Archive for June, 2013
June 30th, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Rosenberg
What was “Federal”?
Nearly all of us use the word federal to refer to the United States national government, as distinct from the state governments. This has been an error on our part.
Federal was a description, not a name. It would be fair to use federative in its place. It described a type of government, not a particular organization.
For example, when we say “my friend has a fast car,” we don’t think that fast is the car’s brand name – it is merely a description of the car’s acceleration and top speed.
Federal was not the brand name of the government that James Madison designed, it was a description, like fast.
Notice how Madison distinguishes between national and federal. We have lost this distinction, and it is crucial.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.
In its foundation it is federal, not national;
In the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national;
In the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal;
In the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally,
In the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
Madison – six times in this passage – distinguishes between federal and national. There can be no question about this: he is referring to two different things. Federal is NOT the same as national.
We no longer use these distinctions because the US government has become entirely national – we have nothing else to attach the tag federal to.
At the founding – as Madison was writing the US Constitution – the meanings of the words he used were these:
National powers were those of an independent central government.
Federal powers were those that came from the contributions of the states.
To be fully precise, “federal” meant a union based on a treaty. It described the type of association that was being used.
Madison distinguishes between national and federal in exactly the same way that we distinguish between a business and a club.
You can see from Madison’s words that the structure of the United States government very carefully included federally-derived powers. Madison specifies them as fundamental components.
At its origin, the national government was dependent on the states, and not vice-versa. When the states shifted their positions, the central government, which rested on top of them, had to move along with them.
Understand, this was not a case where the national government was supposed to shift along with the states – there was literally no other possibility. An analogy would be the surface of the ocean moving up and down as a wave passes. The national government rode on top of the federal arrangement – when and where it moved, the national government automatically followed – like the surface of the ocean moving with a wave. There was nothing else it could do or be.
Madison did this on purpose. It was the central controlling and protecting mechanism of his design.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the original federal structure of government in the US:
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, 1823
The capital and leading object of the Constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States; to make us several [separate] as to ourselves, but one as to all others.
Jefferson, as usual, understood the essence of the arrangement: Separate among ourselves, but as one toward the rest of the world – the outsiders who only saw the surface of the wave, not the waters underneath.
Jefferson (who was certainly not alone in this) saw the centralizing movement of power from the states to the capital as the great threat to the American experiment of liberty:
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Nathaniel Macon, 1821
Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction. That is: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
The Path of Destruction
The federal structure of the US government was abolished in steps, over time. Certainly the largest factors were the confusion, ignorance, apathy and fear of the populace, which resulted in mute compliance. There were, however, watershed moments along the way. The most important of these events were the following:
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
This most important of Supreme Court rulings resulted from a complex case involving dirty deals, a politically-stacked Supreme Court and the entry of partisan politics into the operation of the American republic. By the time it was over, the Court had ruled against the man who wrote the Constitution (James Madison) and claimed the sole right to interpret it. Here’s how it went:
1. The Federalists, Alexander Hamilton being the driving force, organized into a faction (a political party) that organized and pooled their power.
2. Facing a loss of control after the election of 1800, they pushed John Adams to appoint a large group of judges and other officials in the lame duck session before he left office. Adams complied. These appointments were written for five-year terms – long enough for the Federalists to retain control through the next election.
3. Not all the commissions could be completed before Jefferson was inaugurated. One of these was slated for delivery to a hard-core Federalist named William Marbury.
4. When Jefferson took the Presidency, Marbury’s appointment was still in the Secretary of State’s office. James Madison, who now filled that office, withdrew the appointment for precisely the reasons you’d expect (being based on dirty dealing), and went about to appoint someone else.
5. Marbury ran to the Supreme Court, which was entirely composed of Federalist appointees. He demanded to be given his office.
6. In a complex ruling, the Court (led by John Marshall) ruled that Madison was wrong to withhold the appointment, but that this didn’t matter, since the underlying law from 1789 was unconstitutional.
7. The shock of ruling against the author of the Constitution aside, ‘Marbury’ brought up the important issue of constitutionality: Who decides? Even if we say there is an argument to be made for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, it is NOT in the Constitution. The Court should have said something like this:
Since it has fallen to us to decide such an important matter, we will render our opinion in this case. However, we request of the Congress and the States, that they pass an amendment to the Constitution clarifying this issue.
There is a great deal of confusion related to Marbury v. Madison that has come down to us. This ruling is universally presented in American schools as crucial to the “checks and balances” of the US government. This is deeply misleading.
Judicial review (the Supremes ruling on constitutionality) involves one branch of the national government providing a check on the other branches of the national government.
Judicial Review provided no check whatsoever on the national government as a whole.
The original design of the republic empowered the states to act as checks on the national government. This was the primary purpose of the federal structure. Without it, the national government has no check on its expansion and use of power. Thus it would seem that the states should be the interpreters of the Constitution – after all, it was they who created it.
Rules versus Justice
There is one last and important thing to mention regarding Marbury v. Madison, and that is the enthronement of rules above reality – of legal wordings over justice.
The “midnight appointments” of the Federalists used rules to manipulate the power-structure of the republic and to secure power by unintended means. James Madison, above all people, understood this. He withdrew Marbury’s appointment to conclude the abuse that was done to his system.
Chief Justice Marshall, however, ignored the injustice and parsed words instead: He went on at length over the distinctions of “nominate,” “appoint,” “confirm,” and the fixing of seals.
Then, Marshall says this:
The people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness…
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental.
What Marshall actually says here is that the American people wish not to work so hard defending their rights. He is giving them an excuse to be lazy:
The rules will take over from here on out. You can relax.
Liberty was the primary issue of the founding of the republic; the Constitution was subsidiary to that: it was a tool, valuable only if it helped to secure liberty.
The reversal of the central order – liberty being made subsidiary to rules – dethroned liberty.
Hamilton, Marshall and the Federalists were political power-seekers. To them, liberty was little more than a word that gave them legitimacy; what they really wanted was power.
Madison’s design stood in their way; Marbury v. Madison pulled it apart.
The 14th Amendment, 1868
The 14th Amendment filled a hole in the Constitution by declaring that no state could trample an individual’s rights, such as the southern states had done by enslaving black people. (There was an earlier precedent for this, but the amendment was probably necessary.) The key section reads:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Essentially, the 14th Amendment made sure that the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, no matter what their state government did. This was, in my opinion, a reasonable addition to the Constitution.
The problem with the 14th Amendment is not the text itself, but that people took it to imply the moral superiority of the national government. That is a highly questionable assumption.
The Central Government & Slavery
When Americans talk about states’ rights, there is an instinctual objection that never fails to grip people – that without central government power, slavery would still exist. The truth, however, is the opposite. And that truth is this:
Every branch of the national government of the United States assisted slavery until 1863. You can verify this yourself; go look-up The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision.
While the southern states and the national government were supporting slavery, the northern states fought it: They nullified laws supporting slavery. (Wisconsin was exemplary in this.) The secession resolution of Georgia complains specifically about this:
For above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. [Northern state officials] shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property.
The northern states were the anti-slavery heroes, not the central government in Washington. If your school books implied the contrary, they lied.
The 17th Amendment, 1913
The 17th Amendment took the powers of the states and transferred them to Washington, by mandating the popular election of senators.
Previously, senators were elected by the state legislatures. That gave the states massive power in the central government. It provided a check on the power of the national government. If the states were unhappy with the direction of national government, they could instruct their senators to change it.
With senators being elected directly by the populace, the states were cut-out of the equation. In their place, political parties gained massive power, and nearly all power was consolidated in the city of Washington.
The argument in favor of the 17th Amendment was that state houses were corrupt and that they acted erratically, often leaving seats vacant for some time.
It is certainly true that the states were unruly. This, however, was not a crucial issue; the work of the Senate could continue regardless. Respected politicians, however, did not want to be seen as part of a disorderly body.
As for corruption in the states, that was often true, but the implied idea, that Washington was pristine, was – and remains – a bad, bad joke. But, even now, the moral superiority of the central government is often assumed, probably because many people find comfort trusting in the largest and most powerful thing.
Power always corrupts, but a structure featuring small, separate pockets of corruption is far less dangerous than one featuring a single, large seat of corruption, to which all money is gathered. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.
The government of the United States remains, but it is of a fundamentally different character than the federal republic designed by Madison. Yet, we all keep saying federal. Not only is this use incorrect, but it has prevented us from recognizing the crucial fact that the American federal republic was stolen from our great-grandparents. This is not a trivial argument over vocabulary.
Deceptions and frauds are accomplished over time by changes in the meanings of words. Sometimes this is done purposely and sometimes it happens because people are more comfortable evading the original meaning. But regardless of how much intent was involved, the meaning of federal changed radically between 1803 and 1917. Our current use of the word conveys a completely different meaning than the original. This change of definition has masked a fundamental turning point in the governance of the American people.
What you do about this – or whether you do anything at all – is entirely your choice. I am merely pointing as best I can to the truth. I will add only this:
If you call yourself an American, be one.
Originally published on LewRockwell.com
1. Will Government Tyranny Be Completed Before Humanity Wakes Up Again?
2. Death by Government 20x More Common than Death by Criminal…
Bottom of Form
Next Post: Capitalism and Greed: Do they go together?
Previous Post: Why Show Respect For Authority?
Because I’m always on the lookout for talented authors, I stumbled onto http://www.freemansperspective.com/ where I found many informative articles. Please do yourself a favor and go there, brows around and read what interest you. A good mind IS a terrible thing to waste, especially as our future is so bleak. Remember, knowledge, is intellectual ammunition. And, you cannot afford to be ignorant.
June 29th, 2013 by olddog
Paul Craig Roberts
“V For Vendetta,” a film that portrays evil in a futuristic England as a proxy for the evil that exists today in America, ends with the defeat of evil. But this is a movie in which the hero has super powers. If you have not seen this film, you should watch it. It might wake you up and give you courage. The excerpts below show that, at least among some filmmakers, the desire for liberty still exists.
Whether the desire for liberty exists in America remains to be seen. If Americans can overcome their gullibility, their lifelong brainwashing, their propensity to believe every lie that “their” government tells them, and if Americans can escape the Matrix in which they live, they can reestablish the morality, justice, peace, freedom, and liberty that “their” government has taken from them. It is not impossible for Americans to again stand with uplifted heads. They only have to recognize that “their” government is the enemy of truth, justice, human rights and life itself.
Can mere ordinary Americans triumph over the evil that is “their” government without the aid of a superhero? If ideas are strong enough and Americans can comprehend them, good can prevail over the evil that is concentrated in Washington. What stands between the American people and their comprehension of evil is their gullibility.
If good fails in its battle with Washington’s evil, our future is a boot stamping on the human face forever.
If you, an American, living in superpower America lack the courage to stand up to the evil that is “your” government, perhaps the courage of Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and tiny Ecuador will give you heart.
A US senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the Ecuadoran government that he would block the import of vegetables and flowers from Ecuador if Ecuador gives asylum to Edward Snowden. The cost to Ecuador would be one billion dollars in lost revenues.
Menendez’s statement–”Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior”–is ironic. It equates bad behavior with protecting a truth-teller and good behavior with betraying a truth-teller. Menendez’s statement is also a lie. The US government only rewards bad behavior. The US government consistently rewards those who conspire against the elected governments of their own countries, setting them up as dictators when Washington overthrows the elected governments.
Menendez’s threat did not work, but the senator did succeed in delivering yet another humiliating blow to Washington’s prestige. The Ecuadoran President, Rafael Correa, beat Menendez to the punch and cancelled the trade pact with the US on the grounds that the pact was a threat to the sovereignty of Ecuador and to moral principles and was being used by Washington to blackmail Ecuador. “Ecuador doesn’t accept pressure or threats from anyone,” added Communications Secretary Fernando Alvarado who then offered Washington foreign aid to provide human rights training to combat torture, illegal executions and attacks on peoples’ privacy.
Washington, exposed with its hand in the cookie jar devouring the privacy of the entire world and prevented by its hubris from acknowledging its illegal behavior and apologizing, has so mishandled the Snowden affair that Washington has done far more damage to itself than occurred from Snowden’s revelations. Washington has proven conclusively that it has no respect for anyone’s human rights, that it has no respect for any country’s sovereignty, that it has no respect for any moral principles, especially those it most often mouths, and that it relies on coercion and violence alone. The rest of the world now knows who its enemy is.
Washington’s presstitutes, by helping Washington demonize Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Manning, Assange, and Ecuador, have demonstrated to the world that the US media is devoid of integrity and that nothing it reports can be believed. The US print and TV media and NPR comprise a ministry of propaganda for Washington’s immoral agendas.
On June 24, the Stasi State’s favorite whore, the Washington Post, denounced three times democratically-elected Rafael Correa as “the autocratic leader of tiny, impoverished Ecuador,” without realizing that the editorial not only demonstrated the Washington Post’s lack of any ethics whatsoever but also showed the entire world that if “tiny, impoverished Ecuador” can stand up to Washington’s threats, so can the rest of the world.
President Correa replied that the Washington Post “managed to focus attention on Snowden and on the ‘wicked’ countries that support him, making us forget the terrible things against the US people and the whole world that he denounced.” Correa added that Washington’s “world order isn’t only unjust, it’s immoral.”
The reason Washington hates Correa has nothing to do with Snowden. That Ecuador is considering asylum for Snowden is just an excuse. Correa is hated, because in the second year of his first term he repudiated the $3 billion dollar foreign debt that corrupt and despotic prior regimes had been paid to contract with international finance. Correa’s default threat forced the international financial gangsters to write down the debt by 60 percent.
Washington also hates Correa because he has been successful in reducing the high rates of poverty in Ecuador, thus building public support that makes if difficult for Washington to overthrow him from within.
Yet another reason Washington hates Correa is because he took steps against the multinational oil companies’ exploitation of Ecuador’s oil resources and limited the amount of offshore deposits in the country’s banks in order to block Washington’s ability to destabilize Ecuador’s financial system.
Washington also hates Correa for refusing to renew Washington’s lease of the air base in Manta.
Essentially, Correa has fought to take control of Ecuador’s government, media and national resources out of Washington’s hands and the hands of the small rich elite allied with Washington. It is a David vs. Goliath story.
In other words, Correa, like Venezuela’s Chevez, is the rare foreign leader who represents the interests of his own country instead of Washington’s interest.
Washington uses the various corrupt NGOs and the puppet government in Colombia as weapons against Correa and the Ecuadoran government. Many believe that it is only a matter of time before Washington succeeds in assassinating Correa.
American patriots, who feel that they should be on “their” government’s side regardless of the facts, would do well to remember what true patriotism is. For Americans, patriotism has always meant allegiance to the Constitution, not to the government. The oath is to defend the Constitution against enemies domestic and foreign. The Bush and Obama regimes have proven themselves to be the Constitution’s worst enemies. It is not possible for a true patriot to support a government that destroys the Constitution. The United States is the Constitution. Our country is not the Obama regime, the Bush regime, or some other administration. Our country is the Constitution. The Constitution is our country.
Beyond obligations to one’s own country, all humans have a responsibility to human life itself. Washington’s puppet states, such as the NATO countries, Japan, and Colombia, by providing cover and support for Washington’s aggression are enabling Washington to drive the world into World War III.
The temptation of Washington’s money easily overwhelms weak characters such as Tony Blair and David Cameron. But the governments of NATO countries and other accommodating states are not only selling out their own peoples by supporting Washington’s wars of aggression, they are selling out humanity. Washington’s hubris and arrogance grow as Washington bumps off country after country. Sooner or later Russia and China, will realize that they themselves are targets and will draw firmer lines. Arrogance will prevent Washington from acknowledging the lines, and the final war will be launched.
Washington’s hegemonic impulse is driving the world to destruction. The peoples of the world should realize this and force their governments to stop enabling Washington’s aggression.
June 28th, 2013 by olddog
How can anyone not see that the U.S. economy is collapsing all around us? It just astounds me when people try to tell me that "everything is just fine" and that "things are getting better" in America. Are there people out there that are really that blind? If you want to see the economic collapse, just open up your eyes and look around you. By almost every economic and financial measure, the U.S. economy has been steadily declining for many years. But most Americans are so tied into "the matrix" that they can only understand the cheerful propaganda that is endlessly being spoon-fed to them by the mainstream media. As I have said so many times, the economic collapse is not a single event. The economic collapse has been happening, it is is happening right now, and it will continue to happen. Yes, there will be times when our decline will be punctuated by moments of great crisis, but that will be the exception rather than the rule. A lot of people that write about "the economic collapse" hype it up as if it will be some huge "event" that will happen very rapidly and then once it is all over we will rebuild. Unfortunately, that is not how the real world works. We are living in the greatest debt bubble in the history of the world, and once it completely bursts there will be no going back to how things were before. Right now, we are living in a "credit card economy". As long as we can keep borrowing more money, most people think that things are just fine. But anyone that has lived on credit cards knows that eventually there comes a point when the game is over, and we are rapidly approaching that point as a nation.
Have you ever been there? Have you ever desperately hoped that you could just get one more credit card or one more loan so that you could keep things going?
At first, living on credit can be a lot of fun. You can live a much higher standard of living than you otherwise would be able to.
But inevitably a day of reckoning comes.
If the federal government and the American people were forced at this moment to live within their means, the U.S. economy would immediately plunge into a depression.
That is a 100% rock solid guarantee.
But our politicians and the mainstream media continue to perpetuate the fiction that we can live in this credit card economic fantasy land indefinitely.
And most Americans could not care less about the future. As long as "things are good" today, they don't really think much about what the future will hold.
As a result of our very foolish short-term thinking, we have now run up a national debt of 16.4 trillion dollars. It is the largest debt in the history of the world, and it has gottenmore than 23 times larger since Jimmy Carter first entered the White House.
The chart that you see below is a recipe for national financial suicide…
Of course things have accelerated over the past four years. Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the U.S. government has run a budget deficit of well over a trillion dollarsevery single year, and we have stolen more than 100 million dollars from our children and our grandchildren every single hour of every single day.
