After September 11, 2001, at least 71 companies got contracts to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and all of the top 10 companies had ex-U.S. officials on their boards of directors as top executives who had worked in the Pentagon or other top government positions."

The Center For Public Integrity statement continues: "Of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Four members are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors. And here was just one shopping list, the Air Force wanted 312 B-2 stealth bombers, $500 million each; the Marine Corps wanted 12 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor helicopters, $136 million each; the Army wanted $240 million to produce the LHX, a new reconnaissance and attack helicopter, $33 billion; the Navy wanted 5 Aegis guided-missile destroyers, at $3.6 billion." All of this is at the American taxpayer's expense.

I reiterate, there is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily.

Each piece of a bomber, a submarine, an aircraft carrier, a fighter jet is made in a different state, in a different congressional district, reaping enormous financial gains, and thus guaranteeing approval from each House member. It has nothing to do with what benefits the country; it's about what benefits the corporation and politicians.

"War is not meant to be won, it's meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not victory," George Orwell.


Politicians look at war much differently than the public.

In 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, known as “Title 18, Section 6,” authorizing U.S. intelligence services to establish and operate corporations for intelligence purposes and deny any intelligence community connection. Now, U.S. intelligence services could covertly establish and operate corporations with taxpayer’s funds, they could compete against taxpayers with taxpayer’s funds and they could legally lie about their real “corporate” purpose. [click here]

From 1989 to 1993 Dick Cheney (a founding member of the Project for the New American Century, the group that planned the takeover of the Middle East) served as Secretary of Defense. August 1992 a contract was cut with Kellogg, Brown and Root Services Corp (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, to study whether the Pentagon should use the private sector for service-type jobs such as preparing food, latrine and laundry cleaning, etc.; services previously provided by U.S. servicemen. Cheney approved a contract with KBR, calling it “a terrific deal”. Within 10-years KBR and Halliburton acquired between 700 to 800 contracts, employing approximately 100,000 people worldwide. [click here]

From 1995 to 2000, Cheney was chief executive and chairman of Halliburton, the major provider of products and services to the military. Most of Halliburton's government contracts were won by its construction subsidiary, KBR. Under Cheney the company benefited from $3.8 billion in government contracts or insured loans. Cheney’s wealth also advanced from $700,000 to $65mil in 5 years. [click here]

Walter Pincus, of the Washington Post, December 16, 2009, stated, “According to a study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a provider of background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, the surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by up to 56,000 contractors, expanding personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone. CRS expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan, bringing the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.” This would all take place at the U.S. taxpayer’s expense.

Apparently, Halliburton brought Cheney in to open doors for contracts, not only in Washington, but Capitals around the world. It would also appear that while electing George W. Bush, we also elected a government contractor and PNAC member as Vice President.

October 10, 2002, Congress passed Joint Resolution 114, granting the president the right to use force against Iraq at his discretion. If the president, advised by members of the Military Industrial Complex, establishes a need to drop bombs or send land forces somewhere, the Pentagon is then utilized to shape the News to sway the public in support of the latest strategic plan. [click here]

So let us continue down the money-trail of collusion and corruption as we examine some of the revolving doors between the Military Industrial Complex, the corporate/banking world and the U.S. government.

Director and co-founder of the Carlyle Group, William Conway, recently boasted about his bank and the cast of ex-Presidents and former officials, including George H. W. Bush, James Baker III, and Frank Carlucci, on its payroll. It is the use of former government officials for their access to government bureaucracies to determine contractual relations. It is inside knowledge—knowing exactly where the government is going to spend money and then investing in it. [click here]

Under Frank Carlucci (former CIA deputy director and Defence Secretary), Carlyle has become the nation's eleventh-largest defence contractor, a major arms exporter to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, one of the biggest foreign investors in South Korea and Taiwan, a key player in global telecommunications, wireless, real estate, and healthcare markets. Since 1987 it has invested $6.4 billion in 233 transactions, with a 35 percent return rate on its completed investments. [click here]

Considering the huge profits (the military is now 36 percent of the annual budget) and the enormous power involving corporations, the Military Industrial Complex, and the U.S. government, it is understandable that anyone in opposition to a strong defense policy poses a huge threat. [click here]

In 1515, Machiavelli authored The Prince, here is a quote regarding mercenaries, “The mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous, and if anyone supports his country by the arms of mercenaries, he’ll never stand firm or sure, as they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, faithless, bold amongst friends, cowardly amongst enemies, they have no fear of God and keep no faith with men.”

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, stated, "In terms of people, there are 1,473,900 active personnel and 1,458,500 reserves. That’s before the broad-based government and military outsourcing rage [Private Military Company] of the last 15 years. Total numbers of PMCs exceed all U.S. combat forces combined.” [click here]

Founded by former U.S. Navy Seal, Erik Prince, Blackwater is currently the largest of the U.S. state department's private security contractors, it’s earned more than $1 billion from the U.S. government in the last nine years. [click here]

"What we know now is that Blackwater was part of the highest level, the innermost circle strategizing and exercising strategy within the Bush administration," says Jan Schakowsky, chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, "Erik Prince operated at the highest, most secret level of the government. Prince was more trusted than the U.S. Congress because Vice President Cheney made the decision not to brief Congress." [click here]

On August 19, 2009, the New York Times ran an article by Mark Mazzetti, who stated, “In 2004 the CIA hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials.” [click here]

Joseph Black, CIA Directorate of Operations, testified to Congress, "There’s a before 9/11, and there’s an after 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves come off." Black outlined a ‘no-limits, aggressive, relentless, worldwide pursuit of any terrorist who threatens us.’ In 2004 Black bragged, ‘over 70 percent of Al Qaeda's leadership had been arrested, detained or killed.’”

"’Outsourcing gave the agency more protection in case something went wrong,’ said a retired intelligence officer intimately familiar with the assassination program.”

September 16, 2007, Blackwater USA guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians trying to drive away from a Baghdad square. Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose squad reached Nisoor Square 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided, reported, “Based upon eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police, we concluded that the shootings were criminal.” Their conclusions mirrored the Iraqi government, which said the Blackwater guards killed 17 people. [click here]

According to Blackwater USA, “Based on information available to us, we understand that these individuals acted within the rules set forth by the government and that no criminal violations occurred. It is important to note that these men are presumed innocent, that an indictment is only the first step in the Judicial process, and that these men have not been convicted of anything.” [click here]

The Associate Press reported that, “Citing Justice Department missteps, a judge dismissed all charges against the Blackwater guards accused in the killing of 17 civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square in 2007.” [click here]

On October 25, 2007, Brian Ross of CBS News reported, “Even as she accepted the resigation of State’s security chief, Justine Sincavage, who was responsible for all State Department Security contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promoted two senior staffers who directly oversaw Blackwater security operations.

“Current and former officials were outraged,” Ross continued. “‘It is ironic; on the day the assistant secretary for DSS resigns, the two people with oversight responsibility for the program get promoted,’ said one current State Department official who asked not to be named

“Another State official who would not be named went further, calling the promotions of Sincavage and Barry a symptom of “a perverted system of government.”

Ross concludes, “’Two people got promoted in the face of all this mismanagement and controversy—talk about government B.S.,’ said another. ‘What does it say when the State promotes the two people into the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s most senior positions, when if they had properly managed the programs under their responsibility, we would not be in this mess.’” [click here]

When a New York Times journalist asked George W. Bush in March 2005, how he would justify the practice of extraordinary rendition, Bush replied, “Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” But with the emergence of de-classified U.S. Government documents and the findings of independent investigations, it has become clear that Bush’s statements were merely a façade for the surprise ‘holidays’ that the CIA was granting to terrorist suspects at the time. Even in the post-Bush era, the Obama administration has, continued to utilize and justify the use of extraordinary rendition. [click here]

Also included in President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, under United States Intelligence Activities, Section 2.11 of the order was a provision stating: “Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 of the order prohibits indirect participation in activities prohibited by the order, stating: “Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.” E.O. 12333.” [click here]

However, on July 30, 2008, President Bush issuedExecutive Order 13470 amending Executive Order 12333. The Order states, in pertinent part: “The United States Government has a solemn obligation, and shall continue in the conduct of intelligence activities under this order, to protect fully the legal rights of all United States persons, including freedoms, civil liberties, and privacy rights guaranteed by Federal law.” [click here]

President George W. Bush then gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the U.S. or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. [click here]

According to Dana Priest, January 27, 2010, the Obama administration has adopted the same stance, “The operations, approved by President Barrack Obama, involved several dozen troops from the U.S. military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), whose main mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. The recent JSOC list included three U.S. citizens.” [click here]

Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush seized the authority to order American citizens to be murdered based on the unproven claimes that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They are afforded no trial to contest these accusations, they are just eleminated.

The quote from the disgruntled State official calling our government system “a perverted system of government” is an understatement. Individuals and governments, in the name of peacekeeping and fighting terrorism, are being decimated because they will not submit to the extortion and tyranny being perpetrated upon them by the U.S. government and its band of NATO militia. If we are honest with ourselves, a cesspool of corruption permeates every branch of American government today; they are thieves and liars and murders and they can accurately be described as white-collar gangsters.

We, the people, had best come together. For the enemy is not the Democrats or the Republicans; the enemy is not liberalism or conservatism. The enemy is the devil, and he is directing an elite group of luciferians who are bent on corrupting everything that is Godly by everything that is ungodly.

And the outcry from the American people is deafening in its silence.

To be continued next week

© 2011 Al Duncan – All Rights Reserved

“Al Duncan is the author of The Master Plan, which is now being revised. He is also compiling a booklet of about 60 short articles for publication and future availability. Until recently, he wrote a weekly column for a local newspaper, the Lake County Record Bee, distributed by Associated Press. The readers were basically secular and unaware of the New World Order, so his articles were written hoping to educate the reader on this subject. However, Al realizes that NewsWithViews attracts an informed reader, who is seeking to expand his or her understanding of the truths behind the daily events, and how these truths can best help them meet the challenges ahead.


E-Mail: alduncan@pacific.net





Bretton Woods II The Final Enslavement of Mankind

April 20th, 2011 by

Bretton Woods II The Final Enslavement of Mankind

April 19, 2011 posted by Veterans Today

Totalitarian Collectivism

“The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active supporters.” – George Soros

Charges of a conspiracy theory are a convenient pretext to dismiss criticism when the global financial elites meet to shape the next evolution of centralized control of all economic activity. When Mayer Amschel Rothschild admitted, “Give me the power of the money and it will not matter anymore who is commanding”, he exposed the true nature of international finance. The new front man for the shadow masters of money is George Soros. His visibility is used to deflect attention away from the supra national circle of recluse manipulators, who set the agenda for globalism. The history of world politics is really the chronicle of money, debt and banking. Only by understanding this clash of titans, can one interpret the language of worldwide finance.

It is not often that you get to look into the window of the future before it takes place. The obsession with the political posturing of the torturous grinding process that produces a kosher sausage product causes acute indigestion. Banking is one such example and the INET, The Institute for New Economic Thinking, who sponsored the Bretton Woods II conference is the Neshama gourmet version of ground up animal flesh. Funneling the herd into the corral of a new world currency openly discussed, as the panacea for the coming collapse of international finance, is the height of totalitarian arrogance.

Soros, in The Alchemy of Finance wrote, “To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes…. As I made my way in the world, reality came close enough to my fantasy to allow me to admit my secret, at least to myself.”

Some of the attendees and speakers at the INET conference included:

Gordon Brown, former U.K. Prime Minister.

Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman and chairman of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics.

INET Executive Director Rob Johnson, former managing director at Soros Fund Management.

Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs, who sits on the board of INET is known for his ‘Shock Therapy’.  Aaron Klein reports in WND. “Sachs is, a special adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, is founder and co-president of the Soros-funded Millennium Promise Alliance. He has been a World Bank consultant who formerly directed Harvard’s Institute for International Development, which he turned into a major conduit advocating for World Bank and International Monetary Funds use for structural adjustment programs in the Third World and beyond”.

Mr. Klein then cites from the Investor’s Business Daily.

“A Millennium goal called for a “currency transfer tax,” a “tax on the rental value of land and natural resources,” a “royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection — oil, natural gas, coal,” “fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”

Does this sound like a global tax contrived to fund a centralized and top down authoritarian structure to replace nation states? The old Tobin Tax never dreamed of such grand designs. The psychosis of the Soros model is axiomatic, but the mainstream media avoids such characterization.

Back in the mist of the market meltdown, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times warns about a previous precursor of the Soros’ venue, “like most sequels, Bretton Woods II is not going to be nearly as good as the original. The first conference gave birth to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Its successor will be duller and less consequential.” If Mr. Rachman believes that creating the IMF and World Bank was good for the planet, he must have sat next to Soros at the London School of Economics.

Mr. Rachman cites his reservations for the success of a second Bretton Woods back in 2008.

“The first reason for this is that the global financial crisis – bad as it is – is hardly the second world war. The war destroyed the established order and so the statesmen who drew up the postwar institutions had a blank piece of paper on which to doodle.

Second, there is not enough time. The original Bretton Woods conference benefited from two years of preparation, not two weeks.

Third – and rather important – the countries that are meeting in Washington this weekend disagree. The Europeans, who adore all forms of international governance, are pushing for new global regulators for the international financial system. The Americans and Chinese – more jealous of their national sovereignty – are more cautious.”

Pat Buchanan reacts to the British Empire’s effort to enshrine Lord Keynes into the national constitution during this latest attempt to draft a unified draconic banking system.

“(Gordon) Brown wants the IMF to become the “global central bank,” the Fed of the world economy. No way, Brownie. Americans are not going to fund such a bank, nor cede it authority, nor abide by its dictates. We are not yet a Third World nation dependent on the IMF.”

However, is Pat right on this one? With the Soros influence in this Obama administration is any American safe from the whims of the banksters?  Is there the will in Congress to confront the executive abuses of this puppet president? When the ultimate crunch finally enfolds the TARP and “too big to fail”, bailouts will be small potatoes. The BRIC countries are already calling for the replacement of the counterfeit dollar as the reserved currency.