It is the biggest theft of all time. What we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is beyond criminal.
And now our debt is at a level that most economists would consider terminal. When Barack Obama first entered the White House, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was under 70 percent. Today, it is up to 103 percent.
We are officially in "the danger zone".
If things really were "getting better" in America, we would not need to borrow so much money.
Our politicians are stealing from the future in order to make the present look better. During Obama's first term, the federal government accumulated more debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.
That is utter insanity!
If you started paying off just the new debtthat the U.S. has accumulated during the Obama administration at the rate of one dollar per second, it would take more than 184,000 years to pay it off.
So what is the solution?
Get ready to laugh.
The most prominent economic journalist in the entire country, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, recently suggested the following in an article that he wrote entitled "Kick That Can"…
Realistically, we’re not going to resolve our long-run fiscal issues any time soon, which is O.K. — not ideal, but nothing terrible will happen if we don’t fix everything this year. Meanwhile, we face the imminent threat of severe economic damage from short-term spending cuts.
So we should avoid that damage by kicking the can down the road. It’s the responsible thing to do.
You mean that we might actually do damage to the debt-fueled economic fantasy world that we are living in if we stopped stealing so much money from future generations?
Oh the humanity!
It is horrifying to think that all that one of the "top economic minds" in America can come up with is to "kick the can" down the road some more.
Unfortunately, neither Paul Krugman nor most of the American people understand that our financial system is actually designed to create government debt.
The bankers that helped create the Federal Reserve intended to permanently enslave the U.S. government to a perpetually expanding spiral of debt, and their plans worked.
At this point, the U.S. national debt is more than 5000 times larger than it was when theFederal Reserve was first created.
So why don't the American people understand what the Federal Reserve system is doing to us?
It is because most of them are still plugged into the matrix. A Zero Hedge article that I came across today put it beautifully…
US society in a nutshell: Chris Dorner has been around for a week and has 222 million results on Google; the Federal Reserve has been around for one hundred years and has 187 million results.
If nothing is done about our exploding debt, it is only a matter of time before we reach financial oblivion.
According to Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, the U.S. government is facing a "present value difference between projected future spending and revenue" of222 trillion dollars in the years ahead.
So how in the world are we going to come up with an extra 222 trillion dollars?
But it is not just the U.S. government that is drowning in debt.
Just check out this chart which shows the astounding growth of state and local government debt in recent years…
All over the United States there are state and local governments that are on the verge of bankruptcy. Just check out what is going on inDetroit. The only way that most of our state and local governments can keep going at this point is to also "kick the can" down the road some more.
And of course most of the rest of us are drowning in debt as well.
40 years ago, the total amount of debt in the U.S. economic system (government + business + consumer) was less than 2 trillion dollars.
Today, the total amount of debt in the U.S. economic system has grown to more than 55 trillion dollars.
Can anyone say bubble?
The good news is that U.S. GDP is now more than 12 times larger than it was 40 years ago.
The bad news is that the total amount of debt in our financial system is now more than 30 times larger than it was 40 years ago…
At the same time that we are going into so much debt, our ability to produce wealth continues to decline.
According to the World Bank, U.S. GDP accounted for 31.8 percent of all global economic activity in 2001. That number dropped to 21.6 percent in 2011. That is not just a decline – that is a nightmarish freefall. Just check out the chart in this article.
We are becoming less competitive as a nation with each passing year. In fact, the U.S. has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.
Most Americans don't understand this, but the United States buys far more from the rest of the world than they buy from us each year. In 2012, we had a trade deficit of more than 500 billion dollars with the rest of the world.
That means that more than 500 billion dollars that could have gone to U.S. workers and U.S. businesses went out of the country instead.
So how does our country survive if hundreds of billions of dollars more is flowing out of the country than is flowing into it?
Well, to make up the shortfall we go to the countries that we sent our money to and we beg them to lend it back to us. If that doesn't work, we just print and borrow even more money.
Overall, the United States has run a trade deficit of more than 8 trillion dollars with the rest of the world since 1975.
That is 8 trillion dollars that could have saved U.S. businesses, paid the salaries of U.S. workers and that would have helped fund government.
But instead, our foolish policies have greatly enriched China and the oil barons of the Middle East.
Sadly, politicians from both political partiescontinue to boldly support the one world economic agenda of the global elite.
Just consider how destructive many of these "free trade" deals have been to our economy…
When NAFTA was pushed through Congress in 1993, the United States had a trade surpluswith Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars.
By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of 61.6 billion dollars.
Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was approximately 6 million dollars (million with a little "m") for the entire year.
In 2012, our trade deficit with China was 315billion dollars. That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.
In particular, our trade with China is extremely unbalanced. Today, U.S. consumers spendapproximately 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that Chinese consumers spend on goods and services from the United States.
But isn't getting cheap stuff from China good?
No, because it costs us good paying jobs.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the United States is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.
Overall, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001. During 2010, manufacturing facilities in the United States were shutting down at a rate of 23 per day. How can anyone say that "things are getting better" when our economic infrastructure is beingabsolutely gutted?
The truth is that there are never going to be enough jobs in America ever again, because millions of our jobs are being sent overseas and millions of our jobs are being lost to technology.
You won't hear this on the news, but the percentage of the civilian labor force in the United States that is employed has been steadily declining every single year since 2006.
Younger workers have been hit particularly hard. In 2007, the unemployment rate for the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 6.5 percent. Today, the unemployment rate for that same age group is about 13 percent.
If you are under the age of 30 and you aren't living with your parents, there is a really good chance that you are living in poverty. If you can believe it, U.S. families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.
Our economy has been steadily bleeding huge numbers of middle class jobs, and many of those jobs have been replaced by low paying jobs in recent years.
According to one study, 60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were mid-wage jobs, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been low wage jobs.
And at this point, an astounding 53 percentof all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.
Oh, but "things are getting better", right?
Maybe if you live on Wall Street or if you arean employee of the federal government.
But for most families this economic decline has been a total nightmare. Median household income in America has fallen forfour consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.
Sometimes people forget how good things were about a decade ago. About three times as many new homes were sold in the United States in 2005 as were sold in 2012.
But we like to live in denial.
In fact, a lot of families are trying to keep up their standards of living by going into tremendous amounts of debt.
Back in 1983, the bottom 95 percent of all income earners in the United States had 62 cents of debt for every dollar that they earned. By 2007, that figure had soared to $1.48.
Fake it until you make it, right?
But how much debt can our system possibly handle?
Total home mortgage debt in the United States is now about 5 times larger than it was just 20 years ago.
Total credit card debt in the United States is now more than 8 times larger than it was just 30 years ago.
We are a nation that is completely addicted to debt, but as the financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated, all of that debt can have horrific consequences.
As the economy has slowed in recent years, the Federal Reserve has decided that "the solution" is to recklessly print money in an attempt to get the debt spiral cranked up again.
Have they gone overboard? You be the judge…
And of course this won't have any affect on the value of the money that you have been saving up all these years right?
Every single dollar that you own is continually losing value…
Overall, the value of the U.S. dollar has declined by more than 96 percent since the Federal Reserve was first created.
As the cost of living continues to go up and wages continue to go down, millions of American families have fallen out of the middle class and into poverty.
If you can believe it, the number of Americans on food stamps has grown from about 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 47 million today.
But "things are getting better", right?
Incredibly, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless. This is the first time that has ever happened in our history.
But "things are getting better", right?
There are now 20.2 million Americans that spend more than half of their incomes on housing. That represents a 46 percent increase from 2001.
But "things are getting better", right?
In 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance. Today, only 55.1 percent are covered by employment-based health insurance.
But "things are getting better", right?
Today, more Americans than ever have found themselves forced to turn to the federal government for help.
Overall, the federal government runs nearly 80 different "means-tested welfare programs", and at this point more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one of them.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.
So is it a good sign or a bad sign that the percentage of Americans that are financially dependent on the federal government is at an all-time high?
And in future years the number of Americans that are receiving benefits from the federal government is projected to absolutely skyrocket.
Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
If you take a look at Medicare, things are very more sobering.
As I wrote recently, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.
At this point, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years. That comes to approximately $328,404 for every single household in the United States.
Are you ready to contribute your share?
Social Security is a complete and total nightmare as well.
Right now, there are approximately 56 million Americans collecting Social Security benefits.
By 2035, that number is projected to soar to an astounding 91 million.
Overall, the Social Security system is facing a134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.
Oh, but don't worry because "things are getting better", right?
I honestly do not know how anyone can look at the numbers above and come to the conclusion that the economy is in good shape.
We have accumulated the largest mountain of debt in the history of the world, our economic infrastructure is being gutted, we are bleeding good jobs, government dependence is at an all-time high and we are getting poorer as a nation with each passing day.
But other than that, everything is rainbows and lollipops, right?
If you want to see the economic collapse, just open up your eyes.
And if dramatic changes are not made quickly, things are going to get much, much worse from here.
Please share this article with as many people as possible. Time is quickly running out and there are a whole lot of people out there that we need to wake up while we still can.
One thing I have learned is the incredible confidence people have in our economy, and the near total lack of credible evidence that they are wrong. It’s kind of like loving one’s government instead of their country, it simply makes no sense. Perhaps they don’t want to face the challenge of learning how to acquire protection from the collapse of our Nation. Try this http://harrydentpredictions.com/P209-PPC-Harry-Dent-Predictions-2013-TY.html
Please note, our video requires Flash. You can download it HERE.
June 26th, 2013 by olddog
By Prof. James Petras
In an electoral system, run by and for a corporate oligarchy, deception and demagoguery are essential elements – entertaining the people while working for the wealthy.
Every US President has engaged, in one fashion or another, in ‘play acting’ to secure popular approval, neutralize hostility and distract voters from the reactionary substance of their foreign and domestic policies.
Every substantive policy is accompanied by a ‘down home’ folksy message to win public approval. This happened with President ‘Jimmy’ Carter’s revival of large-scale proxy wars in Afghanistan in the post-Viet Nam War period; Ronald Reagan’s genocidal wars in Central America, George Bush Sr.’s savaging of Iraq in the First Gulf War; ‘Bill’ Clinton’s decimation of social welfare in the US while bombing civilians in Yugoslavia and deregulating Wall Street; George Bush Jr.’s invasion and partition of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempted coup in Venezuela and massive tax cuts for the rich; and Barack Obama’s staggering bailout of the biggest Wall Street speculators, unprecedented launching of five consecutive wars, and arrest and deportation of millions of immigrant workers. Each President has elaborated a style in order to ingratiate himself with the public while pursuing his reactionary agenda.
In rhetoric, appearance and in public persona, it is ‘de rigueur’ for US Presidents to present themselves as an ‘everyman’ while committing political actions – including war crimes worthy of prosecution.
Each President, in his ‘play acting’, develops a style suitable to the times. They constantly strive to overcome the public’s suspicion and potential hostility to their overt and covert policies designed to build empire as domestic conditions deteriorate. However, not all play acting is the same: each President’s ‘populist’ style in defense of oligarchic interests has its characteristic nuances.
The Carter Feint: ‘Human Rights’ Wars in the Post-Viet Nam War Era
‘Jimmy’ Carter was elected President at a time of the greatest mass anti-war upheaval in US history. His campaign projected a soft-spoken, conciliatory President from humble roots reaching out to the anti-war electorate and solemnly pledging to uphold human rights against domestic militarists and their overseas despotic allies. To that end, he appointed a liberal human rights advocate Pat Derian to the State Department and a veteran Cold Warrior, Zbigniew (Zbig) Brzezinski, as National Security Advisor and foreign policy strategist.
Duplicity reared its head immediately: Carter openly criticized the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua – while privately telling the dictator to ignore the public criticisms and assuring him of continuing US support. As the Sandinista revolution advanced toward victory, Carter convoked a meeting of Latin American leaders urging them to join in a joint military intervention with the US to ‘save lives’ and to prevent the popular Nicaraguan revolution from taking power and dismantling the dictator’s army. It soon became clear to the leaders of Latin America that Carter’s mission was a thinly- veiled ‘humanitarian’ version of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ and they declined. When Carter realized that, without the fig leaf of Latin American participation, a US-led invasion would arouse universal opposition, he abandoned the project. The political climate would not support a unilateral US invasion so soon after the end of the war in Indochina .
However, Carter soon re-launched the Cold War, reviving military spending and pouring billions of dollars into funding, arming and training tens of thousands of fundamentalist Jihadists from around the world to invade Afghanistan and overthrow its leftist, secular government.
Carter’s policy of re-militarization and launching of large-scale and long-term secret CIA operations in alliance with the most brutal dictators and monarchs of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was accompanied by sanctimonious speeches about human rights and token appeals to protect ‘civilians’. In this regard, Carter became our founding father of the double discourse: a con man that publically condemned the jailing and torture by Pinochet of political opponents in Chile while orchestrating what would become a decade-long blood bath in Afghanistan with millions of victims.
Reagan: Geniality with Genocide
Up until the ascendancy of Barack Obama, the avuncular President, Ronald Reagan, was acknowledged as the ‘master con-man’, by virtue of his Hollywood acting experience. Reagan was and remained a disciplined and hardened backer of policies designed to concentrate wealth while smashing unions, even as he entertained the flag-waving hard hat construction workers with his jokes about ‘limousine liberals’ and Cadillac welfare queens. The knowing wink and clever two-liners were matched by an adaptation of morality tales from his cowboy films. Reagan, in his role as ‘the righteous sheriff’, backed the mercenary contras as they invaded Nicaragua and destroyed schools and clinics and the genocidal military dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala who murdered hundreds of thousands of Indians and peasants.
Uncle Reagan’s friendly chats would describe how he had stopped the communist ‘outlaws’ (peasants, workers and Indians) of Central America from flooding across the Rio Grande and invading California and Texas. His tales resonated with mass audiences familiar with the racist Hollywood cowboy film version of unshaven Mexican bandits crossing the ‘ US ’ border. The clean-shaven, straight-talking, ‘stand-up for America’ President Ronald Reagan was elected and re-elected by a resounding majority in the midst of CIA-backed mujahedeen victories over the government and secular civil structure of Afghanistan, Pentagon- supported Israeli slaughter of Palestinian refugees in their camps in Lebanon and the mass genocide of scores of thousands of indigenous villagers in Guatemala.
When news reports seeped out about the mass graves of poor villagers in Guatemala , Reagan resorted to colloquial language right out of a Hollywood film to defend General Rios Mont : “He’s getting a bum rap”. In defending the brutal dictator of Guatemala , Reagan replaced Carter’s sanctimonious phrasing in favor of down-to-earth macho talk of a no-nonsense sheriff.
In substance, both Carter and Reagan were rebuilding the US war machine after the debacle of Viet Nam ; they were setting up a global network of client dictators, Muslim fundamentalists and hypocritical Anglo-American humanitarians interventionists.
Bush Senior: Uni-Polarity and the Ticket to Uncontested Imperial Conquests
Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the US and Western Europe re-conquered, pillaged and neo-colonized Eastern Europe . West Germany annexed East Germany . And a predator-gangster oligarchy in Russia seized over a trillion dollars of public assets, impoverishing millions and laundered the illicit funds via elaborate banking operations on Wall Street and in London and Tel Aviv.
President George Bush Sr. embraced the doctrine of a unipolar world – free from rival super-power constraints and independent Third World resistance. ‘Poppy’ Bush believed the US could impose its will by force anywhere and at any time without fear of retaliation. He believed he was heir to a new imperial order of free markets, free elections and unrestrained plunder. The first war he would launch would be in the Middle East – the invasion, massive bombing and destruction of Iraq . It was followed by an unprecedented expansion of NATO bases in the countries of Eastern Europe . The spread of neo-liberalism led to the naked pillage of public assets throughout Latin American and Eastern Europe . The Empire ruled the Muslim world through an arc of client dictators from Tunisia , Egypt , and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan .
Bush adopted the persona of the ‘happy warrior’ – the invincible American President who had triumphed over the Evil Empire. Meanwhile, the domestic economy deteriorated under the enormous costs of the massive military build-up and gave rise to a crisis that hurt the electorate. Bush’s personal rigidity and lack of theatricality prevented him from playing the con-man – unlike his predecessor, the actor Reagan. Even as he extolled the prowess of the US military, his career as an ‘insider’ corporate operative and CIA director did not provide him with the demagogic skills necessary for a successful re-election.
While Bush celebrated his overseas victories, he failed to attract a popular following: His pinched face and wooden upper-crust smile was no match for ‘Cowboy’ Reagan’s street corner geniality or even ‘Jimmy’ Carter’s pious intonations of human rights and Christian values … Deception and demagoguery are crucial elements in a re-election campaign – and so Bush, Sr. gave way for the next Presidential con-man-in-chief, Bill Clinton.
The Clinton-Con: Black Churches , Welfare Cuts and the Wall Street Warrior
Bill Clinton, like Ronald Reagan, turned out to be a Wall Street populist .With his folksy Arkansas intonations he preached messages of hope in black churches while diligently applying the free-market lessons he had learned from his Wall Street mentors. Tooting the saxophone and oozing compassion, Clinton told the poor that he could ‘feel their pain’, while inflicting misery on single mothers forced to leave their children and take minimum-wage jobs in order to retain any public assistance. He joined hands with labor union bosses at Labor Day festivities, while fast-tracking job-killing free-trade treaties (like NAFTA) that devastated the American working class. Bill Clinton enthusiastically sent bombers over Belgrade and other Yugoslav cities for several weeks, destroying its factories, hospitals, schools, power plants, radio and TV stations and bridges, as well as the Chinese Embassy, in support of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army and its separatist war against Belgrade . Clinton bombed civilians and their vital infrastructure, a war crime in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’, to the ecstatic cheers of many Western liberals, progressives, social democrats and not a few Marxists as well as many Jihadists. On the home front, this self-proclaimed ‘people’s candidate’ ripped to shreds all restraints on banking speculation by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, New Deal legislation enacted to protect against massive banking swindles. This opened the floodgates to massive financial manipulation, which destroyed the pensions of many millions of workers.