Going back further in time to 2004, John Brimelow in Market Watch, identifies the key issue with floating currency rate exchange.

“What everyone has is a massive Chinese undervaluation problem. Any exchange rate discussion that fails to start with this fact is fatuous.

In 1993, China fixed its currency, the yuan, at $1 = Y8.28.

Since then, capital and technology have poured into China. It has built up foreign exchange reserves more than ten-fold, to almost $500 billion, an expansion almost unmatched in history.

Yet the decline of the dollar in the past two years has effectively dragged down the pegged yuan another 35 percent against the major currencies — exactly the reverse of what should have happened, given China’s exporting success.”

Just think how much further the dollar has sunk while Chinese reserves have grown to unbelievable levels. No one is saying that a currency crisis is not real. The point is that international finance has the goal to become the credit-funding agent for the entire world.

Dan Gainor from the Media Research Center reveals the plan to put China in the catbird seat.

“INET isn’t subtle about its aims for the conference. Johnson interviewed fellow INET board member Robert Skidelsky about “The Need for a New Bretton Woods” in a recent video. The introductory slide to the video is subtitled: “How currency issues and tension between the US and China are renewing calls for a global financial overhaul.” Skidelsky called for a new agreement and said in the video that the conflict between the United States and China was “at the center of any monetary deal that may be struck, that needs to be struck.”

Watch the video The Need for a New Bretton Woods for the Skidelsky interview. Then view the Panel at INET’s Bretton Woods Conference for the real story behind the push for a single global central bank system.

“This is the heart of much of our economic catastrophe.  Sovereign governments are sacrificing themselves for private banking institutions. Trillions upon trillions of taxpayer dollars, world-wide, are being transferred to banks that have destroyed themselves many times over with their Enron-style Ponzi schemes and ‘creative accounting.’ The question is, how long will people stand for it? Soon it will be too late. So far, Iceland is the ONLY country whose people have made the right choice, while Ireland and Greece have made the devastatingly wrong choice — with Portugal ready to follow suit.”

The significance of the Soros conference at Bretton Woods is that national governments are an endangered species if they do not eliminate the banking cartel that is the primary global dictatorship that faces mankind. The avarice Rothschild culture that underpins the debt created money system is the most dangerous terrorist that seeks to impose the ultimate Global Gulag on every county. The Totalitarian Collectivism we all face is upon us. Soros is an evil man, but the system that he is part of is bent on eliminating or subjugating any regime, like Iceland, that repudiates the rule of banksters.

These financers are admittedly the evil rulers of society. Any attempt to force a singular currency and a universal taxation levee is a fulfillment of the final enslavement of man-kind.  Bretton Wood II is an outline for things to come. The debt created money cartel is ready to impose their captivity on sovereign governments. Soros is telegraphing their plan. We are engaged in the final battle for liberty and America is losing the war. The inevitable dollar default is the tool used to sentence you to death row. Now is the time to seek divine guidance and beg for national forgiveness.

The Truth About Silver and Inflation

April 16th, 2011 by




The Truth About Silver and Inflation

Silver futures surged today to a new 31-year high of $42.80 per ounce. Silver is up 146% since NIA declared silver the best investment for the next decade on December 11th, 2009, at $17.40 per ounce. All we need is for silver to rise by another 15.5% and silver will reach its all time high set in 1980 of $49.45 per ounce.

Keep in mind, silver's high of $49.45 per ounce in 1980 would equal about $140 per ounce in today's dollars adjusted to the consumer price index and about $400 per ounce in today's dollars adjusted to the real rate of price inflation. Despite silver's huge gains in recent months, we have yet to see silver rise by $2 or more in a single day. When we start to see a true "silver mania" with investors around the world rushing out of their U.S. dollars and panic buying silver, we expect to see silver gain by $5 to $10 in a single day on more than one occasion.

Back in February of last year when silver dipped to below $15 per ounce, we sent out an alert saying, "NIA believes this is a once in a lifetime entry point for those wishing to go long silver at a bargain basement price". NIA suggested silver call options in February of last year that ended up gaining over 1,000%. NIA's latest silver stock suggestion is currently up 175% from our profile price.

In NIA's top 10 predictions for 2010, we predicted a major decline in the gold/silver ratio, which was 64 at the time. The gold/silver ratio declined in 2010 down to 46, and in our top 10 predictions for 2011, we predicted another major decline in the gold/silver ratio and projected for it to decline this year to 38. NIA has been the most bullish organization in the world on silver, yet recent gains in the price of silver have surpassed even our short-term expectations. The gold/silver ratio is now down to 35 and we believe it will decline to at least 16 this decade, and possibly as low as 10.

The artificially high gold/silver ratio of the past century will be looked back at as an anomaly caused by the silver price suppression scheme of the Federal Reserve, which was in cahoots with Bear Stearns and now JP Morgan. NIA's President Gerard Adams exposed this scheme in NIA's critically acclaimed documentary 'Meltup', which has now been viewed by over 1 million people with an overwhelming 96% of its viewers giving it a thumbs up, a world record for an economic documentary. According to Mr. Adams, the Federal Reserve chose to bail out Bear Stearns and not Lehman Brothers, because Bear Stearns was the holder of a massive naked short position in silver that they were on the verge of being forced to cover.

It is not a coincidence that Bear Stearns failed on the very day silver reached its then multi-decade high of $21 per ounce. Bear Stearns was on the verge of being forced to cover their naked short position, which could have sent silver from $21 per ounce to $50 per ounce overnight. By bailing out Bear Stearns and allowing JP Morgan to acquire Bear Stearns' assets with the promise to cover any losses derived from them, JP Morgan was able to continue managing the silver short position and orchestrate a manipulative take down in 2008 from $21 per ounce down to $8 per ounce.

Only ten times more silver has been produced in world history than gold and from the years 1000 to 1873, a period of 873 years, the gold/silver ratio remained between 10 and 16. In fact, the Coinage Act of 1834 defined a gold/silver ratio of 16. The gold/silver ratio started to rise after silver was demonetized in 1873. Despite silver being demonetized, we saw the gold/silver ratio return to 16 on three occasions during the past century: in 1919, 1968, and 1980.

It was only ten months ago in June of 2010 that the gold/silver ratio was 70. With the gold/silver ratio now at 35, it means that silver investors have seen their purchasing power double over the past ten months, while those with their savings in U.S. dollars have seen their purchasing power decline by 20%. That's right, forget about NIA's silver call option that gained over 1,000% and forget about NIA's most recent silver stock suggestion that is currently up 175%; the simple act of following NIA's most basic suggestion of getting rid of your U.S. dollars and buying physical silver means that over the past ten months, your purchasing power has doubled while non-NIA members with U.S. dollars lost 1/5 of their real wealth.

The Federal Reserve can claim all they want that there is no inflation, but as we write this article we are eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream that we just bought at Quick Chek for $5 a pint. Three years ago, the same pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream at Quick Chek cost us $3. Three years ago, one ounce of gold would have bought 295 pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream and it still buys 295 pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream today. Three years ago, one ounce of silver would have bought 5.7 pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream and today it buys 8.5 pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

Americans with their savings in U.S. dollars can today only afford 3/5ths of the ice cream that they could have bought three years ago, but those with their savings in gold have maintained their purchasing power, and those with their savings in silver have greatly increased their purchasing power. NIA is 100% sure that the gold/silver ratio will decline to at least 16 within the next few years, and that will mean those with silver will once again more than double their purchasing power. Considering that the gold/silver ratio overshot to the upside and was as high as 100 in 1991, we fully expect it to overcorrect to the downside and possibly reach a low of 10 this decade. That would mean a more than tripling of ones purchasing power from the current ratio of 35.

When silver rose to $49.45 per ounce in 1980, the government said that the rise was due to the Hunt brothers "cornering" the silver market. The truth is, silver reached $49.45 in 1980 due to the massive inflation that was created by the U.S. government during the 1970s, and the Hunt brothers were used as a scapegoat. The Hunt brothers were accumulating silver in order to protect themselves from a collapsing U.S. dollar, just like NIA has been encouraging its members to do in a countless number of articles and videos over the past two years.

When the Hunt brothers were accused by the U.S. government of "cornering" the silver market and trying to manipulate silver prices higher, they only owned a concentrated long position of approximately 100 million ounces of silver. JP Morgan today has a concentrated naked short position in silver of approximately 122.5 million ounces, but the U.S. government doesn't seem to have any problem with it.

The problem with the Hunt brothers' strategy of accumulating such a large concentrated long position in silver is that after silver prices rose, their position was simply too large for them to ever sell without causing silver prices to crash. With silver reaching $49.45 per ounce in early 1980, the world was about to lose confidence in the U.S. dollar, which would have caused an outbreak of hyperinflation. In a desperate attempt to save the U.S. dollar and prevent hyperinflation, the CBOT raised margin requirements and limited traders' positions to only 3 million ounces of silver futures. The COMEX also limited traders' positions to 10 million ounces of silver futures. Not only that, but the COMEX and CBOT only had a total of 120 million ounces of silver in inventory, and the COMEX was likely going to default from futures contract holders requesting physical delivery. The COMEX was forced to go into "liquidation only" mode, ending all silver futures contract buying.

Combined with the Federal Reserve rapidly rising interest rates, silver prices began to plunge and the Hunt brothers were hit with massive margin calls. On one single day in March of 1980 when the Hunt brothers were forced to liquidate a large part of their position, silver lost 1/3 of its value, declining by over $5 to $10.80 per ounce. That represented a total decline of 78% from its high two months earlier.

NIA has been receiving a countless number of emails asking if now is the time to sell silver, and if silver could crash by 78% once again like it did in 1980. The fact is, while the Hunt brothers' 100 million ounce concentrated silver position was on the long side, JP Morgan's 122.5 million ounce concentrated silver position is on the short side.

While the Hunt brothers' long position was impossible to sell without causing silver prices to crash, JP Morgan's naked short position is impossible to cover without causing silver prices to explode to the upside. Being that the CFTC was so quick in 1980 to support the position limits that were then imposed by the CBOT and COMEX, NIA believes it would only be fair for the CFTC to mandate similar position limits today. This is unlikely to occur because the U.S. government believes JP Morgan's silver manipulation to be a good thing, since it is giving the phony appearance that the U.S. dollar still has purchasing power. The free market will ultimately win in the end and silver prices will soar through the roof to where they belong based on supply and demand fundamentals.

It is important to spread the word about NIA to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, if you want America to survive hyperinflation. Please tell everybody you know to become members of NIA for free immediately at: http://inflation.us


West vs. China: A New Cold War Begins On Libyan Soil

April 13th, 2011 by

From: becworks@gmail.com

Patrick Henningsen

April 13, 2011


The question as to why US-led NATO forces are determined to engineer a regime change in Libya is now becoming clear. Whilst media pundits and political experts still argue over whether the Libyan rebel gangs are actually being backed and directed by US, UK and Israel intelligence agencies, broader long-range Western policy objectives for Libya are being completely ignored.

One only has to read the strategic briefings in U.S. AFRICOM documents to realise the true endgame in Libya: the control of valuable resources and the eviction of China from North Africa.

When the US formed AFRICOM in 2007, some 49 countries signed on to the US military charter for Africa but one country refused: Libya. Such a treacherous act by Libya’s leader Moummar Qaddafi would only sow the seeds for a future conflict down the road in 2011.

NATO: It’s been reduced to a mere private security force for western corporate interests.

According to Dr Paul Craig Roberts, the situation with Qaddafi is much different than the other recent protests in the Arab world. “Why is NATO there?” has become to real question, says Roberts, who fears that risky involvement stemming from American influence could lead to catastrophic breaking point in Libya.

WHY WE ARE IN LIBYA: a revealing interview with Dr Paul Craig Roberts.


According to Bejing’s Ministry of Commerce, China’s current contracts in Libya number no less than 50 large projects involving a contracts in excess of 18 billion USD. What is even more revealing here is that due to the recent instability in the North African region, China’s investments have taken a serious hit. The recent political turmoil in the region has caused China’s foreign contracted projects  to drop with new contracts amounting to $ 3,470,000,000, down 53.2%. Among them, the amount of new contracts in Libya, down by 45.3%, 13.9% less turnover; to Algeria, the amount of the contract fell 97.1%, turnover decreased by 10.7% – all within the first 2 months of this year.

In addition to the numerous Chinese investments in Libya, the North African nation has also recently completed one of the most expensive and advance water works projects in world history- Libya’s Great Man Made River. A 30 year venture, finished only last year, gives Libya the potential for an agricultural and economic boom that would certainly mean trouble for competing agri-markets in neighbouring Israel and Egypt. It could also transform Libya into the emerging “bread basket” of Africa. With global food prices on the rise, and Libya possessing a stable currency and cheap domestic energy supply, it doesn’t take an economic genius to see what role Libya could play in the global market place.

VALUABLE ASSET: Libya’s Great Man Made River.

Central to AFRICOM’s strategic goals is to confront the increasing Chinese influence on the continent. One AFRICOM study suggests that China will eventually dispatch troops to Africa to defend its interests there:

“Now China has achieved a stage of economic development which requires endless supplies of African raw materials and has started to develop the capacity to exercise influence in most corners of the globe. The extrapolation of history predicts that distrust and uncertainty will inevitably lead the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to Africa in staggering numbers…”

So we have a vocalised fear on the part of US military planners, of a military confrontation with China… in Africa. Today it’s Libya, but tomorrow, it will be in Sudan. Does this sound a little familiar?  Well, it should…


What this data does show clearly is that the strategic policy objectives outlined in Washington’s AFRICOM, particularly those ones designed to confront and minimise China’s economic interest in Africa, are working well as a result of instability in the region.   In effect, what we are witnessing here is the dawn of a new Cold War between the US-EURO powers and China. This new cold war will feature many of the same elements of the long and protracted US-USSR face-off we saw in the second half of the 20th century. It will take place off shore, in places like Africa, South America, Central Asia and through old flashpoints like Korea and the Middle East.