Clinton’s policies laid the groundwork for the information technology and Stock Market crash of 2000-01. His appointee, Alan Greenspan, created the conditions leading to speculative financial frenzy and subsequent economic crash of 2008. Bill Clinton’s stand-up comic performances in black churches, his back slapping encounters with labor bureaucrats and his embrace of feminists and others just raised the rhetorical bar for future aspiring Wall Street warlords in the White House. It would take eight years and the election of Barack Hussein Obama to finally surpass Bill Clinton as Con-Man-In Chief.
Bush Junior: A Yale Man with a Texas Drawl
President George Bush, Junior’s regime launched two major wars and backed two Israeli assaults on Palestinian civilians trapped in Gaza – the world’s largest open-air prison. He virtually eliminated taxes on billionaires while overseeing the geometrical growth of the domestic police state apparatus; and he unleashed the biggest speculative bubble and crash since the Great Depression. He lowered the living standards for all Americans except the top 10% of the population – and despite these disasters and despite his lack-luster performance as a con-man, he was re-elected.
His handlers and backers did their best to market their boy: his Ivy League credentials and New England background was replaced by a transparently phony Texas accent; tinny, whiney sound bites, reminiscent of his father’s, were replaced by a Texas ‘ranchers’ homely drawl. His ‘just-folks’ grammatical mistakes may have been mocked by the liberals but they resonated deeply with fundamentalist Christians – who would never have recognized the Phillips Exeter Academy-Yale Skull and Bones boy in their Commander-in Chief.
President Bush, Jr. was decked out in the uniform of a ‘Top Gun’ fighter pilot to polish his military credentials tarnished by revelations that the millionaire-playboy had gone AWOL during his service in the National Guard. His silly ‘Mission Accomplished’ claim that the Iraq war had been won in the first months after the invasion was rudely corrected by the huge outbreak of Iraqi resistance against the occupier. Bush handed over foreign policymaking, especially pertaining to the Middle East , to a small army of Jewish Zionists, aided and abetted by notorious militarists, like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Most major political events were handled by his Cabinet thugs – Secretary of State Colin Powell shamelessly fabricated the ‘evidence’ of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in his performance before the United Nations. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz invented Afghanistan ’s ties to the planners of 9/11.
Cheney and his Zionist troika of Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and ‘Scooter’ Libby trumpeted the ‘global war on terror’ while Michael Chertoff, Michael Mukasey and Stuart Levey conducted a domestic war against the Bill of Rights and US Constitutional freedoms, defending torture, jailing thousands of Muslims, punishing businesses trading with Iran and labeling US opponents of Israel’s war crimes as ‘security threats’. Bush, Jr. just nodded his approval, letting the “big fellas have a piece of the action”. With Junior, there was no peace demagoguery just plain talk to plain folks and- “Let the bombs fall and the Capital flow”. Bush did not have to go preaching to black churches (he had a black Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to do his dirty work without the cant); Bush never claimed that Israel got the ‘bum rap’ when it was charged with genocidal crimes. Under Bush, Jr., war criminals did not have to ‘sugar-coat’ their crimes. While occupying the White House, Bush signed off on the multi-trillion-dollar bailout for Wall Street and then just went off to tend his cows and chop wood at the Texas ranch.
Bush’s ‘style’ was a combination of ‘laid back’ and ‘straight forward’: he simply committed war crimes, protected Wall Street swindles and expanded the police state, without claiming otherwise. As the endless wars dragged on, as the stock market flopped under its own fraud and manipulation and the increasingly repressive legislation provoked debate, Bush just shrugged his shoulders and finished out his term in office without flourish or fanfare: “Y’all can’t win ‘em all. Let the next guy try his hand”.
Barack Obama: The Master of Deceit
From the beginning of his Presidential campaign, Obama demonstrated his proficiency as the master of all cons. He spoke passionately against torture while consulting with the torturers; he condemned Wall Street speculators while appointing key Street operatives as economic advisers. He promised a new deal in the Middle East , especially for Palestinians and then appointed a dual citizen, Israeli-US, Rahm Emmanuel (son of an Israeli Irgun terrorist) to be his most intimate Presidential advisor. Honolulu born and bred, Barack modulated his voice according to the audience, adopting a Baptist minister’s cadence for the black audiences while assuming the professorial tone of an Ivy League lawyer for his Wall Street contributors.
He hob-knobbed with Hollywood celebrities and Silicon billionaires, who bankrolled the fairy tale of his ‘historic breakthrough’ – the First Afro-American President who would speak for all Americans – nay for the entire world! Millions of giddy camp followers, white, black, old and young, the trade unionists and community activists alike were willingly deceived. They had chosen to disregard the fact that Barack Obama’s key advisers were rabid militarists, big bankers, corporate CEO’s, die-hard Zionists and Wall Street manipulators.
Indeed Obama’s supporters were enchanted by the phony rhetoric, the demagogy, the ‘populist style’, and the fake ‘authenticities’. Here was the man who promised to end the wars, close the torture concentration camp in Guantanamo , bring Wall Street to heel, repeal the Patriot Act and restore the Bill of Rights. And he was ‘their guy’ – shooting hoops in an urban playground – something Bush had never done! In truth, Barack Hussein Obama did a lot that Bush never dared to do – he surpassed Bush by far in committing war crimes against humanity – pushing for more military adventures abroad and police state repression at home. He exceeded by far any President in US history in assuming dictatorial police powers, in waging multiple wars while directing the massive transfer of state revenues to Wall Street bankers. President Obama, hands down, will be regarded as the greatest con-man President in American history. The Carters, Reagans and Clintons all pale in comparison: the enormous gap between style and substance, promise and performance, peace and war, capital and labor has never been greater.
It is President Obama’s hollow eloquence that raised the hopes of millions at home and abroad only to condemn them to an inferno of endless wars. It is the perversity of his rhetoric which attracts the Latino vote with promises of immigrant citizenship while his policy has been fill detention centers with hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers and their families. His soaring rhetoric promising justice for Muslims in Cairo was followed by the bloody bombing of Tripoli, the torture and slaughter of the Libyan patriot President Gadhafi; the broken promises to the Palestinians contrasts with the embrace of the bloody Israeli warlords.
Obama far out-paced President Bush’s drone attacks in Pakistan , Yemen and Afghanistan , bombings which targeted farmers, whole families and famished orphans in their schools. Soaring moral and ethical pronouncements accompany Obama’s arming and praising the 40,000 Muslim fundamentalist mercenaries sent to degrade and shatter the secular Syrian state. The pretexts for mass killing fall from his lips like maggots on a rotten corpse: his blatant lies about the use of poison gas in Syria as the government in Damascus confronts a foreign mercenary invasion; the lurid tales of fabricated massacres in Benghazi ( Libya ) and the false claims of stolen elections in Venezuela . Obama’s rhetoric converts executioners into victims and victims into executioners.
President Barack Obama promised a comprehensive health care overhaul for America and then presented the electorate with a confusing series of obligatory payments for plans designed by for-profit private health insurance companies. Obama ‘defended social security’ by raising the age of retirement, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of workers in hazardous occupations would die before ever receiving any benefits after a lifetime of obligatory contributions. Obama solemnly promised to defend Medicare and then proposed to reduce its budget by a trillion dollars over a decade.
Obama claims a presidential prerogative of ‘defending American interests’ by ordering the assassination of whomever his million-member secret police state apparatus designates as a security threat – including American citizens – without trial, without recourse to habeas corpus.
In the White House Rose Garden President Barack Obama strolls arm-in-arm with his wife and children, a family man, true to his promises… While in Aleppo a young teen, a street vendor, is beheaded before his parents and neighbors by fanatical ‘freedom-fighters’ praised and supported by the President. The boy’s alleged crime was blasphemy. The murdered teen has joined the scores of thousands of Syrians killed and the hundreds of thousands who will join them, as Obama has decided to openly arm the mercenaries.
Casual, open collar, President Obama jokes as he walks and talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the sumptuous estate of a California billionaire, offering friendship and peace – shaking hands for the cameras with a scorpion in his palm. The smiling Obama has ceaselessly dispatched his envoys to Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa to incite claims and conflicts against Beijing . Obama believes that his own ‘personal magic’ will blind the Chinese to the fact that China is being encircled by US air and maritime bases. He seems to believe that the Chinese will ignore his efforts to forge US-centered trade pacts which specifically exclude China .
The master ‘confidence-man’ sincerely believes in his power to move and mystify the public, pick the pockets of his adversaries and make his victims believe they have been in the presence of a world-class statesman. In fact, Obama has been playing the role of a street hustler living off the earnings and lives of his people while handing them over to his corporate bosses and pimps for Israel .
Obama fills internment camps with hundreds of thousands of Latino immigrant workers while promising a ‘roadmap to citizenship’ to the cheers of Mexican-American Democratic Party vote hustlers!
Obama received 95% of the Afro-American votes, while the income gap between blacks and whites widens and unemployment and poverty figures soar. Obama, the first ‘Afro-American President’, has bombed and intervened in more African countries, backing mercenary armies in Libya and Somalia and establishing more military bases throughout the black continent than the last five ‘white’ Presidents … So much for the self-proclaimed “historic breakthrough of a Black President ending centuries of racism”.
It’s enough for Obama to appoint other black police state thugs and foreign interventionists, like Eric Holder and Susan Rice, to win the cheers of liberals even as their own security files grow in the data warehouses of the world’s biggest spying agencies.
One cynic, commenting on the long-standing love affair between Obama and white liberals, observed that ‘the more he screws them the better they like him … Even as he marches them off to jail, they would take care to note on his behalf, that the barred windows have curtains – something Bush would never have allowed.’
For sheer span of broken promises, of systematic lies in pursuit of wars and financial manipulation in the name of peace and social justice , of consistent and bold aggrandizement of executive power over the life and death of US citizens in the name of security, Obama has set the standard of political deception and demagogy far beyond past and probable future US Presidents.
The political context of his ascent to power and his deep links to the military-financial-Zionist networks insured his success as a premier confidence man.
President George Bush, Jr., the cringing, fading war-monger engaged in prolonged, costly wars and facing the collapse of the entire banking and financial sector, provided Candidate Obama with an easy target. Obama exploited the mass revulsion of the American people, longing for change. His soaring rhetoric and vacuous promise of ‘change’ attracted millions of young activists … The problem is that in their enthusiasm and blind adherence to ‘identity politics’ with its claims that all ‘blacks’ and ‘women’ are oppressed and therefore guaranteed to promote peace and justice — facilitated Obama’s con-game and political hustle.
Obama, once in office, not only deepened and widened the scope of President Bush, Jr’s wars, massive spy apparatus and corporate profiteering; he bamboozled the vast majority of his liberal-labor supporters in the Democratic Party! Barack Obama conned the Democratic Party Congressional liberals and they, in turn, conned their constituents into supporting this fraud.
The costs of President Obama’s two-faced policies are enormous: democracy has given way to a police state openly defended by the President and Congressional leaders; Wall Street’s recovery and corporate profiteering is fast destroying public health and social security. Barack Obama’s multiple endless wars and interventions are destroying vast cities, infrastructure, entire cultures while and killing and impoverishing millions of people from Libya to Palestine , from Syria to Iran . The economic sanctions against Iran , the provocative encirclement and isolation of China , and the campaign to destabilize Venezuela are the centerpieces of Obama’s ‘pivot to empire’. These policies portend even greater world-shattering catastrophes.
Unmasking the con-man is a first step requiring that we expose the tricks of the con-game. The politics of deception and demagogy thrives by directing popular attention to style and rhetoric, not substance. The solemn and pious cant of ‘Jimmy’ Carter distracted from his launch of the rabid Jihadists against the secular administration of Afghanistan . Uncle Ronald Reagan’s geniality and populist TV patter covered-up his blood baths in Central America and mass firing of the unionized air controllers and jailing of union leaders. ‘Bill’ Clinton’s show of empathy for the poor and embrace of ‘feel-good’ politics neutralized opposition as he bombed Yugoslavia into a pre-industrial age while his domestic policies kicked vulnerable single mothers from welfare programs. They all paled before the grand con-master Obama, billed as the ‘first black’ President, a community organizer (who disowned his sponsor into the black communities of Chicago, Rev. Wright, for his anti-war, anti-imperial stand) has capitalized on his racial credentials to garner the vote of guilty-ridden, soft-headed liberals and marginalized blacks in order to serve the interests of Wall Street and Israel.
Disarming these con-men and women requires exposing the nature of their demagogic populist styles and focusing on substantive politics. The decisive criteria need to be class politics that are defined by fundamental class alignments, between capital and labor regarding budgets, income, taxes, social spending, financing and property rights. ‘Shooting hoops’ in ghetto playgrounds is a con-man’s distraction while his budget cuts close hospitals and schools in black and poor neighborhoods.
The extravaganzas, featuring sports and entertainment celebrities to promote imperial wars, are the ‘con’ to undermine international solidarity for war victims and the unemployed. President Obama, the confidence man, is still performing while sowing destruction.
It’s time for the deceived, the disillusioned and the deprived to stand-up and shout! “We are deceived no more. Its time you were put on trial for Crimes against Humanity!”
Copyright © 2013 Global Research
June 26th, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
It is hard to understand the fuss that Washington and its media whores are making over Edward Snowden. We have known for a long time that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying for years without warrants on the communications of Americans and people throughout the world. Photographs of the massive NSA building in Utah built for the purpose of storing the intercepted communications of the world have been published many times.
It is not clear to an ordinary person what Snowden has revealed that William Binney and other whistleblowers have not already revealed. Perhaps the difference is that Snowden has provided documents that prove it, thereby negating Washington’s ability to deny the facts with its usual lies.
Whatever the reason for Washington’s blather, it certainly is not doing the US government any good. Far more interesting than Snowden’s revelations is the decision by governments of other countries to protect a truth-teller from the Stasi in Washington.
Hong Kong kept Snowden’s whereabouts secret so that an amerikan black-op strike or a drone could not be sent to murder him. Hong Kong told Washington that its extradition papers for Snowden were not in order and permitted Snowden to leave for Moscow.
The Chinese government did not interfere with Snowden’s departure.
The Russian government says it has no objection to Snowden having a connecting flight in Moscow.
Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino responded to Washington’s threats with a statement that the Ecuadorian government puts human rights above Washington’s interests. Foreign Minister Patino said that Snowden served humanity by revealing that the Washington Stasi was violating the rights of “every citizen in the world.” Snowden merely betrayed “some elites that are in power in a certain country,” whereas Washington betrayed the entire world.
With Hong Kong, China, Russia, Ecuador, and Cuba refusing to obey the Stasi’s orders, Washington is flailing around making a total fool of itself and its media prostitutes.
Secretary of State John Kerry has been issuing warnings hand over fist. He has threatened Russia, China, Ecuador, and every country that aids and abets Snowden’s escape from the Washington Stasi. Those who don’t do Washington’s bidding, Kerry declared, will suffer adverse impacts on their relationship with the US.
What a stupid thing for Kerry to say. Here is a guy who once was for peace but who has been turned by NSA spying on his personal affairs into an asset for the NSA. Try to realize the extraordinary arrogance and hubris in Kerry’s threat that China, Russia, and other countries will suffer bad relations with the US. Kerry is saying that amerika doesn’t have to care whether “the indispensable people” have bad relations with other countries, but those countries have to be concerned if they have bad relations with the “indispensable country.” What an arrogant posture for the US government to present to the world.
Here we have a US Secretary of State lost in delusion along with the rest of Washington. A country that is bankrupt, a country that has allowed its corporations to destroy its economy by moving the best jobs offshore, a country whose future is in the hands of the printing press, a country that after eleven years of combat has been unable to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban is now threatening Russia and China. God save us from the utter fools who comprise our government.
The world is enjoying Washington’s humiliation at the hands of Hong Kong. A mere city state gave Washington the bird. In its official statement, Hong Kong shifted the focus from Snowden to his message and asked the US government to explain its illegal hacking of Hong Kong’s information systems.
China’s state newspaper, The People’s Daily, wrote: “The United States has gone from a model of human rights to an eavesdropper on personal privacy, the manipulator of the centralized power over the international internet, and the mad invader of other countries’ networks. . . The world will remember Edward Snowden. It was his fearlessness that tore off Washington’s sanctimonious mask.”
China’s Global Times, a subsidiary of The People’s Daily, accused Washington of attacking “a young idealist who has exposed the sinister scandals of the US government.” Instead of apologizing “Washington is showing off its muscle by attempting to control the whole situation.”
China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Snowden’s revelations had placed “Washington in a really awkward situation. They demonstrate that the United States, which has long been trying to play innocent as a victim of cyber attacks, has turned out to be the biggest villain in our age.”
The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that Russia’s sympathy is with Snowden, not with the amerikan Stasi state. Human rights ombudsman Vladimir Lukin said that it was unrealistic to expect the Russian government to violate law to seize a transit passenger who had not entered Russia and was not on Russian soil. RT’s Gayane Chichakyan reported that Washington is doing everything it can to shift attention away from Snowden’s revelations that “show that the US has lied and has been doing the same as they accuse China of doing.”
Ecuador says the traitor is Washington, not Snowden.
The stuck pig squeals from the NSA director–”Edward Snowden has caused irreversible damage to US”–are matched by the obliging squeals from members of the House and Senate, themselves victims of the NSA spying, as was the Director of the CIA who was forced to resign because of a love affair. The NSA is in position to blackmail everyone in the House and Senate, in the White House itself, in all the corporations, the universities, the media, every organization at home and abroad, who has anything to hide. You can tell who is being blackmailed by the intensity of the squeals, such as those of Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Mike Rogers (R, MI). With any luck, a patriot will leak what the NSA has on Feinstein and Rogers, neither of whom could possibly scrape any lower before the NSA.
The gangster government in Washington that has everything to hide is now in NSA’s hands and will follow orders. The pretense that amerika is a democracy responsible to the people has been exposed. The US is run by and for the NSA. Congress and the White House are NSA puppets.
Let’s quit calling the NSA the National Security Agency. Clearly, NSA is a threat to the security of every person in the entire world. Let’s call the NSA what it really is–the National Stasi Agency, the largest collection of Gestapo in human history. You can take for granted that every media whore, every government prostitute, every ignorant flag-waver who declares Snowden to be a traitor is either brainwashed or blackmailed. They are the protectors of NSA tyranny. They are our enemies.
The world has been growing increasingly sick of Washington for a long time. The bullying, the constant stream of lies, the gratuitous wars and destruction have destroyed the image hyped by Washington of the US as a “light unto the world.” The world sees the US as a plague upon the world.
Following Snowden’s revelations, Germany’s most important magazine, Der Spiegal, had the headline: “Obama’s Soft Totalitarianism: Europe Must Protect Itself From America.” The first sentence of the article asks: “Is Barack Obama a friend? Revelations about his government’s vast spying program call that into doubt. The European Union must protect the Continent from America’s reach for omnipotence.”
Der Spiegal continues: “We are being watched. All the time and everywhere. And it is the Americans who are doing the watching. On Tuesday, the head of the largest and most all-encompassing surveillance system ever invented is coming for a visit. If Barack Obama is our friend then we really don’t need to be terribly worried about our enemies.”
There is little doubt that German Interior Minister Hans Peter Friedrich has lost his secrets to NSA spies. Friedrich rushed to NSA’s defense, declaring: ”that’s not how you treat friends.” As Der Spiegal made clear, the minister was not referring “to the fact that our trans-Atlantic friends were spying on us. Rather, he meant the criticism of that spying. Friedrich’s reaction is only paradoxical on the surface and can be explained by looking at geopolitical realities. The US is, for the time being, the only global power–and as such it is the only truly sovereign state in existence. All others are dependent–either as enemies or allies. And because most prefer to be allies, politicians–Germany’s included–prefer to grin and bear it.”
It is extraordinary that the most important publication in Germany has acknowledged that the German government is Washington’s puppet state.
Der Spiegel says: “German citizens should be able to expect that their government will protect them from spying by foreign governments. But the German interior minister says instead: ‘We are grateful for the excellent cooperation with US secret services.’ Friedrich didn’t even try to cover up his own incompetence on the surveillance issue. ‘Everything we know about it, we have learned from the media,’ he said. The head of the country’s domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, was not any more enlightened. ‘I didn’t know anything about it,’ he said. And Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger was also apparently in the dark. ‘These reports are extremely unsettling,’ she said. With all due respect: These are the people who are supposed to be protecting our rights? If it wasn’t so frightening, it would be absurd.”
For those moronic amerikans who say, “I’m not doing anything wrong, I don’t care if they spy,” Der Spiegal writes that a “monitored human being is not a free one.” We have reached the point where we “free americans” have to learn from our German puppets that we are not free.
Here, read it for yourself:
Present day Germany is a new country, flushed of its past by war and defeat. Russia is also a new country that has emerged from the ashes of an unrealistic ideology. Hope always resides with those countries that have most experienced evil in government. If Germany were to throw off its amerikan overlord and depart NATO, amerikan power in Europe would collapse. If Germany and Russia were to unite in defense of truth and human rights, Europe and the world would have a new beginning.
A new beginning is desperately needed. Chris Floyd explains precisely what is going on, which is something you will never hear from the presstitutes. Read it while you still can: http://www.globalresearch.ca/follow-the-money-the-secret-heart-of-the-secret-state-the-deeper-implications-of-the-snowden-revelations/5340132
There would be hope if Americans could throw off their brainwashing, follow the lead of Debra Sweet and others, and stand up for Edward Snowden and against the Stasi State.
This article first appeared at Paul Craig Roberts' new websiteInstitute For Political Economy. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.
June 26th, 2013 by olddog
By Wendy McElroy
“Why do so many people not realize America has become a total state?”
Anyone who points out the politically obvious and is accused of panic-mongering has considered this question. The NSA's massive spying, the TSA frisking their children, the IRS targeting people politically, the longest war in American history, the militarization of law enforcement, the indefinite detention of prisoners at Gitmo … nothing, nothing seems to budge some people from the belief that the US is the freest, grandest nation on earth. It is an article of faith as deeply held as any belief in God.
Libertarian Class Analysis
There is no one answer but a good place to start is with a libertarian theory of class analysis. Karl Marx is usually credited with originating class analysis and the Marxist version is the one that most commonly comes to mind. Namely, people are classified based on their relationship to the means of production. Are you a worker or a capitalist?
But class analysis as an analytic tool did not originate with Marx. It was produced by 19th century radical liberal (that is, libertarian) historians who wrote in post-Napoleonic France: Charles Comte, Augustin Thierry and Charles Dunoyer. Their mentor was the great classical liberal economist J.B. Say. Perhaps the best presentation of this version of class analysis occurs in Franz Oppenheimer's book The State. Here he presents the two antagonistic principles upon which most societies operate: the economic and the political means. Or Society and the State.
Oppenheimer wrote, “I mean by Society, the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and institutions between man and man.” It consists collectively of all voluntary exchanges of labor and goods, including intangible 'goods' like culture. It is a productive and peaceful means that brings mutual benefit to all involved or no exchange would occur.
Oppenheimer wrote, “I mean by it [the State] that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra-economic power.” It consists of the systematic appropriation of labor and goods, including intangible ones like freedom of speech. It is a non-productive and violent means that benefits the thieves and harms the productive.
This one insight is the basis of libertarian class analysis: Society and the State were in basic and constant conflict with each other. The analysis classifies people based on their relationship to productivity. Are you part of an industrious Society or do you belong to the parasitic State?
Oppenheimer explained the social dynamics set in motion by the political means. Parasites naturally multiply and drain ever more resources. As the political means comes to dominate, however those who produce means see an ever diminishing return from their productivity and, so, they have little incentive to labor beyond subsistence. Society stagnates, which means there is less for the parasite to drain. And, yet, the State is now bloated and it needs an increasing amount of resources. Since it no longer has the consent and cooperation of the productive section, it must use conquest. The American State is at the stage of attempting to conquer American Society.
The Political Means Dominates America
The State is not merely the politicians and officials who run the visible structure of government. It includes every civil servant and bureaucrat. The largest employer in America is the federal government. According to the Office of Personnel Management, there were approximately 2.79 million civil servants as of December 2011. But this number is for “civilian” personnel only and does not include uniformed civil servants, such as law enforcement. Of course, every state, county and city ratchets up the civil servant count with their own employees.
The State also includes the people whose political support is purchased by the stolen labor and goods, such as disability recipients. The ranks of these recipients is swelling as the individual states aggressively encourage the unemployed to pursue disability (a federal expense). For example, in New Mexico, the number of disability recipients jumped 58.7% in nine years. NPR recently (03/22/13) ran an in-depth analysis that estimated the total number of people on disability to be “about 14 million Americans who don't have jobs and who don't show up in any of the unemployment measures we use.” Disability is only one 'welfare' program among dozens and dozens.
The State includes people ostensibly in the private sector whose job is to facilitate the theft of labor and goods – for example, lawyers who hit productive businesses with dubious suits based on Nanny State laws. Employees in the military-industrial complex, suppliers to the military, subsidized banks and corporations, the list of those who survive on tax money goes on and on.
This is the first reason why so many people will never recognize that America is deteriorating; it is not deteriorating for them because they are the beneficiaries of the political means, and the police state works to their advantage. They benefit through money and pensions but many also benefit through acquiring status or power over others. A vast number of government employees could never earn these advantages based on merit in the private sector. They have a deep vested interest in not seeing themselves as the enemies of Society. Nor are their families likely to turn against the source of food on their tables.
The Tipping Point Theory
But why are people who are not tax consumers seemingly blind to the danger of the present State? Among the many explanations, I think three are commonplace.
They may not be blind but merely silent.
Or they may not be discontented. The Austrian economist Murray Rothbard once told me how his parents lived far better during the Great Depression than they had before it. They both held onto decent jobs and prices were very low. Such people are not fertile for a discussion about the economic calamity being inflicted by a State under which they prospered.
Equally, people who have never experienced the direct violence of the State are inclined to dismiss disturbing reports from those who have. As long as they live in relative comfort, these people allow the State to process their lives. They go about the business of living instead of focusing on matters they do not control. For many, it will take a tipping within their own lives or within society at large for the business of living to include a recognition of how dangerous the State can be.
A tipping point is the critical point at which an accumulation of minor changes triggers a major and often irreversible one. The build up to a social tipping point occurs on an individual basis. The Arab Spring is an example. Enough people became individually dissatisfied to form a mass protest movement. And it happened with sudden ease. The key is “enough individuals” need to become dissatisfied for a tipping point to occur. Before it happens, however, the people who simply want to live will tend to ignore political problems out of a feeling of isolation or helplessness. Afterward, some will awaken. Perhaps they will be appalled at the brutality the State heaps upon those who challenge it, perhaps a family member will become involved in a protest, perhaps they will simply cease to feel helpless..
I suspect America is close to a social tipping point. If so, it will be caused by a bloated State consuming more and more from a Society that is already half on its knees.
How many individuals need to feel the tipping point within themselves for it to occur in a general manner? The nineteenth-century libertarian Benjamin Tucker estimated the figure at 10%. If 10% of society said “no” to a law, then the law would become unenforceable. The number or percentage is impossible to measure, of course, but it is almost certain to be far, far less than 50%. Fortunately, history has rarely required a majority for social change to occur.
Whether or not the outcome of such a tip would be from Society, or of the State, depends as much upon how many people become reluctant to say “yes” as much as it does upon the 10% who say “no.”
RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE:
Tyranny's Last Stand: The Tipping Point is Here
Wendy McElroy is a frequent Dollar Vigilante contributor and renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books, the latest of which is "The Art of Being Free". Follow her work at http://www.wendymcelroy.com.
June 25th, 2013 by olddog
Did you know that Barack Obama has been secretly negotiating the most important trade agreement since the formation of the World Trade Organization? Did you know that this agreement will impose very strict Internet copyright rules, ban all "Buy American" laws, give Wall Street banks much more freedom to trade risky derivatives and force even more domestic manufacturing offshore? If you have not heard about this treaty, don't feel bad. Obama has refused to even give Congress a copy of the draft agreement and he has banned members of Congress from attending the negotiations. The plan is to keep this treaty secret until the very last minute and then to railroad it through Congress and have it signed into law by October. The treaty is known as "the Trans-Pacific Partnership", and the nations that are reported to be involved in the development of this treaty include the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia. Opponents of this treaty refer to it as "the NAFTA of the Pacific", and if it is enacted it will push the deindustrialization of America into overdrive.
The "one world" economic agenda that Barack Obama has been pushing is absolutely killing the U.S. economy. As you will see later in this article, we are losing jobs and businesses at an astounding pace. And each new "free trade" agreement makes things even worse.
For example, just check out the impact that the recent free trade agreement that Obama negotiated with South Korea is having on us…
A 10 percent decline of U.S. exports to Korea
The U.S. trade deficit with Korea has climbed 37 percent
U.S. auto industry has been crippled
Loss of U.S. control where international trade, banking and finance is concerned
A projected 159,000 jobs will be lost
Wait a second – I though that "free trade" agreements were actually supposed toincrease exports.
So why have they declined by 10 percent?
Did someone make a really bad deal?
And of course we have all seen the economic devastation that NAFTA has wrought.
When NAFTA was pushed through Congress in 1993, the United States actually had a tradesurplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars. By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of61.6 billion dollars.
And "free trade" with China has turned out to be a complete and total nightmare as well.
Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was approximately 6 million dollars (million with a little "m") for the entire year.
In 2012, our trade deficit with China was 315billion dollars. That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.
But instead of learning from the mistakes of the past, Barack Obama is pressing for more "free trade" agreements.
The New York Times is calling the Trans-Pacific Partnership "the most significant international commercial agreement since the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995". It is reportedly going to include a whole host of provisions which would never be able to get through Congress on their own. Even though this treaty will affect all of our daily lives, the Obama administration is keeping this treaty a total secret. In fact, Obama won't even show it to Congress even though members of Congress have asked repeatedly to see it…
The agreement, under negotiation since 2008, would set new rules for everything from food safety and financial markets to medicine prices and Internet freedom. It would include at least 12 of the countries bordering the Pacific and be open for more to join. President Obama has said he wants to sign it by October.
Although Congress has exclusive constitutional authority to set the terms of trade, so far the executive branch has managed to resist repeated requests by members of Congress to see the text of the draft agreement and has denied requests from members to attend negotiations as observers — reversing past practice.
While the agreement could rewrite broad sections of nontrade policies affecting Americans’ daily lives, the administration also has rejected demands by outside groups that the nearly complete text be publicly released.
So exactly who in the world does this guy think that he is? Why won't Obama let us know exactly what is in this treaty?
Fortunately, there have been a few leaks. One thing that we have discovered is that this new treaty would reportedly ban all "Buy American laws".
That certainly would not be popular if it got out.
And do you remember SOPA?
The American people wanted nothing to do with the very strict Internet copyright provisions of SOPA and loudly expressed their displeasure to members of Congress.
Unfortunately, now the provisions of SOPA are back. It is being reported that most of the provisions of SOPA have been quietly inserted into this treaty. If this treaty is enacted, those provisions will become law and the American people will not be able to do anything about it.
And according to the New York Times, there are all sorts of other disturbing things that have been slipped into the treaty…
And yet another leak revealed that the deal would include even more expansive incentives to relocate domestic manufacturing offshore than were included in Nafta — a deal that drained millions of manufacturing jobs from the American economy.
The agreement would also be a boon for Wall Street and its campaign to water down regulations put in place after the 2008 financial crisis. Among other things, it would practically forbid bans on risky financial products, including the toxic derivatives that helped cause the crisis in the first place.
Are you starting to understand why the Obama administration is keeping this treaty such a secret?
If the details of this treaty were revealed to the American people right now, it would create such an uproar that Congress would never approve this treaty.
So please share this article with as many people as you can. We have got to get the American people educated about this.
Enough damage has already been done to the U.S. economy by "free trade" agreements. Just consider the following statistics…
-The United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.
-Back in the year 2000, there were more than 17 million Americans working in manufacturing. Now there are less than 12 million.
-There are less Americans working in manufacturing today than there was in 1950 even though the population of the country has more than doubled since then.
-According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.
-According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue.
-Today, corporate profits as a percentage of U.S. GDP are at an all-time high, but wages as a percentage of U.S. GDP are near an all-time low.
-Without enough good jobs, more Americans are becoming dependent on the government. If you can believe it, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from about 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 47 million today.
-Overall, the United States has run a trade deficit of more than 8 trillion dollars with the rest of the world since 1975.
And things continue to get even worse. The Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index declined to 49.0 in May. Any reading below 50 indicates contraction.
That was the lowest reading that we have seen since June 2009. Just like most of the rest of the world, we are rapidly heading toward another major economic downturn.
And if you want a perfect visual example of what deindustrialization is doing to America, just look at the city of Detroit.
It was once one of the greatest manufacturing cities in the history of the world, but now it is a rotting, decaying, festering hellhole.
According to the New York Times, there are now approximately 70,000 abandoned buildings in Detroit, and at this point the city is so broke that there is talk that the female giraffe at the Detroit Zoo could be sold offto help pay the bills.
For much more on how deindustrialization is ripping the guts out of the U.S. economy, please see the following articles…
1) "55 Reasons Why You Should Buy Products That Are Made In America"
2) "40 Ways That China Is Beating America"
3) "Show This To Anyone That Believes That 'Things Are Getting Better' In America"
4) "10 Amazing Charts That Demonstrate The Slow, Agonizing Death Of The American Worker"
5) "22 Stats That Show How The Emerging One World Economy Is Absolutely Killing American Workers"
What Barack Obama is trying to do is a mind blowing mistake.
The "one world" economic agenda that he is pursuing is destroying the American worker and the American middle class.
U.S. workers are being thrown into a global labor pool with workers on the other side of the planet that live in countries where it is legal to pay slave labor wages.
Do you want to directly compete with a worker on the other side of the globe that is doing your job for a dollar an hour with no benefits?
If not, you need to stand up and make your voice be heard.
There is no way in the world that American workers should have to compete for jobs with workers making slave labor wages in communist China.
What we desperately need are some red-blooded economic patriots to arise and to tell both political parties that we do not want this "one world" economic agenda.
So what do you think?
Will the American people wake up, or will our economy continue to lose thousands of businesses and millions of jobs?
Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below…
If Michael Snyder can find this information, and it is true, don’t you think most of Congress and the Senate knows what Obuma is doing?
Do you think they are all out chasing some sex obsession, drinking their self to death, or shooting up with some kind of dope? I’m asking this because it seems absurd that it isn’t common knowledge, and unless Michael has some crystal ball, or genie in a bottle, everyone in DC has known what OBUMA has been doing from the get go. SO, what do you think of our government now????? Make sure everyone you know has a copy of this article!
June 23rd, 2013 by olddog
For those who have the intelligence, and courage to read this essay, I commend you, and ask you once again to take an active participation in educating our woefully cognitive dissonant citizens by sending this article to everyone you know. Then, get your house in order, and prepare for the worst, for it is surely coming soon. If I were a rich man, I would be offering a bounty.
THOUGHT MUST PRECEDE ACTION
PART 1, 2, AND 3
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Recently, Mr. J.B. Williams published a commentary on NewsWithViews entitled “Can Obama Be Impeached?” Normally, I would not interject myself into matters other commentators address; but, in this case, Mr. Williams saw fit to refer to me by name, which prompts this response.