AFRICOM: outlining America’s new military playground.

What makes this new cold war much deeper and more subtle than the previous one, is that it will not be cloaked in a popular ideology like ‘Capitalism vs Communism’. This new war is all about one thing: natural resources. The capture and control of the world’s remaining resources and energy supplies will be the theme which will govern- and literally fuel, all major conflicts in the 21st century. It will be fought through numerous proxies, and on far-flung pitches across the globe but it will never be spoken of by the White House Press Secretary or the Foreign Office in Downing Street.

Early reports out of Libya confirm that “Rebels” are being backed and directed by Western intelligence agencies.


The great PR spin trick in the run up to NATO’s carpet bombing run in Libya was the West’s ability to characterise Libya’s violent armed gangs as mere protestors. The average American, British or French media consumer equated the Libyan uprising with those previously in Tunisia and Egypt. Then reality of course was that they were anything but. However, the bells of freedom and democracy had indeed rung, so all that was really needed at that point was a clever WMD-like diplomatic trick to dazzle the rows of intellectually challenged diplomats at the UN in New York City. The ‘No Fly Zone’ was repackaged and worked well enough for politicians to get their foot in the door to their respective War Rooms.

It seems to have worked so far but the next phase- ground troops and a NATO military occupation of Libya, will be somewhat more complicated to execute without sustaining heavy political fallout. All of these complexed efforts are used to shroud western corporate and military long-term agendas in the region, all part and parcel of the New Resources Cold War with China.

A military and CIA advocate appears on CNN to promote the White House party line on regime change.


Few will argue that the average western observer and mainstream media consumer suffers from chronic historical amnesia. For Americans in particular, relevant history only extends as far back as the previous season of Dancing With the Stars, or American Idol.  Some might argue that this is by design, that on whole the masses have been conditioned to be passive actors in the new media-rich modern democracy because it makes managing the herds much easier.

The lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq have yet to return home for the US and Great Britain- both projects are still going concerns for the massive cartel of western corporations. This has allowed ambitious bureaucrats in Washington, London and Paris to try their hand again in Libya. In time however, Americans and Europeans will come to learn what ever citizen and subject already learned many times over throughout history. In theory it may work, but in practice, “Occupation” is a paradox. The US-UK may draw plans in private to occupy an Iraq or a Libya indefinitely but history doesn’t jibe with these imperial ambitions.

It will end one day, and end badly because the Neo-Roman Anglo-American Empire with all its legions abroad, cannot manage its fragile domestic affair back at home. First comes the fall of the Senate, then the rise of the Caesar, and finally the collapse of the Denarius($) at home. The once great empire goes out with a whimper- too fat and too bankrupt to carry on.

As the Great Resource Wars of the 21st century continue to rage on unabated, one question comes to mind: what will mindful citizens in the aggressor countries do to change this present course of history? Judging by ease at which the West managed to pull of their latest heist in Libya, I would say… very little right now.

Patrick Henningsen’s article first appeared on 21st Century Wire.

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/west-vs-china-a-new-cold-war-begins-on-libyan-soil/

There are only two types of human beings.

April 11th, 2011 by


Type one just wants everyone to leave everyone else alone and these humans are students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle.


Type two refuses to leave others alone and these scumbags are the Mob-oc-racy Looter Minions with their hoards of bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries that perpetuate the loot and booty gravy-train.


You are either the one…or the other!

And type two is on my shit list!

Globalists Coming Full Circle:

April 11th, 2011 by

Obama executes final leg of Neo-Conservative imperialism

Activist Post

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer

Long before the verified lies of Qaddafi's "door-to-door" genocide and even before the media cleverly tagged the engineered destabilization of the Middle East the "Arab Spring," Libya was already marked for destabilization and regime change. For nearly thirty years the US and UK have funded groups both inside Libya and beyond its borders in various attempts to remove Qaddafi from power. The current administration's feigned ignorance over the nature of the rebels in Libya is nothing short of absolute deception. The CIA and MI6 are on record for decades following, and in many cases supporting, these very groups.

Below is a partial time line covering Western efforts to implement regime change in Libya.

1980sUS-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.
1990s: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden's assistance.
2003: Upon Qaddafi's abandonment of WMD programs, Libya's collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group.
2005NFSL's Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan "Day of Rage," beginning the "February 17th revolution."
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO's Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing "unarmed protesters" with warplanes.
2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya
2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from "protecting civilians" to "ousting Qaddafi." Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington's full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda's ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.

Recently, Fareed Zakaria on his CNN show interviewed a former Libyan Al-Qaeda associate, Noman Benotman, to dispel "allegations" that Al Qaeda was playing a key role in the rebellion against Qaddafi. Benotman would concede that Al Qaeda was involved but not significantly, suggesting there were only a few hundred fighters. The Washington Times would later quote Benotman upgrading the number to a thousand. Then after Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to recruiting extremists into his ranks and that he believed Al Qaeda members were "good Muslims," Benotman began back peddling and even claiming, "The way they start to make statements or to understand the conflicts is unbelievable, beyond my imagination. The only explanation I can offer is because they have been affected – whether they like it or not – by the wave of democracy."


It should be noted that Al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel commander, received his training in Afghanistan and witnessed the US bombing campaign which began in late 2001. He would fight Americans in Afghanistan and was eventually captured in Pakistan, handed over to the US and later released back to Libya in 2008. Now the same man that fought Americans is being provided American air cover over Benghazi while he leads fellow Al Qaeda fighters, some of which fought Americans in Iraq as well.

For the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was founded in the mountains of Afghanistan during the CIA-backed war against the Soviets, then fighting the Americans in both Afghanistan and Iraq, now having the CIA back on the ground in Libya by their side may seem like a reunion of sorts, punctuated by the irony of jets flying overhead that had been hunting them abroad but are now protecting their lives. But to the thousands of US soldiers who have died and the tens of thousands maimed and destroyed supposedly fighting Al Qaeda, to the Americans who have been financially bled to death over the last ten years of war, and to the millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya who have been killed, maimed, displaced or otherwise affected by the "War on Terror," it is more like the punchline of a bad joke.

But the implications go much deeper than merely a conjured army of duped extremists, serving the globalist agenda every step of the way. The implications are deep, and dark indeed.

The Grander Agenda

Ten days after 9/11, General Wesley Clark visited the Pentagon where an officer from the Joint Staff warned him of an impending attack on Iraq. After the Afghan invasion, this officer shared with Clark a document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense indicating plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. General Wesley Clark would go on to share this story in a 2007 speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California where he repeated this list.


Of course, the campaigns have already begun against each of the nations Clark listed. Iraq was invaded, decimated, and has been occupied by US troops since 2003. In 2006, Israel attempted to invade and dismantle Hezbollah in Lebanon but the conflict ended in a stalemate and an eventual Israeli withdrawal. Somalia was attacked by a proxy Ethiopian invasion force with US air support starting in 2007, but it too eventually ended in failure. A silent war has already begun within Iran, including covert military operations, the arming of terrorists, assassinations, and 2 failed US backed color revolutions. Sudan has been recently carved into two states and Syria is now being intentionally destabilized by US trained and funded activists.