Mr. Williams’ contention is “that [Barack] Obama can only be removed from [the] office [of President of the United States] via impeachment”. Mr. Williams concedes that this position is controversial. But then he opines that “[w]ho is right in the debate [about whether Mr. Obama can be impeached] is much less important than reaching an actionable position of agreement. The endless debate on the subject only leaves all concerned citizens paralyzed by confusion and lack of coherent direction in how to solve the crisis.” Confronted by this rather amazing assertion, one is compelled to ask whether “concerned citizens” should ever agree to do what is (or at least may very well be) wrong simply because they experience difficulty in determining what is right? Can what is wrong become right because of some arbitrary agreement induced by sloth? Would not determining what is right terminate “endless debate” and remove the present “confusion and lack of coherent direction in how to solve the crisis”? But these questions answer themselves.
1. The first step in determining what is right in this case is to define the problem accurately. Mr. Williams says that he “agree[s] with the claim that Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) gained access to the Office of President via massive fraud, including identity fraud, campaign finance fraud, just for starters”. That, however, is not really “the claim” at issue here. The actual charge is that, although Mr. Obama may have succeeded in gaining physical access to the office-space a legitimate President of the United States occupies in the White House, he never acquired legal access to “the Office of President”, because, not being “a natural born Citizen”, he was never constitutionally eligible, and is not now eligible, for that “Office”. For Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution declares (in pertinent part) that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President”. If words have any meaning, a “Person” whom the supreme law of the land declares not to be “eligible to the Office of President” can never “gain access to” that “Office” in the sense of legally holding it or asserting any claim to it. The question then becomes, can an individual who is not legally in that “Office” at all, because he is and always has been ineligible for it, be removed by impeachment and conviction from his non-existent position? (I shall leave aside whether Mr. Obama is actually not “a natural born Citizen”. If he were, he could and should establish that fact, which for some unfathomable reason he has so far refused to substantiate in any satisfactory manner. In the absence of proof on that score from the party in the best position to provide such proof, for the purposes of this commentary I shall assume to be valid the assertion that Mr. Obama is not “a natural born Citizen”.)
2. In support of his position, Mr. Williams marshals some quotations from James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Joseph Story. These, however, are quite beside the point, because each of them assumes that the party subject to impeachment is in fact and law actually the President or some other officer of the United States. Not one of them addresses the situation in which some individual, although wholly “[in]eligible to the Office of President”, nonetheless pretends to hold that “Office”.
3. Analysis must begin (and, as will become apparent, also end) with the actual pertinent words of the Constitution material to impeachment and related matters:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. No Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President * * * .
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article II, Section 4. The President * * * shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office * * * the Same shall devolve on the Vice President * * * .
Plainly enough, the last three of these provisions refer tolegal “removal” from a status (“the Office of President”), not physical removal from a place, and therefore apply only to an individual who as a matter of law is actually in that “Office” as “the President”, having first satisfied all of the constitutional prerequisites for that status. These provisions do not say (as they might have said, if Mr. Williams’ position were correct) that “an individual who claims to be the President”, or “an individual whom many people believe to bethe President”, “shall be removed from Office”—for the self-evident reason that an individual who is not legitimately inthat (or any other) “Office” at the relevant time cannot be removed from it, no matter what his claims or the beliefs of others may be.
An individual who is not “a natural born Citizen”, and therefore is constitutionally ineligible in principle for “the Office of President”, can never assume the status of “President” legally. The most obvious and consequential practical reason is that such an individual cannot possibly take the necessary “Oath or Affirmation” which is a prerequisite to his “enter[ing] on the Execution of [the] Office [of President]”, because he knows that, being ineligible for that “Office”, he cannot possibly “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. First, his imposture as “President” itself constitutes an affront to the Constitution—that is, his “tak[ing] the * * * Oath or Affirmation” is in and of itself a violation of the “Oath or Affirmation”. Second, not being eligible for “the Office of President”, he cannot ever legally fulfill the duty of the President, set out in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Were he legally capable of fulfilling that duty, and desirous of doing so, his very first step would have to be to turn himself in or order his own arrest as an imposter, thus refuting his own prior claim to be “President”.
One might describe this situation as involving “the principle of constitutional noncontradiction”. Both logically and legally the Constitution cannot demand as the condition sine qua non of eligibility for “the Office of President” that an individual be “a natural born Citizen”, on the one hand, but then, on the other hand, license an individual who is not “a natural born Citizen” to “enter on the Execution of [that] Office”. Similarly, both logically and legally the Constitution cannot deny “the Office of President” to an individual who is not “a natural born Citizen”, on the one hand, but then, on the other hand, require that such an individual who merely pretends to be the President must be “removed * * * on Impeachment” from an “Office” he could never possibly hold. Conversely, both logically and legally the Constitution cannot provide for “remov[al] from Office on Impeachment” of an individual who, being ineligible for that “Office” in the first place because he is not “a natural born Citizen”, never entered or could have entered it—for if that individual must be “removed from Office on Impeachment”, he must in some sense be legitimately in that “Office”, which would mean that his putative ineligibility was not an ineligibility at all, but instead a mere irrelevance.
To reduce this matter to “Dick and Jane” terms, assume that Mr. Williams postures as “the President of the United States”. He leases a large mansion, which he names “the White House”, and in which he sets aside a room he calls “the Oval Office”. From there, he issues executive orders, national-security directives, and other Diktats in the name of “the President”. He surrounds himself with a large Praetorian Guard of deluded myrmidons which he calls his “SS” (after the “Secret Service”). These jack-booted thugs then go about the country harassing people who challenge Mr. Williams’ eligibility to be “the President”. For reasons that are not clear, actual public officials in the General Government and in some of the States in significant numbers choose to obey Mr. Williams’ edicts and to treat him as “the President”. And great masses of “true believers” among the general public lend their fanatical support to Mr. Williams, too. Under these conditions, is Mr. Williams “the President”? Obviously not. How can this situation be corrected? Can Mr. Williams be impeached? Must Mr. Williams be impeached before any other remedy, such as arrest and trial, can be had? Well, no one in his right mind—including, I submit, Mr. Williams himself—would contend with a straight face that Mr. Williams was even capable of being impeached, let alone that he had to be impeached in order to suppress his imposture. What is the difference, then, between the real Mr. Obama (as we are assuming him to bearguendo) and the hypothesized Mr. Williams? That Mr. Obama twice stood for election to an office for which he was constitutionally ineligible? That Mr. Obama received large numbers of votes that had no legal effect, because they were cast for an ineligible candidate? That Mr. Obama twice took an “Oath or Affirmation” of “Office” that he was legally incapable, not merely of fulfilling, but even of taking in the first place? That Mr. Obama now physically resides in the real “White House”? Each of these distinctions between Mr. Obama’s case and Mr. Williams’ simply renders Mr. Obama’s position worse than Mr. Williams’, because the number of counts of fraud in the imposture are multiplied by several orders of magnitude.
Therefore, contrary to Mr. Williams’ conclusion, impeachment is not “the proper remedy to the crisis known as Obama”.
Nonetheless, it is barely possible that, although Mr. Williams is wrong in principle, he may be partially right in practice, in the same way a stopped clock accidentally tells the correct time twice a day. After all, if a bill of impeachment were introduced in the House of Representatives, Mr. Obama’s counsel would have only two choices: (i) to concede that impeachment is a proper remedy for the charge levied against Mr. Obama, while denying that Mr. Obama is in fact not “a natural born Citizen”—in which event that issue would be left wide open to a complete investigation in the House; or (ii) to deny that impeachment is a proper remedy precisely because Mr. Obama’s accusers claim him to be other than “a natural born Citizen”, while hoping that in no other forum could or would that at least tacit admission of his possible ineligibility be used against him. In addition, the intensive legislative debate, and perhaps extensive hearings, that would surely follow in the wake of whichever of these pleas Mr. Obama’s counsel launched would likely generate a tsunami of public interest in the matter. And who can say on what shore that wave would finally break?
THOUGHT MUST PRECEDE ACTION
PART 2 of 3
In any event, even if Mr. Williams is not completely wrong to assert that “Obama can only be removed from office via impeachment”, it would still be advisable to inquire as to whether any other remedy may be available.
4. Criminal prosecution would appear to be the obvious first choice. For example, Title 18, United States Code, Section 912 provides that “[w]hoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer * * * acting under the authority of the United States * * * , and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Mr. Williams, however, asserts that “before any occupant of the Oval Office can be charged with or prosecuted for crimes, they [sic] must first be removed from office via impeachment, so that the business of the people can continue while the individual is being prosecuted for criminal activities”. In support of this contention, he cites a memorandum prepared by lawyers in the Department of Justice, of all people! As an outspoken critic of the General Government—and rightly so—Mr. Williams should have been more discerning. For the Constitution makes it plain as day that no such requirement exists.
The only provision in the Constitution for any immunity with respect to violations of criminal law for any public official while that official remains in office appears in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: “The Senators and Representatives [in Congress] * * * shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same”. So, Members of Congress may be subjected to “Arrest”—and presumably thereafter tried, convicted, and imprisoned or otherwise punished—on charges of “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace”, even “during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses”, and even while they are on the very floor of the House or of the Senate, engaged in their official business. Inasmuch as the category “Felony” includes a multitude of crimes, and inasmuch as it is not inconceivable (particularly today) that every Member of Congress might be implicated in some “Felony” or other at the same time, therefore the Constitution allows for the “Arrest” of any Member, and even the entire Membership, of Congress—with no concern whatsoever (in Mr. Williams’ words) that “the business of the people can continue while the[se] individual[s are] being prosecuted for criminal activities”. And this notwithstanding that the Constitution in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 provides a means equivalent to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office which is applicable to Members of Congress: to wit, that “[e]ach House may * * * , with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member”. Thus, a Member of Congress whose criminal misbehavior comes to light may first be expelled and then subjected to “Arrest”. But he also may first be subjected to “Arrest”, and only thereafter expelled.
In Article II and Article III, the Constitution extends to the President and to the Judiciary not even the limited immunity it grants to Members of Congress, that “[t]hey shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest”. So, on the strength of this silence and the legal principle inclusio unius exclusio alterius, no immunity from “Arrest” (and thereafter from subsequent indictment, prosecution, trial, conviction, and punishment) for any sort of criminal misbehavior exists for a rogue President or any rogue judge.
Inasmuch as Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that “[t]he Senators and Representatives [in Congress] * * * , and all executive and judicial Officers * * * of the United States * * * , shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”, and inasmuch as the Constitution creates only a limited immunity from “Arrest” for Members of Congress and no immunity whatsoever for the President or for any judge, therefore Congress can enact no statute, the President can promulgate no policy (through executive orders or otherwise), and the Judiciary can hand down no opinion that creates, enforces, rules in favor of, recognizes, or otherwise treats as even arguably legitimate any more extensive immunity.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution does provide that “[j]udgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”. This, however, is not because “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment” of some rogue “Officer” of the United States must only follow his “Impeachment”. The Constitution confines the allowable penalties for “Impeachment” “to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” in order to preclude Congress from legislating additional punishments, as had theretofore been allowed in “the method of parliamentary impeachment: wherein such penalties, short of death, are inflicted as to the wisdom of the house of peers shall seem proper; consisting usually of banishment, imprisonment, fines, or perpetual disability”. William Blackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Robert Bell, American Edition, 4 Volumes & Appendix, 1771-1773), Volume 4, at 121. In addition, by appending the qualification that “the Party convicted [upon Impeachment] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, the Constitution deprives that “Party” of the ability to evade criminal liability by interposing a plea of double jeopardy. See U.S. Const. amend. V.
Although no legal reason exists why the criminal prosecution of a rogue “Officer” of the General Government cannot precede his impeachment, conviction, and removal from that “Office”, the practical political problem remains that, if not so removed, the offender might remain in “Office”, perhaps claiming a right to administer it from prison. Impeachment obviates that potential embarrassment. (Of course, the circumstances might be sufficiently serious to requireimmediate action with whatever embarrassments that might entail, rather than accept the consequences of abiding the time-consuming process of impeachment.) Impeachment also deals with the situation in which no actual crime has been perpetrated, but removal from “Office”is nonetheless warranted, because the individual has committed some “high * * * Misdemeanor” of a political nature. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. For example, under pre-constitutional English law, “[T]HE first and principal” “high misdemeanor[ ]” was “themal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment”, of which Blackstone set out a long list, including “preferring the interests of a foreign potentate to those of our own” and “disobedience to any act of parliament, where no particular penalty is assigned” (both of which seem to be endemic in the General Government today). See Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 4, at 122-125. Interestingly, although Mr. Williams quite properly quotes Joseph Story as to these types of impeachable “political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests”, he does not draw what should be the obvious conclusion.
5. A civil action in the nature of the old common-law writ ofquo warranto (“by what authority”) could also supply a remedy preferable to impeachment for what Mr. Williams denotes as “the crisis known as Obama”. The applicable statute is found in the Code of the District of Columbia, Division II, Title 16, Chapter 35, Subchapter I, Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503, the first section of which provides in pertinent part that “[a] quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises * * * a public office of the United States, civil or military”. By its own terms, this law does not require for its invocation a prior successful impeachment of the “person who * * * usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises * * * a public office of the United States”. Indeed, if that “person” is truly “usurp[ing], intrud[ing] into, or unlawfully hold[ing] or exercis[ing]” such an office, impeachment is supererogatory, because it is logically and legally impossible. It would appear, then, that the existence of this law by itself disproves Mr. Williams’ assertion that “Obama can only be removed from office via impeachment”.
6. So the question remains: Now what? What remedy can Americans hope someone in authority will invoke in order to vindicate their constitutional right to have “a natural born Citizen”—and no one else—in “the Office of President”?
With his usual keen sense for the vicissitudes of practical politics, Mr. Williams observes that “nobody wants to touch this matter with a ten foot pole, because the constitutional crisis created by Obama and the Democrat Party are of monumental proportions. The constitutional line of succession to the Oval Office will not hold in this case as every individual in that line of succession was one way or another, involved and complicit i[n] the most egregious fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.” The mere “constitutional line of succession to the Oval Office”, however, is not the half of it.
(a) Consider the remedy of impeachment. This depends entirely upon Congress. But Congress has already had two separate opportunities, each required by the selfsame statute, in which to address the issue of Mr. Obama’s ineligibility for “the Office of President”—and both times refused, to a man and woman, to take any action whatsoever. As I explained in detail in my NewsWithViews commentary entitled “In the Shadow of Nemesis” (8 December 2008), when Congress convened in 2008 to count the votes for President that had been cast in the Electoral College, only one Representative and one Senator needed to object to a single Elector’s vote for Mr. Obama on the ground of his possible ineligibility for “the Office of President” in order to compel some kind of immediate Congressional inquiry into the matter. Nevertheless, not one Member of Congress did so—even though each one of them could have interposed as many objections as there were Electors’ votes to be tallied. The same result obtained in 2012. Worse yet, many Members of Congress participated in that process in both 2008 and 2012 in the very same deaf, dumb, craven, and feckless manner.
THOUGHT MUST PRECEDE ACTION
PART 3 of 3
If the entirety of Congress would do nothing to investigate Mr. Obama’s ineligibility in 2008 and 2012—which would have solved the problem at the outset, one way or the other—what percentage in the House will now support his impeachment, and what percentage in the Senate will support his conviction? In the light of this history, does zeropercent seem too pessimistic a prognostication to be plausible?
Moreover, would such cowardly Congressmen dare, at this late date, to wrench open the lid on that Pandora’s Box? Who can possibly estimate how much damage has been done to the body politic by suffering this septic sore to fester for so long? Or how much damage will have to be endured in the future once the infected tissue is finally lanced and the pus drained away? If Mr. Obama is in fact not eligible for “the Office of President” because he is not “a natural born Citizen”, then all of his actions in that pretended status have been null and void ab initio, and now will need to be set aside, with whatever complex, costly, and perhaps calamitous consequences must inevitably follow. For such a disaster, every Member of Congress from 2008 to today would be personally responsible, because each and every one of them has been complicitous in preventing an investigation of Mr. Obama’s reputed ineligibility. Qui potest et debet vetare tacens iubet.
(b) Consider the remedy of a criminal prosecution. Unless Congress were to appoint a special prosecutor, which is as unlikely as impeachment for the same reasons, any criminal investigation would be conducted by Mr. Obama’s own cronies in the Department of Justice. Inasmuch as Attorney General Eric Holder has experienced no crisis of conscience to deter him from supplying absurd legalistic apologies for Mr. Obama’s on-going program of “official assassinations”, he should hardly be expected to shrink from defending Mr. Obama’s eligibility to commit those acts.
(c) Consider the remedy of quo warranto. The statute cited above requires either that the Attorney General of the United States institute a proceeding “on his own motion or on the relation of a third person”, or that if the Attorney General refuses to institute a proceeding the United States District Court for the District of Columbia grant leave for “the interested person” to prosecute a civil action in the name of the United States. Obviously, the present Attorney General will no more institute a proceeding in quo warranto than he will investigate a criminal charge against Mr. Obama. And, having stifled every inquiry by all sorts of plaintiffs into Mr. Obama’s ineligibility to date, the Judiciary can hardly be depended upon to take the initiative—along with the inevitable political heat—now, after immense and possibly irreparable injury has been done to this country, to a large extent because of the Judiciary’s own prior poltroonish defaults.
(d) Consider the remedy of honest public officials’ unwillingness to cooperate with Mr. Obama on the ground of his arguable ineligibility for “the Office of President”. Mr. Obama may reside in pharaonic pomp behind the All-Seeing Eye in the Great Pyramid of Chaos in the Disgrace of Columbia—but he can accomplish nothing whatsoever without the prosaic day-to-day cooperation (or collusion, if you will) of tens of thousands of underlings in the General Government’s civil bureaucracy and Armed Forces. Is it possible to conceive of a tacit rebellion in these ranks, if not inspired by the pangs of conscience then driven by the goad of self-interest—a rebellion which would manifest itself in those underlings’ continued performance of their mundane duties, but their refusal to participate in any constitutionally questionable activity (to use the phrase familiar to any union member, “working to rule”)?
In principle, this is not a possibility so implausible as to be dismissed out of hand, because (as pointed out above) “all executive * * * Officers * * * of the United States * * * shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution”—and therefore they should always consult the Constitution before they render blind obedience to anyone, especially an individual who claims to be “the President”, but whose arguable ineligibility for that “Office” has become a matter of national, and even international, notoriety. In practice, though, could any important, let alone large, segment of the contemporary bureaucracy be expected to take this legally scrupulous tack? Unfortunately, no. For here, Mr. Williams is brutally insightful: “The list of usurpations and administration crimes would require an encyclopedia to fully chronicle at this late stage. Recent breaking news of massive violations of American[s’] constitutional rights by nearly every federal agency which Obama has turned against the people of the United States eliminates any possibility that these events are just independent agency coincidences.” That is, the complicity of the bureaucracy is well-nigh complete. And although a few prominent “whistleblowers” can expose the pervasiveness of the rot, they will surely prove insufficient to overcome it.
No more is relief likely to be had at the hands of high-level personages in the Armed Forces. Except when it comes to convening a drumhead court-martial in order to convict an officer with the courage to question Mr. Obama’s eligibility—such as Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin—these people are proving to be “rubber lions” indeed. None of them seems to be capable of discerning the danger, not just to this country but to themselves personally as well, of their remaining under the command of an individual impersonating “the President”—namely, that if such an individual will violate the Constitution with respect to both his eligibility for that “Office” and the veracity of the “Oath or Affirmation” required of him as “the President”, what grotesquely unconstitutional orders will he hand down in his pretended capacity of “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” in order to maintain his power when he finds himself backed into a corner? This self-inflicted blindness is incredible, because the officer corps’ own self-interest, and even self-preservation, is at stake—inasmuch as Mr. Obama as the Armed Forces’ putative “Commander in Chief” might himself “pull the nuclear trigger”, or order them to pull it, with what devastating consequences can easily be imagined. Moreover, the officer corps’ own self-respect is at stake—inasmuch as Mr. Obama claims as “the President” a license to assassinate people anywhere in the world without any judicial process, and to call upon the Armed Forces to assist him in these homicidal ventures. See my NewsWithViews commentaries entitled “Where Is the Outrage?” (9 April 2012) and “Death Squads” (14 December 2010). Although no one should ever desire an actual revolt within the officer corps—for the simple reason that “government by junta” or even by the threat of a junta orgolpe is utterly incompatible with a free society—one or two well publicized resignations by outspoken officers in high positions would go far towards making “Duty, Honor, Country” more than a mere slogan. Apparently, however, this is too much to expect, if it is not too much to ask.
Inasmuch as Mr. Obama’s policy of “official assassinations” evokes a direct parallel to no less than Adolf Hitler, every thinking American who imagines that the Armed Forces will come to this country’s rescue would do well to peruse, for example, John W. Wheeler-Bennett, The Nemesis of Power: The German Army in Politics 1918-1945 (London, England: Macmillan and Company Limited, 1964). This book sets out some crucial historical lessons that confirm the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers’ profound distrust of all “standing armies”—namely, that in the long run no country can rely upon professional “standing armies” to preserve its freedom from usurpers and tyrants; but that such establishments can be expected to aid and abet, or at least to countenance, and certainly not to challenge, a central government’s steady accretion, concentration, and ultimately abuse of power.
(e) Consider the remedy of “interposition”, under which rubric the States can reassert the sovereignty they have reserved pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. If any situations can justify “interposition”, the usurpation of “the Office of President” by an individual constitutionally ineligible for that “Office” must surely appear near the very top of the list. Nonetheless, the States’ Governors, the States’ legislators, and the States’ judges have done nothing, except to remain silent themselves or to suppress others’ inquiries into the matter.
(f) If all of the foregoing were not depressing enough, Americans find themselves inundated, especially on the Internet, with the strident warnings of lay preachers, divines, and assorted prophets and gurus that this country is fast losing, or even has already irretrievably lost, the decisive spiritual battles to the Demonic Forces of Darkness. Perhaps, then, the necessary remedy is a national exorcism!
(g) Patriotic Americans should remember, though, that it is always darkest before the dawn; that God helps those who help themselves; and that (in the words of Algernon Sidney) “[h]e that has virtue and power to save a people, can never want a right of doing it”—and, one must presume, will always be capable of fashioning some remedy to effectuate that right. What Mr. Williams calls “the crisis known as Obama” goes far beyond a lone individual in the Disgrace of Columbia. And it will not be overcome by the relatively few other individuals in Congress, in the Judiciary, in the General Government’s bureaucracy, in the States’ governments, or in the high commands of the Armed Forces—even if most of them were not consciously complicitous in the crisis or otherwise hopelessly compromised or confused. Instead, America must start what will prove to be an Herculean cleansing of her political stables “from the bottom up”, with her own people wielding the shovels. Not necessarily all of her people. Not necessarily even a majority of her people at first. Rather, America must identify, mobilize, organize, and put into the field those whom the Declaration of Independence denoted “the good People”. The people who desired the Colonies “to be Free and Independent States”, even in the face of resistance from domestic “loyalists” who were willing to support “the present King of Great Britain” in his “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”.
The people whom its Preamble identified as having “ordain[ed] and established this Constitution”. And, today, the people who recognize the impossibility of resolving the underlying political, social, and cultural corruptions which have spawned “the crisis known as Obama” through any means less comprehensive than the people’s own direct involvement.
And just what sort of “involvement” is that? I could offer a suggestion—although it would actually not be my own original suggestion, but instead the imperative the Constitution sets out in its most important thirteen words. Rather than supply Mr. Williams with my answer and risk being taken to task by him once again, though, I shall encourage him to search out these words for himself (perhaps in my forthcoming book, Thirteen Words), and report his findings back to the readers of NewsWithViews. When he does, I shall be among the first to agree with him that “[i]t’s time for the debate to end and action to begin”.
© 2013 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volumePieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes.www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" … and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
E-Mail: Not available
June 22nd, 2013 by olddog
By Neal Ross
In recent news two scandals have caused a certain degree of embarrassment for the Obama administration and also caused some people to begin questioning some of the things our government is doing; specifically the fact that the IRS has targeted certain conservative groups who applied for tax exempt status, and the fact that the government is data mining all our phone calls and other electronic signals such as e mail and Facebook posts. These scandals, while disturbing, are nothing new, our government, to some extent, has been doing these kinds of things for a long time now.
Some of you may, while others may not, remember back in 2009 when it was leaked that the Missouri Information Analysis Center, or MIAC, had issued a report which was used by local police to keep an eye upon certain groups, or individuals; including those who had Ron Paul bumper stickers, or belonged to local militias. Supposedly these people were considered as potential threats because of their political views and it was therefore decided to keep a closer eye upon them.
If you think the MIAC report was an isolated incident then you are much more naive than I thought. Since the passage of the Patriot Act many groups, or individuals who believe in limited government and individual liberty have been added to a continuously growing list of people who MAY be considered as domestic terrorists. I'm certain that I'm on a few of those lists myself. After all, what do you think the no-fly list is, it is merely a list of names of people which the government has targeted based upon data collected by some analyst in Homeland Security or the NSA.
And the fact that Edward Snowden leaked the fact that the NSA has been monitoring our phone calls and electronic messages should come as no surprise either. But then again I suppose that had this not come to light then people would have shrugged off the mention of ECHELON as just the wild ravings of another conspiracy theorist. But the truth is that since the 1960's, at least, the government has been monitoring phone calls and other messages such as faxes sent via phone lines and satellites.
Since the 60's, SIGINT, or Signals Intelligence has been collected via ECHELON, which, according to James Bamford, author of numerous books on the NSA, "… the term ECHELON is used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicates that it was the name for a signals intelligence collection system. The report concludes that, on the basis of information presented, ECHELON was capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally through the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks (which once carried most Internet traffic) and microwave links."
So again, this is nothing new, it is just the fact that you are just now finding out about it which is causing you to question what the hell your government is doing to your right to privacy. What both angers and humors me is the fact that those on one side of the political spectrum will cry foul when the other side is caught doing this, then when their side does it, they find it to be perfectly acceptable. That kind of hypocrisy infuriates me.
I had a conversation with someone about this the other day. That person said something along the lines of, "Well when Bush did it they ONLY listened to calls to overseas locations. But now Obama is listening in to everyone's calls." Even if that were true, which it isn't, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that one president only violated the Fourth Amendment on outgoing calls, while another president violates it for all calls is irrelevant. They both have violated the Fourth Amendment and they both should be held accountable for their actions.
I know some people don't like when I use too many quotes from our Founding Fathers, or the Supreme Court, but these quotes help support my position that these things being done by our government are AGAINST THE LAW! After all, the Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the land, a fact upheld by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan. In their ruling, Justice David Davis clearly stated, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."
This is not an isolated ruling by the Court, there is a long history of their having ruled against encroachments upon our rights by the government. In the 1934 case of Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blairsdell, the Court ruled, "Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency."
More specifically, in Bartkus v. Illinois the Court ruled, "The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrustion."
And according to the Court, in U.S. v Robel, "It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of the liberties…which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."
For some these scandals are the very first time that they have found out about their government's abuse of power and violations of their rights. For others, it is just another instance of the same old story, and we are growing weary of it. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
You may question my use of that quote, but it is not just these recent 'scandals' that cause me to believe that our government is intentionally, systematically, depriving us of our rights, it is, as Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, a long train of abuses and usurpations which cause me to say that. These TSA searches to board planes are violations of the 4th Amendment, as are the warrantless wiretaps authorized by the Patriot Act. Our Second Amendment is hanging together by threads as are the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Does this not even worry any of you in the slightest?
I have been told, and no offense to the people that have told me this, that if I come across as sounding harsh, angry, and critical of people, that I stand the chance of turning them off and they will ignore my message. You know what, TOUGH SHIT! I have been doing this for quite some time, not as long as some, but longer than others. I have YET to have ONE PERSON say to me that I opened their eyes to anything, that it was something I wrote that caused them to rethink their positions and begin seeking out the truth. So I don't think sugar coating what I have to say is going to make a damn bit of difference. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and if that means they believe the lies they see on the news, or the lies they hear from their elected officials, then there isn't much I can do to change their minds.
What concerns me now is this, have we waited too long to be able to restore our Republic? Or, have we been like a chain smoker who does not wait to quit until their doctor tells them they have Stage 4 lung cancer which has metastasized into their lymph nodes? James Madison once wrote, "We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."
We now have generations of Americans who have not been taught the founding principles of this country. These people actually believe with all their heart and soul that the things their government is doing is permitted by the Constitution, they have no clue as to the truth, and when someone does try to tell them they refuse to accept it because it is too radical an idea. If you don't believe me just try to convince a Democrat that government subsidies are not authorized by the Constitution, or tell a die-hard Republican that these national security measures implemented to fight terror violate the Bill of Rights. It won't matter how many quotes you use to argue your case, they will simply ignore you and stick to their beliefs.
Yet aside from superficial differences between the two parties, both of them continue to pass laws which lead us further into debt, and deprive us of more of our rights.
Now before anyone gets the wrong idea and thinks that I am calling for an armed revolution, let me clearly state that what I am about to say is just what I THINK the Founders would have said were they alive today. In fact, most of what I'm about to say will be quotes from them, and backed up by Court rulings.
One of the major influences upon our Founding Fathers was the British Political Philosopher John Locke. From his Second Treatise on Civil Government Locke states, "Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence."
Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, "When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all."
The American Jurisprudence is an encyclopedia of American law. It is full of legal concepts and precedents. In the Sixteenth edition we find the following, "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. NO ONE IS BOUND TO OBEY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO ENFORCE IT." (my emphasis)
You may ask what if the courts DO enforce these laws? Well, in State v. Sutton, the Court ruled, "When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it."
That may sound radical, even dangerous to some, civil disobedience like this, but what do you think our Founders did when they dumped all that tea into Boston Harbor, or tarred and feathered those tax collectors? Yes, standing up for your rights means that you may have to place yourself in danger, but the alternative is much worse don't you think?
And if you think these ideas are radical, wait till you hear what Jon Roland had to say. Jon Roland is founder of the Constitution Society and he once said, "Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law."
Why should we not hold our elected representatives accountable for their treason? In the 1921case of Burdeau v. McDowell, Justice Louis Brandeis ruled, "At the foundation of our civil liberties lies the principle that denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen." If WE cannot arrest and indict them, who can? Do you honestly expect them to police themselves for violations of their oaths of office? If so, you are a fool.
In 1967 Justice Potter Stewart ruled, "The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face."
These are all quotes that prove that it is our right, OUR DUTY, to resist violations of the Constitution, and to arrest and prosecute those responsible for them. If we don't do this NOW, then we may be left with the last resort as Jefferson declared, "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Winston Churchill, although not an American leader, once said something very powerful and true, "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
I know some may consider these ideas to be treasonous. I consider the actions of my government, and those who refuse to hold them accountable, or even worse, support them, to be treasonous. I am not a huge fan of Martin Luther King, but he did occasionally say something that was worthwhile. This was one instance in which I agree with what Dr. King said, "There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right."
This is one of those times for me. I feel that our country is at a point where, if we want to survive, we cannot afford to simply slow down on the infringement of our rights, we must SLAM ON THE BRAKES!
I don't care if what I say is unpopular, offends, or makes enemies. I believe what I say to be true, and as Samuel Adams once said, "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our DUTY to defend them against all attacks." But that duty can ONLY be acted upon if you know what your rights are AND have the courage to stand up to defend them. And that right there is why I have so little hope for our country. Far too many do not know their rights, while others may but are content to write a few letters or attend a few protests, but nothing more. We need to show our government who is boss, and that any infringements upon our rights will no longer be tolerated. But, I don't see that happening. In fact, someone may actually turn me in as a possible terrorist threat for merely stating something that, had they been alive today, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, or Samuel Adams would have said.
It just goes to show you that we are losing the war for our nation's soul, and our rights. But I for one will not go out peacefully. For as Revolutionary War General John Stark once said, "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
Student of history, politics, patriot and
staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment
Send all comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Check out my books at: http://thebookshelf.us/the-authors/neal-h-ross/
June 21st, 2013 by olddog
After the massive crash that rocked global markets in 2008, as Congress, central bankers and major financial institutions met in secret to mitigate the crisis, billionaires like Warren Buffet were buying up shares of some of the hardest hit companies.
At the time, the world was literally on the brink of an unprecedented economic collapse. It was so serious, in fact, thatmembers of Congress were told that should they fail to come to an agreement the fallout would leave the United States in such a state of disarray that martial law would be declared and tanks would be deployed to major American cities.
In the midst of it all, as if they had a private pipeline into the bailout meetings, the big boys were positioning themselves to profit. And profit they did, as the stock market rose from 6500 points in late 2008 to record highs as recently as last month. They made billions of dollars on the backs of bailouts funded by taxpayers who were themselves struggling to pay their mortgages and put food on the table.
They knew then what their friends at the Federal Reserve, Treasury and investment banks were planning to do. And they took the opportunity to make a killing.
Now, with the stock market indicating to the masses that the promised recovery has taken hold, and with mainstream analysts arguing that happy days are here again, those same moguls of finance who were undoubtedly tipped off in 2008, are making some very big moves yet again.
But these particular moves are exactly the opposite of what you might expect given that we’re at the beginning of a supposed recovery:
Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.
So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?
From Money News via StanDeyo.com
The simple answer is… they know.
They know that this market has beenpropped up by trillion dollar infusionsfrom the Federal Reserve.
They know that Americans have lost 55% of their wealth since this crisis started.
They know nearly 25% of Americans are out of work (as opposed to the official 7.5% figures from the BLS) and that no meaningful jobs are being created.
They know that half of American households require government assistance, 100 million people are on welfare and nearly a quarter of them need nutritional assistanceto put food on the table..
They know that the economic growth rates being disseminated to the people are completely bogus because they fail to account for the inflationary impact of the Fed’s monetary expansion.
They know this is wholly unsustainable, and they are getting out of Dodge before the next phase of this crisis takes hold and hammers the world yet again.
Ben Bernanke’s magic show will soon come to an end, and all of his tricks will be exposed for the statistical illusions they really are.
Billionaires know this and they are preparing for the inevitable. The government, likewise, is preparing for financial collapse and the potential for widespread violence that will follow.
You should be doing the same.
You can read more of Mac Slavo's work at SHTFplan.com, where this article first appeared.
June 20th, 2013 by olddog
Excerpt from THE GREAT DEFORMATION: The Corruption of Capitalism in America
By David A. Stockman.
The stage was thus set for the final “run” on the dollar and for a spectacular default by the designated “reserve currency” provider under the gold exchange standard’s second outing. And as it happened, the American people saw fit to install in the White House in January 1969 just the man to crush what remained of gold-based money and the financial discipline that it enabled.
Richard M. Nixon, as we know, possessed numerous and notable flaws. Foremost was his capacity to carry a grudge against anyone whom he believed had caused him to lose an election, especially any economist, policy maker, or bystander who could be pinned with accountability for the mild 1960 recession that he believed responsible for his loss to John F. Kennedy.
Nixon’s vendetta on the matter of the 1960 election literally knew no limits. For example, he insisted that a midlevel career bureaucrat named Jack Goldstein, who headed the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), had deliberately spun the monthly unemployment report issued on the eve of the 1960 election so as to damage his campaign. Eight years later, Nixon informed the White House staff that job one was to determine if Goldstein was still at the BLS, and to get him fired if he was.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Nixon rolled into the Oval Office obsessed with replacing Chairman Martin and bringing the Fed to heel. To be sure, his only real interest in monetary policy consisted of ensuring that the one great threat to Republican success, a rising unemployment rate, did not happen in the vicinity of an election.
Yet it was that very cynicism which made him prey to Milton Friedman’s alluring doctrine of floating paper money. As has been seen, Nixon wanted absolute freedom to cause the domestic economy to boom during his 1972 reelection campaign. Friedman’s disciples at Camp David served up exactly that gift, and wrapped it in the monetary doctrine of the nation’s leading conservative intellectual.