And now, of course in Libya's case, aerial bombardment by US, UK, and French warplanes has begun, while the CIA and MI6 are on the ground attempting to collapse the Qaddafi regime.

Wesley Clark would backtrack in his 2007 talk in California and recall a conversation he had in 1991 with then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz regarding Desert Storm. Clark was told that America's intervention in Iraq proved that the US could use its military force and the Soviets wouldn't stop them. Wolfowitz said the US had 5-10 years to clean up the old Soviet "client regimes" before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony. Clark claimed that this, along with the aftermath of 9/11 constituted a policy coup where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other members of the of Project for a New American Centuryhad hijacked US foreign policy to destabilize and turn the nations of the Middle East upside down – much the way they are now. The "Neo-Conservative" element of this current round of destabilization goes deeper than the promotion of war, as the "Neo-Cons" have uncharacteristically dedicated themselves to "human rights" and "democracy" side-by-side with the likes of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization 
was planned as far back as 1991, with the destruction of Iraq, 
Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran on the
drawing board following the invasion of Afghanistan. 

Bush campaigned on an anti-war, anti-nation building platform. Obama then pledged to roll back the agenda Bush swindled the nation into, only to then continue it in earnest. All along we have been treated to the theatrics of the corporate-owned media, with pundits on the left and right reacting in shock and surprise as these engineered events unfolded according to plan.

Despite Wolfowitz' agenda being meted out nearly 20 years ago, the ham-fisted nature of both the operation itself in Libya and the propaganda surrounding it suggests a rushed sense of desperation on the globalists' behalf. Wesley Clark suggested that the operation to destabilize the Middle East and Northern Africa would take 5 years, starting in 2001. Wolfowitz believed that in 1991 the operation would have taken 5-10 years. The failed FBI attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was most likely the staged impetus to trigger the first blitzkrieg. Not only did the attacks fail to cause the catastrophic effects needed to justify such an operation, the Egyptian informant assisting the FBI had recorded his conversations with agents indicating that they were indeed building a bomb for extremists and providing them with real explosives as well.

1993 would have fit in perfectly to tip off Wolfowitz' plan. Upon failing, he and his PNAC cadre would attempt to destroy the World Trade Center buildings again, this time successfully on September 11, 2001. The catastrophic loss of life, the confusion, and the rage that was left in its wake gave the PNAC what they called a "new Pearl Harbor" they claimed they needed in their September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses."


These men, who in fact helped create Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan to face the Soviets in the 80s would call on their legion of foreign mercenaries to wreck havoc across the planet, heralding globalist intervention along the way. Certainly this had nothing to do with defending America or spreading "democracy" but rather bolstering the hegemony of the corporate-financier oligarchythat both the PNAC cadre and the bankers who thoroughly saturate Obama's administration constitute.

What appears to have happened is a costly delay in 1993 and a post-9/11 campaign that has dragged on 5 years longer than expected. With the same clumsy hands fumbling in Libya also trying to stab simultaneously at both Moscow and Beijing with their agenda laid on the table openly for all to see, failure on the globalists' behalf now may incur a wrathful response from a planet about to truly awaken.

It should be expected that that any excuse to complete regime change in Libya will be made, including creating the conditions necessary to put troops on the ground – be it because of a failing rebellion, a false flag attack carried out in Qaddafi's name, or even feigned fears the globalists' own Al Qaeda might "seize" Libya should they not intervene. Similarly, with the US openly admitting to funding subversive activities across the Arab world, in Iran, and even as far as China, the globalists have painted themselves into an irredeemable, inescapable corner of confrontation.

Look past the feckless puppets occupying our public offices and toward the corporations and financial empires that are our true "misleaders." Boycott these corporations and systematically replace them by getting self-sufficient as an individual, as a household, and as a community. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence and the dominion of this dark empire can be broken by understanding that they need us, we do not need them.

For ways to battle the globalists by achieving self-sufficiency and freedom through independence please read on:

Alternative Economics
The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Naming Names: Your Real Government

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.    

Congress Delivered Articles of Impeachment for tyrant Obama

April 9th, 2011 by



Bruce Fein
April 8, 2011


1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:

Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.

3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.

4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”

5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”

6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”

7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.


9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.

12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.

13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.

14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:

[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.

15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority

…would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.

16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.

18. On June 29, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to vassalage:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.

20. During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, observed:

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.

21. In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”

22. President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, deemed himself “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” He amplified: “I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”

23. In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.” He requested Congressional authorization for offensive military action, even short of war, elaborating:

Formal war is not necessary—it is not probable it will follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country, require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will probably contribute to advance the object of peace.

But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with sincere zeal, that which they shall approve.

24. In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless maintained that he could not respond with military force without congressional authorization. He proclaimed:

We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.

25. In his Records of the Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power “To declare war” had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power “To make war” to leave to the Executive “the power to repel sudden attacks.”

26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” but still moved with Mr. Madison “to insert declare—in place of make” in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id.

27. Mr. George Mason was against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace.” Yet Mr. Mason “preferred declare to make.” Id.

28. Mr. Roger Sherman “thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.” Id.

29. Delegates to the Federal Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert “declare—in place of make,” to deny the Executive power to initiate military action, but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id.

30.Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

31. Crowning the President with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit, threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power.

32. Thomas Paine justly and rightly declared in Common Sense that “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

33. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

34. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919.

35. That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:

The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not — under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.

The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.

36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court:

There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

39. In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated:

Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

40. All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held:

There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

41. Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).

42. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:

No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)

43. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: “The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.”

44. Then Senator Joseph Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007 regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution:

It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.

They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.

That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.

If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “…the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”

46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”


47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.

48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?

Secretary Gates: Probably so.

Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?

Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?

Secretary Gates: Presumably.

49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.

50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.

51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.

52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.

53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.”

54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added).

56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.

57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war.

59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.

60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys.

61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.

In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.






This nation is OCCUPIED by FOREIGN INTERESTS and we have a major battle taking place –  part of it is to hide/mask their OCCUPATION as long as they can and the other is the FINAL ACT of Destruction for all things American.  I do hope that readers are quietly preparing for what is to come on this land we like to call ours but in reality it is owned by foreign interests and controlled by them as well.  Some of our people may like to holler out HELL NO IT ISN'T but the reality is that it IS and to deny that is to deny reality.  There are a good number of us who are aware and have learned the art of Guerilla Warfare because that is what is going to take place.  Hit & Run – quietly – swiftly – and to have a small group that we can trust and depend upon.  I use movies to illustrate things every so often and in this instance, I use those Mel Gibson films – The Patriot – Braveheart – for how to go after the ENEMY.   While it is true we may well die (our flesh and bone) in the act of fighting but if you have truly *prepared* (for your eternal body/spirit) then the loss of the flesh and bone is no big deal and it may bring another to make a decision on their eternal life.  We are in a SPIRITUAL WAR  – and there is only one way to fight that –  SPIRITUALLY!!