Friedman’s Rule of Fixed Money Supply Growth Was Academic Poppycock
Those adhering to traditional monetary doctrine always and properly feared the inflationary threat of state-issued fiat money. So when the CPI reached the unheard of peacetime level of 6.3 percent by January 1969, it was a warning that the tottering structure of Bretton Woods was reaching a dangerous turning point and that the monetary foundation of the postwar world was in peril.
But not according to Professor Milton Friedman. As was typical of the Chicago school conservatives, he simply brushed off the gathering inflationary crisis as the product of dimwits at the Fed. Martin’s “mistake” in succumbing to pressure to open up the monetary spigot to fund LBJ’s deficits, Friedman insisted, could be easily fixed. Literally, with the flick of a switch.
According to Professor Friedman’s vast archive of historic data, inflation would be rapidly extinguished if money supply was harnessed to a fixed and unwavering rate of growth, such as 3 percent per annum. If that discipline was adhered to consistently, nothing more was needed to unleash capitalist prosperity—not gold convertibility, fixed exchange rates, currency swap lines, or any of the other accoutrements of central banking which had grown up around the Bretton Woods system.
Indeed, once the central bank got the money supply growth rate into a fixed and reliable groove, the free market would take care of everything else, including determination of the correct exchange rate between the dollar and every other currency on the planet. Under Friedman’s monetary deus ex machina, for example, the unseen hand would silently and efficiently mete out rewards for success and punishments for failure in the banking and securities markets. The need for clumsy and inefficient regulation of financial institutions would be eliminated.
Friedman’s “fixed rule” monetary theory was fundamentally flawed, however, for reasons Martin had long ago discovered down in the trenches of the financial markets. The killer was that the Federal Reserve couldn’t control Friedman’s single variable, which is to say, the “money supply” as measured by the sum of demand deposits and currency (M1).
During nearly two decades at the helm, Martin learned that the only thing the Fed could roughly gauge was the level of bank reserves in the system. Beyond that there simply weren’t any fixed arithmetic ratios, starting with the “money multiplier.”
The latter measured the ratio between bank reserves, which are potential money, and bank deposits, which are actual money. As previously indicated, however, commercial banks don’t create actual money (checking account deposits) directly; they make loans and then credit the proceeds to customer accounts. So the transmission process between bank reserves and money supply wends through bank lending departments and the credit creation process.
Needless to say, the Fed couldn’t control the animal spirits of either lenders or borrowers; that was the job of free market interest rates. Accordingly, banks would utilize their reserves aggressively during periods of robust loan demand until borrower exuberance was choked off by high interest rates. By contrast, bank reserves would lie fallow during times of slumping loan demand and low free market rates. The “money multiplier” therefore varied enormously, depending upon economic and financial conditions.
Furthermore, even if the resulting “money supply” could be accurately measured and controlled, which was not the case, it did not have a fixed “velocity” or relationship to economic activity or GDP, either. In fact, during deflationary times of weak credit expansion, velocity tended to fall, meaning less new GDP for each new dollar of M1. On the other hand, during inflationary times of rapid bank credit expansion it would tend to rise, resulting in higher GDP gains per dollar of M1 growth.
So the chain of causation was long and opaque. The linkages from open market operations (adding to bank reserves) to commercial bank credit creation (adding to the money supply) to credit-fueled additional spending (adding to GDP) resembled nothing so much as the loose steering gear on an old jalopy: turning the steering wheel did not necessarily mean the ditch would be avoided.
Most certainly there was no possible reason to believe that M1 could be managed to an unerring 3 percent growth rate, and that, in any event, keeping M1 growth on the straight and narrow would lead to any predictable rate of economic activity or mix of real growth and inflation. In short, Friedman’s single variable–fixed money supply growth rule was basically academic poppycock.
The monetarists, of course, had a ready answer to all of these disabilities; namely, that there were “leads and lags” in the transmission of monetary policy, and that given sufficient time the money multipliers and velocity would regress to a standard rate. Yet that “sufficient time” caveat had two insurmountable flaws: it meant that Friedman’s fixed rule could not be implemented in the real day-to-day world of fast-moving financial markets; and more importantly, it betrayed the deep, hopeless political naïveté of the monetarists and Professor Friedman especially.
The Monetarist Cone: Silly Putty on the White House Graphs
As to practicality, I had a real-time encounter with it during the Reagan years when the Treasury’s monetary policy post was held by a religious disciple of Friedman: Beryl Sprinkel. Week after week at White House economic briefings he presented a graph based on the patented “monetarist cone.” The graph consisted of two upward-sloping dotted lines from a common starting date which showed where the money supply would be if it had been growing at an upper boundary of, say, 4 percent and a lower boundary of, say, 2 percent.
The implication was that if the Fed were following Professor Friedman’s rule, the path of the actual money supply would fall snugly inside the “cone” as it extended out over months and quarters, thereby indicating that all was well on the monetary front, the only thing which mattered. Except the solid line on the graph tracking the actual week-to-week growth of money supply gyrated wildly and was almost always outside the cone, sometimes on the high side and other times on the low.
In other words, the greatest central banker of modern times, Paul Volcker, was flunking the monetarists’ test week after week, causing Sprinkel to engage in alternating bouts of table pounding because the Fed was either dangerously too tight or too loose. Fortunately, Sprinkel’s graphs didn’t lead to much: President Reagan would look puzzled, Jim Baker, the chief of staff, would yawn, and domestic policy advisor Ed Meese would suggest moving on to the next topic.
More importantly, Volcker could easily explain the manifold complexities and anomalies in the short-term movement of the reported money supply numbers, and that on an “adjusted” basis he was actually inside the cone. Besides that, credit growth was slowing sharply, from a rate of 12 percent in 1979 to 7 percent in 1981 and 3 percent in 1982. That caused the economy to temporarily buckle and inflation to plunge from double digits to under 4 percent in less than twenty-four months. Volcker was getting the job done, in compliance with the monetarist cone or not.
In fact, the monetarist cone was just a Silly Putty numbers exercise, representing annualized rates of change from an arbitrary starting date that kept getting reset owing to one alleged anomaly or another. The far more relevant imperative was to slow the perilous expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet. It had doubled from $60 billion to $125 billion in the nine years before Volcker’s arrival at the Eccles Building, thereby saturating the banking system with newly minted reserves and the wherewithal for inflationary credit growth.
Volcker accomplished this true anti-inflation objective with alacrity. By curtailing the Fed’s balance sheet growth rate to less than 5 percent by 1982, Volcker convinced the markets that the Fed would not continue to passively validate inflation, as Burns and Miller had done, and that speculating on rising prices was no longer a one-way bet. Volcker thus cracked the inflation spiral through a display of central bank resolve, not through a single-variable focus on a rubbery monetary statistic called M1.
Volcker also demonstrated that the short-run growth rate of M1 was largely irrelevant and impossible to manage, but that the Fed could nevertheless contain the inflationary furies by tough-minded discipline of its own balance sheet. Yet that very success went straight to an even more fatal flaw in the monetarist fixed money growth rule: Friedman never explained how the Fed, once liberated from the external discipline of the Bretton Woods gold standard, would be continuously populated with iron-willed statesmen like Volcker, and how they would even remain in office when push came to shove like it did during the monetary crunch of 1982.
In fact, Volcker’s reappointment the next year was a close call because most of the White House staff and the Senate Republican leadership wanted to take him down, owing to the considerable political inconvenience of the recessionary trauma his policies had induced. Senate leader Howard Baker, for example, angrily demanded that Volcker “get his foot off the neck of American business now.”
Volcker survived only because of Ronald Reagan’s stubborn (and correct) belief that the Fed’s long bout of profligacy had caused inflation and that only a period of painful monetary parsimony could cure it. The next several decades would prove decisively, however, that the process of American governance produces few Reagans and even fewer Volckers.
So Friedman unleashed the demon of floating-rate money based on the naïve view that the inhabitants of the Eccles Building could and would follow his monetary rules. That was a surprising posture because Friedman’s splendid scholarship on the free market, going all the way back to his pioneering critique of New York City rent controls in the late 1940s, was infused with an abiding skepticism of politicians and all of their mischievous works.
Yet by unshackling the Fed from the constraints of fixed exchange rates and the redemption of dollar liabilities for gold, Friedman’s monetary doctrine actually handed politicians a stupendous new prize. It rendered trivial by comparison the ills owing to garden variety insults to the free market, such as rent control or the regulation of interstate trucking.
Implicit Rule by Monetary Eunuchs
The Friedman monetary theory actually placed the nation’s stock of bank reserves, money, and credit under the unfettered sway of what amounted to a twelve-member monetary politburo. Once relieved of the gold standard’s external discipline, the central banking branch of the state thus had unlimited scope to extend its mission to plenary management of the nation’s entire GDP and for deep, persistent, and ultimately suffocating intervention in the money and capital markets.
It goes without saying, of course, that the libertarian professor was not peddling a statist scheme. So the implication was that the Fed would be run by self-abnegating monetary eunuchs who would never be tempted to deviate from the fixed money growth rule or by any other manifestation of mission creep. Needless to say, Friedman never sought a franchise to train and appoint such governors, nor did he propose any significant reforms with respect to the Fed’s selection process or of the manner in which its normal operations were conducted.
This glaring omission, however, is what made Friedman’s monetarism all the more dangerous. His monetary opus, A Monetary History of the United States, was published only four years before his disciples, led by George Shultz, filled the ranks of the Nixon White House in 1969.
Possessed with the zeal of recent converts, they soon caused a realworld experiment in Friedman’s grand theory. In so doing, they were also implicitly betting on an improbable proposition: that monetarism would work because the run-of-the-mill political appointees—bankers, economists, businessmen, and ex-politicians who then sat on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), along with their successors—would be forever smitten with the logic of 3 percent annual money supply growth.
Friedman’s Great Gift to Wall Street
The very idea that the FOMC would function as faithful monetary eunuchs, keeping their eyes on the M1 gauge and deftly adjusting the dial in either direction upon any deviation from the 3 percent target, was sheer fantasy. And not only because of its political naïveté, something Nixon’s brutalization of the hapless Arthur Burns aptly conveyed.
Friedman’s austere, rule-bound version of discretionary central banking also completely ignored the Fed’s susceptibility to capture by the Wall Street bond dealers and the vast network of member banks, large and small, which maintained their cash reserves on deposit there. Yet once the Fed no longer had to worry about protecting the dollar’s foreign exchange value and the US gold reserve, it had a much wider scope to pursue financial repression policies, such as low interest rates and a steep yield curve, that inherently fuel Wall Street prosperity.
As it happened, the Fed’s drift into these Wall Street–pleasing policies was temporarily stalled by Volcker’s epic campaign against the Great Inflation. Dousing inflation the hard way, through brutal tightening of money market conditions, Volcker had produced the singular nightmare that Wall Street and the banking system loathe; namely, a violent and unprecedented inversion of the yield curve.
With short-term interest rates at 20 percent or more and way above long-term bond yields (12–15 percent), it meant that speculators and banks could not make money on the carry trade and that the value of dealer stock and bond inventories got clobbered: high and rising interest rates mean low and falling financial asset values. Accordingly, the Volcker Fed did not even dream of levitating the economy through the “wealth effects” or by coddling Wall Street speculators.
Yet once Volcker scored an initial success and was unceremoniously dumped by the Baker Treasury Department (in 1987), the anti-inflation brief passed on to a more congenial mechanism; that is, Mr. Deng’s industrial army and the “China price” deflation that rolled across the US economy in the 1990s and after. With inflation-fighting stringency no longer having such immediate urgency, it did not take long for the Greenspan Fed to adopt a prosperity promotion agenda.
First, however, it had to rid itself of any vestigial restraints owing to the Friedman fixed money growth rule. The latter was dispatched easily by a regulatory change in the early 1990s which allowed banks to offer “sweep” accounts; that is, checking accounts by day which turned into savings accounts overnight. Accordingly, Professor Friedman’s M1 could no longer be measured accurately.
Out of sight was apparently out of mind: for the last two decades, the central bank that Friedman caused to be liberated from the alleged tyranny of Bretton Woods so that it could swear an oath of fixed money supply growth has not even bothered to review or mention money supply. Indeed, the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed have been wholly preoccupied with manipulation of the price of money, that is, interest rates, and have relegated Friedman’s entire quantity theory of money to the dustbin of history. And Bernanke claims to have been a disciple!
Constrained neither by gold nor a fixed money growth rule, the Fed in due course declared itself to be the open market committee for the management and planning of the nation’s entire GDP. In this Brobdingnagian endeavor, of course, the Wall Street bond dealers were the vital transmission belt which brought credit-fueled prosperity to Main Street and delivered the elixir of asset inflation to the speculative classes. Consequently, when it came to Wall Street, the Fed became solicitous at first, and craven in the end.
Apologists might claim that Milton Friedman could not have foreseen that the great experiment in discretionary central banking unleashed by his disciples in the Nixon White House would result in the abject capitulation to Wall Street which emerged during the Greenspan era and became a noxious, unyielding reality under Bernanke. But financial statesmen of an earlier era had embraced the gold standard for good reason: it was the ultimate bulwark against the pretensions and follies of central bankers.
Copyright © 2013 David Stockman. Used with the author's permission.
David Stockman was director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, serving from 1981 until August 1985. He was the youngest cabinet member in the 20th century. See David Stockman's article archives.
June 18th, 2013 by olddog
By Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret.
One has to acknowledge the cleverness of the socialist agents for state ownership of capital and industry and for tyrannical control over human endeavor, and one must also grant that these did in fact seize upon the war on terror to inauspiciously enable a bureaucratic tyranny that far exceeds any threat from external sources.
911 presented a golden opportunity for these adversaries of republicanism to focus the attention of the American people on phantom international causes so as to obscure and cover-up a domestic agenda that included a dismantlement of the Bill of Rights and an emplacement of central totalistic control in the place of constitutional governance.
Indeed one can imagine that these domestic agents of progressive reform consider the untold billions of dollars spent, and the lives expended, in the international chasing of apparitional guerillas through baron territories to be a small price to pay for the successful and final transition of the nation from states’ rights and participatory democracy to absolutism. It is with great astonishment that one comes to the realization that this transformation came about through, and with the complicity of, the political representatives that were elected by the people to protect their freedoms and to preserve them from government tyranny.
LIVING IN DARK DAYS
A dark and ominous specter hovers over this nation. The country currently meets the definition of a police state. Individualism and personal choice are suppressed and bureaucratic hooliganism is rampant. Subjective federal statutes rule over constitutional ensures, and the U.S. judicial system is rapidly being transformed into an arrangement of people’s courts similar to those of the former Soviet Union and the Third Reich. These increasingly jettison objectivity to affirm and enforce state authority over individual rights.
The U.S. Code – consisting of many thousands of arbitrary statutory laws – is an enemy of the people. These statutes are not laws they are mandates that are specifically adaptive to entrapment and control. One cannot get through a day without violating one or more of these so-called laws; they are all inclusive, intrusive, and invasive to every segment of day to day existence. They comprise a virtual web of controlling measures that enables containment of personal freedoms, and they were specifically drafted to that purpose. The U.S. Code as it exists separates the people from their inherent God-given liberties.
AL CAPONE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENVIOUS OF THE POWER AND IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION THAT GOVERNMENT AGENTS POSSESS
The Department of Justice has become a rat’s nest of sinister intrigue and malfeasance – indeed the Obama/Holder union and appurtenant minions have all the appearances of a crime consortium. Political Gangsterism runs like a thread through the Department of Justice and the malfeasance of the agencies and agents thereof runs the gamut of questionable – if not outright criminal activities; gun-running, subversion of justice, illegal hiring practices and perjury before congressional committees come immediately to mind.
That none have been prosecuted, censored, reprimanded or dismissed for such causes seems to convey the message that these miscreants are beyond any form of accountability or reproof for their blatant in your face infractions. Holder lies in the face of congressional committee members then gives them a virtual middle-finger when they call into question his prevarications. The U.S. Code contains a silly statute that makes it a crime for a citizen to lie to an F.B.I. agent, but the agents and officers of the various agencies within the Department of Justice seem to be able to lie to congressional investigators with impunity. There is something wrong with that scenario, don’t you think?
SATAN IS ALIVE AND WELL
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” -Job 1:6-7
This scripture brings to mind the days when my Dad who might suspect me of some chicanery of one kind or another would make a similar inquiry, to which he would invariably add, “And don’t you lie to me, bud.” It wasn’t necessary for God to add such an addendum to his query of Satan, certainly the omniscient Lord knew where Satan had been and what he had been up to. And if we have been in the spirit and paying attention so do we. The power and influence of the prince of darkness are clearly evident in the works of men.
The corruptness of our people, of our system, and of our leaders makes it exceedingly clear that Satan walks among us. He is indeed the god of this fallen world and the nations of it, including the United States. Every lie that is uttered, every crime that is committed, every inhumanity that is fostered, and injustice that is perpetrated bears witness to his presence among us. He is in fact the titular head of this nation, and the members of the three branches of government do his bidding.
If you love this nation and things of this world above the Lord, the love of God is not in you; your corrupt bones will fall among the ashes when comes the fiery end.
If you believe: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” -Matthew 28:19-20
© 2013 – Jim R. Schwiesow – All Rights Reserved
June 17th, 2013 by olddog
By Brandon Smith
In the war for the continued existence of our Nation’s Constitutional principles, I had long wondered whether statists were simply confounded by the Bill of Rights and ignorant of its function or whether they were maliciously inclined, knowing exactly what it means but seeking its destruction anyway. In recent years, I have decided it is a combination of both faults.
Statists are people who view every aspect of society through the lens of government power. If you want to know the primary difference between Constitutionalists and anti-Constitutionalists, you have to understand that some people in this world only want control over their own lives, while other people desperately clamor for control over other people’s lives. Why do they do this? Usually, it’s fear. Fear of the persistent unknowns in life. Fear that they do not have the intelligence or the will to take responsibility for their own futures. Fear that they will be forced to take care of themselves. Fear that their ideologies will be found lacking. Fear that if others are allowed freedom, they will one day indirectly suffer for it.