Jackie Juntti
WGEN    idzrus@earthlink.net

Global experts ponder seizing control of Earth’s atmosphere

April 7th, 2011 by


On secluded country estate, global experts ponder seizing control of Earth's atmosphere

Associated Press

Last update: April 3, 2011 – 4:34 AM

CHICHELEY, England – To the quiet green solitude of an English country estate they retreated, to think the unthinkable.

Scientists of earth, sea and sky, scholars of law, politics and philosophy: In three intense days cloistered behind Chicheley Hall's old brick walls, where British saboteurs once secretly trained, four dozen international thinkers pondered the planet's fate as it grows warmer, weighed the idea of reflecting the sun to cool the atmosphere, debated the question of who would make the decision.

The unknown risks of "geoengineering" — in this case, tweaking Earth's climate by dimming the skies — left many uneasy.

"If we could experiment with the atmosphere and literally play God, it's very tempting to a scientist," said Kenyan earth scientist Richard Odingo. "But I worry."

Arrayed against that worry is the worry that global warming — in 20 years? 50 years? — may abruptly upend the world we know, by melting much of Greenland into the sea, by shifting India's life-giving monsoon, by killing off marine life.

If climate engineering research isn't done now, climatologists say, the world will face grim choices in an emergency. "If we don't understand the implications and we reach a crisis point and deploy geoengineering with only a modicum of information, we really will be playing Russian roulette," said Steven Hamburg, a U.S. Environmental Defense Fund scientist.

The question's urgency has grown as nations have failed, in years of talks, to agree on a binding long-term deal to rein in their carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions blamed for global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N.-sponsored science network, foresees temperatures rising as much as 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, swelling the seas and disrupting the climate patterns that nurtured human civilization.

Science committees of the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress urged their governments last year to look at immediately undertaking climate engineering research — to have a "Plan B" ready, as the British panel put it, in case the diplomatic logjam persists.

Britain's national science academy, the Royal Society, subsequently organized the Chicheley Hall conference with Hamburg's EDF and the association of developing-world science academies. From six continents, they invited a blue-ribbon cross-section of atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, geochemists, environmentalists, international lawyers, psychologists, policy experts and others, to discuss how the world should oversee such unprecedented — and unsettling — research.

An Associated Press reporter was invited to sit in on their discussions, generally off the record, as they met in large and small groups in plush wood-paneled rooms, in conference halls, or outdoors among the manicured trees and formal gardens of this 300-year-old Royal Society property 40 miles (64 kilometers) northwest of London, a secluded spot where Britain's Special Operations Executive trained for secret missions in World War II.

Provoking and parrying each other over questions never before raised in human history, the conferees were sensitive to how the outside world might react.

"There's the `slippery slope' view that as soon as you start to do this research, you say it's OK to think about things you shouldn't be thinking about," said Steve Rayner, co-director of Oxford University's geoengineering program. Many geoengineering techniques they have thought about look either impractical or ineffective.

Painting rooftops white to reflect the sun's heat is a feeble gesture. Blanketing deserts with a reflective material is logistically challenging and a likely environmental threat. Launching giant mirrors into space orbit is exorbitantly expensive.

On the other hand, fertilizing the ocean with iron to grow CO2-eating plankton has shown some workability, and Massachusetts' prestigious Woods Hole research center is planning the biggest such experiment.Marine clouds are another route: Scientists at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado are designing a test of brightening ocean clouds with sea-salt particles to reflect the sun.

Those techniques are necessarily limited in scale, however, and unable to alter planet-wide warming. Only one idea has emerged with that potential.

"By most accounts, the leading contender is stratospheric aerosol particles," said climatologist John Shepherd of Britain's Southampton University.

The particles would be sun-reflecting sulfates spewed into the lower stratosphere from aircraft, balloons or other devices — much like the sulfur dioxide emitted by the eruption of the Philippines' Mount Pinatubo in 1991, estimated to have cooled the world by 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) for a year or so.

Engineers from the University of Bristol, England, plan to test the feasibility of feeding sulfates into the atmosphere via a kilometers-long (miles-long) hose attached to a tethered balloon.

Shepherd and others stressed that any sun-blocking "SRM" technique — for solar radiation management — would have to be accompanied by sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions on the ground and some form of carbon dioxide removal, preferably via a chemical-mechanical process not yet perfected, to suck the gas out of the air and neutralize it.

Otherwise, they point out, the stratospheric sulfate layer would have to be built up indefinitely, to counter the growing greenhouse effect of accumulating carbon dioxide. And if that SRM operation shut down for any reason, temperatures on Earth would shoot upward.

The technique has other downsides: The sulfates would likely damage the ozone layer shielding Earth from damaging ultraviolet rays; they don't stop atmospheric carbon dioxide from acidifying the oceans; and sudden cooling of the Earth would itself alter climate patterns in unknown ways.

"These scenarios create winners and losers," said Shepherd, lead author of a pivotal 2009 Royal Society study of geoengineering. "Who is going to decide?"

Many here worried that someone, some group, some government would decide on its own to conduct large-scale atmospheric experiments, raising global concerns — and resentment if it's the U.S. that acts, since it has done the least among industrial nations to cut greenhouse emissions. They fear some in America might push for going straight to "Plan B," rather than doing the hard work of emissions reductions.

In addition, "one of the challenges is identifying intentions, one of which could be offensive military use," said Indian development specialist Arunabha Ghosh.

Experts point out, for example, that cloud experimentation or localized solar "dimming" could — intentionally or unintentionally — cause droughts or floods in neighboring areas, arousing suspicions and international disputes.

"In some plausible but unfortunate future you could have shooting wars between your country and mine over proposals on what to do on climate change,' said the University of Michigan's Ted Parson, an environmental policy expert.

The conferees worried, too, that a "geoengineering industrial complex" might emerge, pushing to profit from deployment of its technology. And Australian economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton saw other go-it-alone threats — "cowboys" and "scientific heroes."

"I'm queasy about some billionaire with a messiah complex having a major role in geoengineering research," Hamilton said.

All discussions led to the central theme of how to oversee research.

Many environmentalists categorically oppose intentional fiddling with Earth's atmosphere, or at least insist that such important decisions rest in the hands of the U.N., since every nation on Earth has a stake in the skies above.

But at the meeting in March, Chicheley Hall experts largely assumed that a coalition of scientifically capable nations, led by the U.S. and Britain, would arise to organize "sunshade" or other engineering research, perhaps inviting China, India, Brazil and others to join in a G20-style "club" of major powers.

Then, the conferees said, an independent panel of experts would have to be formed to review the risks of proposed experiments, and give go-aheads — for research, not deployment, which would be a step awaiting fateful debates down the road.

Like Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, John Shepherd is a fellow of the venerable Royal Society, but one facing a world those scientific pioneers could not have imagined.

"I am not enthusiastic about these ideas," Shepherd told his Chicheley Hall colleagues. But like many here he felt the world has no choice but to investigate. "You would have a risk-risk calculation to make."

Some are also making a political calculation.

If research shows the stratospheric pollutants would reverse global warming, unhappy people "would realize the alternative to reducing emissions is blocking out the sun," Hamilton observed. "We might never see blue sky again."

If, on the other hand, the results are negative, or the risks too high, and global warming's impact becomes increasingly obvious, people will see "you have no Plan B," said EDF's Hamburg — no alternative to slashing use of fossil fuels.

Either way, popular support should grow for cutting emissions.

At least that's the hope. But hope wasn't the order of the day in Chicheley Hall as Shepherd wrapped up his briefing and a troubled Odingo silenced the room.

"We have a lot of thinking to do," the Kenyan told the others. "I don't know how many of us can sleep well tonight."



Constitutional Consternation

April 7th, 2011 by


Constitutional Consternation


by R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences



July 10, 2010

Presented to the Americans for Constitutional Government

Sugar Creek Club House – Annual picnic





1.  This author loves government so much that she desires three branches of government; and all three operating in a check-and-balanced manner.  I am pro-government when it protects the individual.

2.  I am not an attorney, nor do I hand out legal advice.  I am an American who was educated in the public school system, which taught “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”  Therefore, I have performed my duty, studied what is available to me, used whatever talents my Creator assigned to me, and the following are my observations based upon knowledge, which the federal government mandated that I develop on my own.

3.  This author is not anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Protestant, or anti-anything else.  This author is Pro-Factual, Pro-Truth, and Pro-Freedom.  Everything shared with you is open to your own investigation and interpretation.  You are free to “believe” anything you wish.

4.  This author is not interested in Conspiracy Theories.  A conspiracy by definition must be (1) hidden and (2) illegal.  Instead, this author is focused on items that have been written in the legal documents of Record and the legislation by which our freedoms have disappeared.  This author is only interested in being extremely correct.

5.  My work is not finished.  It is entirely selfish.  I have no hope, nor any reason, to expect others to accept what I am learning.  Forgive me for saying this, but I do not care if you reject it.  This investigation is for me.  I do not wish to save the world; instead, I must save my own sanity.  I must understand why things are happening which appear un-American.  I am hunting.  You are welcome to read the answers to my questions.  I am compiling huge amounts of research into a streamlined format to increase cognitive comprehension and to enhance discussion for further research.  My hope is that you will not place yourself in jeopardy to defend the Constitution.


I am a scientist and a teacher with a love for investigative journalism.  My love for research was first discovered while sitting on my living room floor surrounded by encyclopedias, magazines, and books, writing a health report in the fifth grade.  The love for research is innate.  The search for answers to the questions “why” and “how” have created an incredible journey for this soul, which appears to be leading right smack into the center of the prophetic Book of Revelations, the Mayan calendar, the I Chi, and most prophetic works through the ages. 

I do not create an opinion, and then find facts to support it.  Instead, I find facts, and they lead me to more questions.  That is the Scientific Method.  When facts are true, then they can be used to predict outcomes with accuracy.  That is the only real proof of factual certainty.


FACT:The  Theory of Cognitive Dissonance [TCD] was developed by  Leon Festinger and published by Stanford University Press ( 1957)    The theory says that the mind involuntarily rejects information that is not in line with previous thoughts/or actions.   Festinger observed: “A person can deal with the pressure generated by changing the dissonance of the old behavior to harmonize with information.  But if the person is committed to the old behavior and way of thinking, he simply rejects the new information.”  That explains why so many Americans say, “I don’t believe it” when they are presented with new information, and why the Left-leaning agenda is able to brand thinkers as “conspiracy nuts” and “extremists.”

I apologize to many of you today, because you are going to learn things that rearrange the molecules of your brain.  When things that we thought were true, are proven false, then it can be traumatic.  Do not hide from new realities; instead, embrace them. Make a paradigm shift and go on.   Individual responsibility for facts and truths leads one to freedom and independence.


FACT:  About 30 years ago, a team of men came together with the sole purpose of going back through the historical legal paperwork to find out why judges were rendering the decisions they were making. The documents and original books filled up a warehouse.  Today, most of the team is dead.  They were ridiculed for their discoveries, because they had tapped into the real power behind the government.  Nonetheless, they discovered the Truth, and one of the team successfully implemented that Truth for himself.  He is the only real free Man in the country.  I interviewed him five hours and read his works.  His knowledge when combined with the other research in my files, led to incredible disclosures and understanding about our government.

CONCLUSION:   The United States of America has been locked into a Babylonian economic system the extends from the blend of pagan Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church in 382 A.D., which is under the control of the King of England, who is owned by the Vatican per the Treaty of 1213.  In 1611, King James had the Bible translated into an official English version.  King James happened to be the most powerful Freemason in history, because he  ruled Scotland and England at the same time.   In 1776, the rebellion in the colonies was halted and the aristocrats were placed into “checkmate” by the Vatican, whose message was delivered by the King’s agents.  From that point until today, Americans have been taught a Myth about their own history, which holds them in slavery to the most powerful corporation on earth which resides in Rome, Italy.  Americans have been deliberately kept ignorant of the Truth.


QUESTION: Is the United States Constitution in effect today?

FACT:  President Bush II told the GOP leadership during a meeting about the Patriot Act in November of 2005:  QUOTE:"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

FACT:  Citizens feel like they are under siege from all branches of government.  They must pay taxes and fees that consume over 50% of their earned wages.  They formed the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America to prevent the government from taking away firearms, which are supposedly protected under the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. There is an invasion from Mexico that is ignored by the federal level, yet it is constitutionally mandated to protect the borders.


QUESTION:  Where are the Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution physically located?

ANSWER:The Declaration of Independence is missing.

QUOTE:  In the Woman’s Day magazine, July 7, 2009, there is a box entitled, “Independence Day by the Numbers” which states: “25 = Number of copies of the Declaration of Independence known to exist.  (No originals with the famous signatures are known to remain.) END QUOTE

ANSWER:  The original handwritten copy of The United States Constitution, according to the National Archives and records Administration, QUOTE:  “ . .. Is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.” END QUOTE


QUESTION:  Can Americans access all of their pubic documents?


QUOTE:“2006 controversy over reclassification– In March 2006, it was revealed by the Archivist of the United States in a public hearing that a memorandum of understanding between Collins and various government agencies existed to ‘reclassify’, (i.e., withdraw from public access), certain documents in the name of national security, and to do so in a manner such that researchers would not be likely to discover the process. [SOURCE: gwu.edu (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm)(2006-04-11)]




QUESTION: Was the entire creation of the United States of America a con job?


QUOTEfrom Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government–they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.  But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation–the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution.  As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you.  The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience.  Slavery they can have; they can have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia.  But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you.  This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly.  This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world.  Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire.  English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

QUESTION:  Is there legal evidence that the Constitution did not apply to the American people at large from the very beginning?



The Padleford Case

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach in the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. States are the parties to it.

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438, 520, S.C. Georgia (1854)


SEO Powered By SEOPressor