This fear makes statists easy to manipulate by the establishment and easy to use as a tool for the expansion of government dominance. Because statists are so weak-minded and fainthearted, they become very comfortable with the idea of other people making their decisions for them; and they will always attempt to answer every perceived problem with more government control.
When confronted with a proponent of liberty, the statist typically reels in horror. He has so invested himself in bureaucracy that he sees himself as a part of it. To attack the bureaucracy is to attack him. To deny the validity of the bureaucracy is to deny the validity of his existence. His very personality and ego are tied to the machine, so he will spit and rage against anyone who refuses to conform. This is why it is not uncommon at all to find a wild collection of logical fallacies within the tirades of the average statist. Statists act as though they are driven by reason; but in reality, they are driven by seething bias.
A perfect example of this insanity is the article “There Are No Absolute Rights,” published by The Daily Beast.
Let’s first be clear about the kind of rag we are dealing with. The Daily Beast was launched by Tina Brown, a former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker who was also a British citizen until 2005. I would say she’s a kind of female Piers Morgan. For anyone who might take that as a compliment, trust me; it isn’t. Brown and Morgan are European collectivists who immigrated to America just to tell us how our Constitutionally conservative heritage of independence is outdated; meanwhile, the EU is in the shambles of failed socialism. We used to drive such people into the ocean, and now they breathe our oxygen while telling us what is politically “fashionable.”
In 2010, The Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, a magazine notorious for its statist crush on the Federal government (and now out of print). To say that The Daily Beast is a socialist platform and a mouthpiece for the Administration of President Barack Obama is an understatement, but I would point out that the website also tends to agree with politicians and judges on the right that also promote a “living document” interpretation of the Constitution. Whether right or left, if you believe that the Bill of Rights is up for constant interpretation and revision or outright destruction, then you are the bee’s knees in the eyes of The Beast.
The article focuses on gun rights and how silly conservatives foolishly cling to the idea that some lines in the sand should never be crossed in terms of personal freedom. In a rather mediocre and rambling analysis, The Beast uses two primary arguments to qualify this stance, essentially asserting that:
1) Compromises have already been made to the Bill of Rights; therefore, nothing is sacred.
2) Even some Republicans agree with compromises to the Bill of Rights when it comes to other Amendments, so why are we being so childish about “reinterpreting” the 2ndAmendment?
First, the revisionist methodology of the Bill of Rights consistently ignores the history of its writing. The colonists and Founding Fathers of our Nation, having successfully triumphed in a bloody revolution against what many then considered the most advanced elitist military empire on Earth, had absolutely no trust whatsoever in the concept of centralized government. Many of the colonials were anti-Federalists who believed that an overly powerful central government was a threat to future liberty. They felt that an immovable and unchangeable legal shield had to be created in order to ensure that a tyrannical system never prevailed again.
Thomas Jefferson said:
“[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”
This statement includes modern governments as well. Technological advancement does not change the rules surrounding timeless inherent moral principles, as much as statists would like to argue otherwise.
The colonials demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution as a prerequisite for the establishment of the Federal government. This means that the Federal government owes its entire existence to a very strict agreement made on the Bill of Rights. By extension, if the Bill of Rights is politically diluted or denied, then the legitimacy of the Federal government must also be denied, for it has violated the very charter that gave it life.
The writer of the article, Michael Tomasky, lists numerous transgressions against our Constitutional protections; but he does not do so in the spirit of activism. Rather, he lists them as examples of how “compromise” on our freedoms is necessary (or somehow inevitable) in the name of the collective good. He claims Republicans are perfectly willing to sacrifice certain liberties, like freedom of speech, privacy or even Miranda rights, in the name of political expediency.
I wholeheartedly agree that our civil liberties have been whittled away by the establishment. I also agree that many so-called Republicans have betrayed the founding values of our culture and even voted to diminish or destroy the 2nd Amendment. But let’s think hard about the faulty logic behind Tomansky’s position. Do two wrongs or hundreds of wrongs really make a right? Tomansky is saying that because we have failed as a society to fully protect our freedoms and because our government has been successful in criminally neglecting them, we should simply give in and relinquish all freedom.
He would respond to this accusation by claiming that he is not calling for the relinquishment of all liberties, only the liberties he thinks are dangerous to society. The problem is, that is not how the Constitution was designed. Amendments can be made, yes. But amendments contrary to the Bill of Rights are not Constitutional as per the original agreement made after the revolution. The Bill of Rights was meant to be sacrosanct, untouchable — period. No Federal law, no State law and no Amendment can be enforced that violates those protections. The Bill of Rights was not created as a rule book for what the people can do; it was created as a rule book for what government cannot do. Once you remove hard fast restrictions like the Bill of Rights from the picture, you give the government license to make its own rules. That is how tyranny is born.
As far as Republican attacks on the Constitution are concerned, Tomasky has obviously never heard of the false left/right paradigm. He finds solace in the totalitarian actions of neocons because neocons are not conservative; they are statists, just like him. Ultimately, there is no right or left. Only freedom and decentralization, or slavery and collectivism. There are those who revel in control, and those who rebel against control. The rest of the debate is nonsense and distraction.
Tomsky opines: “Imagine what conservatives would think of a group of liberals who insisted, while threatening an insurrection, on a pure and absolute interpretation of the Fourth or Sixth Amendment–and imagine how ridiculous they would look to average Americans.”
Actually, any true conservative would be standing right beside those liberals, as many of us in the liberty movement have done in the past in activism against the transgressions of fake conservatives like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, with his dismal anti-Constitution voting record. Frankly, who cares what “average Americans” think about our battle for what is right? Does Tomasky base all of his personal convictions on what happens to be popular at the moment? I think so.
What statists also don’t seem to comprehend is that there is a factor in the fight over Constitutional law that goes far beyond the Constitution itself.
The Constitution, as a document, is not what we as Americans and human beings obtain our rights from. The Constitution is only a written representation of the inborn freedoms derived from natural law and inherent conscience. We are born with a sense of liberty and that includes a right to self-defense from any enemy, foreign or domestic. No amount of political gaming, twisted rationalizations or intellectual idiocy is ever going to change these pre-existing rights.
Tomasky insists that: “[T]he idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality.”
He uses the tired argument that some restrictions on personal liberty, including restrictions on gun rights, are “reasonable” given the circumstances of the times. And, it only follows that he and other statists should be the ones to decide what is reasonable.
I disagree, along with millions of other Americans; and believe me, this is a serious problem for statists. If Tomasky and The Daily Beast want to impose their collective worldview on the rest of us and dismantle our individual freedoms guaranteed in natural law and the Bill of Rights, then I’m afraid they’ll have to fight us for them. In the end, legal precedence is irrelevant. Political precedence is irrelevant. Political party is irrelevant. Historical precedence is irrelevant. The theater of words is irrelevant. Statists need to understand that there is no alternative. There is no “silver bullet” argument that will make us forget what is fundamentally true. There is no juxtaposition of logic that will muddle our resolve or confuse our principles. Some rights are indeed absolute; and we will not yield them, ever. The statist “reality” is a far cry from what actually is; and soon, I’m afraid, they will learn this lesson the hard way.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: email@example.comJoin Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better. To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here: http://www.alt-market.com/donate
For absolute linguistic clarity in the destruction of freedom theater, and as a perfect example of the most important attribute of a politician, Brandon Smith excels far above all others I have read, and that is nothing less than, a considerable number of authors. Consider for a moment what kind of world would exist if all people everywhere demanded his level of articulation, and adherence to his principals in their leaders. While I may have obtained the title of professor of profanity in some people’s opinion, Brandon has obtained the title of King of elucidation in mine. Only the legendary H.L. Mencken has even come close to him. It says very little for the intelligence of humanity when they do not demand explicit articulation and acceptance of responsibility to adhere to one’s own postulations, when electing a leader. When a man can explain what he knows, and do what he says, and prove it, I will follow his lead.
June 15th, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
It has been public information for a decade that the US government secretly, illegally and unconstitutionally spies on its citizens. Congress and the federal courts have done nothing about this extreme violation of the US Constitution and statutory law, and the insouciant US public seems unperturbed.
In 2004 a whistleblower informed the New York Times that the National Security Agency (NSA) was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by ignoring the FISA court and spying on Americans without obtaining the necessary warrants. The corrupt New York Times put the interests of the US government ahead of those of the American public and sat on the story for one year until George W. Bush was safely reelected.
By the time the New York Times published the story of the illegal spying one year later, the law-breaking government had had time to mitigate the offense with ex post facto law or executive orders and explain away its law-breaking as being in the country's interest.
Last year William Binney, who was in charge of NSA's global digital data gathering program revealed that NSA had everyone in the US under total surveillance. Every email, Internet site visited and phone call is captured and stored. In 2012 Binney received the Callaway Award for Civic Courage, an annual award given to those who champion constitutional rights at risk to their professional and personal lives.
There have been a number of whistleblowers. For example, in 2006 Mark Klein revealed that AT&T had a secret room in its San Francisco office that NSA used to collect Internet and phone-call data from US citizens who were under no suspicion. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
The presstitute media handled these stories in ways that protected the government's lawlessness from scrutiny and public outrage. The usual spin was that the public needs to be safe from terrorists, and safety is what the government is providing.
The latest whistleblower, Edward Snowden, has sought refuge in Hong Kong, which has a better record of protecting free speech than the US government. Snowden did not trust any US news source and took the story to the British newspaper, the Guardian.
There is no longer any doubt whatsoever that the US government is lawless, that it regards the US Constitution as a scrap of paper, that it does not believe Americans have any rights other than those that the government tolerates at any point in time, and that the government has no fear of being held accountable by the weak and castrated US Congress, the sycophantic federal courts, a controlled media and an insouciant public.
Binney and Snowden have described in precisely accurate detail the extreme danger from the government's surveillance of the population. No one is exempt, not the Director of the CIA, US Army Generals, Senators and Representatives, not even the president himself.
Anyone with access to a computer and the Internet can find interviews with Binney and Snowden and become acquainted with why you do have very much indeed to fear whether or not you are doing anything wrong.
James Clapper, the lying Director of National Intelligence, who would have been perfectly at home in the Hitler or Stalin regimes, condemned Snowden as "reprehensible" for insisting that in a democracy the public should know what the government is doing. Clapper insisted that secretly spying on every ordinary American was essential in order to "protect our nation." http://news.antiwar.com/2013/06/07/us-spy-chief-slams-reprehensible-leak-of-nsa-surveillance-scheme/
Clapper is "offended" that Americans now know that the NSA is spying on the ordinary life of every American. Clapper wants Snowden to be severely punished for his "reckless disclosure" that the US government is totally violating the privacy that the US Constitution guarantees to every US citizen.
President Obama, allegedly educated in constitutional law, justified Clapper's program of spying on every communication of every American citizen as a necessary violation of Americans' civil liberties that "protects your civil liberties." Contrast the lack of veracity of the President of the United States with the truthfulness of Snowden, who correctly stated that the NSA spying is an "existential threat to democracy."
The presstitutes are busy at work defending Clapper and Obama. On June 9, CNN rolled out former CIA case officer Bob Baer to implant into the public's mind that Snowden, far from trying to preserve US civil liberties, might be a Chinese spy and that Snowden's revelations might be indicative of a Chinese espionage case.
Demonization is the US government's technique for discrediting Bradley Manning for complying with the US Military Code and reporting war crimes and for persecuting Julian Assage of Wikileaks for reporting leaked information about the US government's crimes. Demonization and false charges will be the government's weapon against Snowden.
If Washington and its presstitutes can convince Americans that courageous people, who are trying to inform Americans that their historic rights are disappearing into a police state, are espionage agents of foreign powers, America can continue to be subverted by its own government.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. What is the purpose of the spying program?
Even if an American believes the official stories of 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing, these are the only two terrorist acts in the US that resulted in the loss of human life in 12 years. Far more people are killed in traffic accidents and from bad diets. Why should the Constitution and civil liberty be deep-sixed because of two alleged terrorist acts in 12 years?
What is astounding is the absence of terrorist attacks. Washington is in the second decade of invading and destroying Muslim governments and countries. Civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are extremely high, and in those countries that Washington has not yet invaded, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Syria, civilians are being murdered by Washington's drones and proxies on the ground.
It is extraordinary that Washington's brutal 12-year assault on Muslim lives in six countries has not resulted in at least one dozen real, not fake FBI orchestrated, terrorist attacks in the US every day.
How can something as rare as terrorism justify the destruction of the US Constitution and US civil liberty? How safe is any American when their government regards every citizen as a potential suspect who has no rights?
Why is there no discussion of this in American public life? Watch the presstitutes turn Snowden's revelations into an account of his disaffection and motives and away from the existential threat to democracy and civil liberty.
What is the government's real agenda? Clearly, "the war on terror" is a front for an undeclared agenda. In "freedom and democracy" America, citizens have no idea what their government's motives are in fomenting endless wars and a gestapo police state. The only information Americans have comes from whistleblowers, who Obama ruthlessly prosecutes. The presstitutes quickly discredit the information and demonize the whistleblowers.
Germans in the Third Reich and Soviet citizens in the Stalin era had a better idea of their government's agendas than do "freedom and democracy" Americans today. The American people are the most uninformed people in modern history.
In America there is no democracy that holds government accountable. There is only a brainwashed people who are chaff in the wind.
This column was originally published at PaulCraigRoberts.org and is reprinted here with the author's position. Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. He has had numerous university appointments. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is available here.
If it has not yet occurred to you, consider that the government is not concerned with catching terrorists with cyber-warfare, they hate whistleblowers because they are waging cyber-warfare on the American citizens and don’t want us to know it. Their one and only fear is an informed public, and they are doing everything possible to intimidate the people from learning.
June 13th, 2013 by olddog
Waking People Up And Getting Them To Realize That The American Dream Is Quickly Becoming The American Nightmare
Are you on the list? Are you one of the millions of Americans that have been designated a threat to national security by the U.S. government? Will you be subject to detention when martial law is imposed during a major national emergency? As you will see below, there is actually a list that contains the names of at least 8 million Americans known as Main Core that the U.S. intelligence community has been compiling since the 1980s. A recent article on Washington’s Blogquoted a couple of old magazine articles that mentioned this program, and I was intrigued because I didn’t know what it was. So I decided to look into Main Core, and what I found out was absolutely stunning – especially in light of what Edward Snowden has just revealed to the world. It turns out that the U.S. government is not just gathering information on all of us. The truth is that the U.S. government has used this information to create a list of threats to national security that the government would potentially watch, question or even detain during a national crisis. If you have ever been publicly critical of the government, there is a very good chance that you are on that list.
The following is how Wikipedia describes Main Core…
Main Core is the code name of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government of the United States. Main Core contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security. The data, which comes from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources, is collected and stored without warrants or court orders. The database’s name derives from the fact that it contains “copies of the ‘main core’ or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community.”
It was Christopher Ketchum of Radar Magazine that first reported on the existence of Main Core. At the time, the shocking information that he revealed did not get that much attention. That is quite a shame, because it should have sent shockwaves across the nation…
According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, “There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.
Of course, federal law is somewhat vague as to what might constitute a “national emergency.” Executive orders issued over the last three decades define it as a “natural disaster, military attack, [or] technological or other emergency,” while Department of Defense documents include eventualities like “riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or assemblages, [and] disorder prejudicial to public law and order.” According to one news report, even “national opposition to U.S. military invasion abroad” could be a trigger.
So if that list contained 8 million names all the way back in 2008, how big might it be today?
That is a very frightening thing to think about.
Later on in 2008, Tim Shorrock of Salon.comalso reported on Main Core…
Dating back to the 1980s and known to government insiders as “Main Core,” the database reportedly collects and stores — without warrants or court orders — the names and detailed data of Americans considered to be threats to national security. According to several former U.S. government officials with extensive knowledge of intelligence operations, Main Core in its current incarnation apparently contains a vast amount of personal data on Americans, including NSA intercepts of bank and credit card transactions and the results of surveillance efforts by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies. One former intelligence official described Main Core as “an emergency internal security database system” designed for use by the military in the event of a national catastrophe, a suspension of the Constitution or the imposition of martial law.
So why didn’t this information get more attention at the time?
Well, if Obama had lost the 2008 election it might have. But Obama won in 2008 and the liberal media assumed that he would end many of the abuses that were happening under Bush. Of course that has not happened at all. In fact, Obama has steadily moved the police state agenda ahead aggressively. Edward Snowden has just made that abundantly clear to the entire world.
After 2008, it is unclear exactly what happened to Main Core. Did it expand, change names, merge with other programs or get superseded by a new program? It appears extremely unlikely that it simply faded away. In light of what we have just learned about NSA snooping, someone should ask our politicians some very hard questions about Main Core. According to Christopher Ketchum, the exact kind of NSA snooping that Edward Snowden has just described was being used to feed data into the Main Core database…
A host of publicly disclosed programs, sources say, now supply data to Main Core. Most notable are the NSA domestic surveillance programs, initiated in the wake of 9/11, typically referred to in press reports as “warrantless wiretapping.” In March, a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal shed further light onto the extraordinarily invasive scope of the NSA efforts: According to the Journal, the government can now electronically monitor “huge volumes of records of domestic e-mails and Internet searches, as well as bank transfers, credit card transactions, travel, and telephone records.” Authorities employ “sophisticated software programs” to sift through the data, searching for “suspicious patterns.” In effect, the program is a mass catalog of the private lives of Americans. And it’s notable that the article hints at the possibility of programs like Main Core. “The [NSA] effort also ties into data from an ad-hoc collection of so-called black programs whose existence is undisclosed,” the Journal reported, quoting unnamed officials. “Many of the programs in various agencies began years before the 9/11 attacks but have since been given greater reach.”
The following information seems to be fair game for collection without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on credit cards. All of this information is archived on government supercomputers and, according to sources, also fed into the Main Core database.
This stuff is absolutely chilling.
And there have been hints that such a list still exists today.
For example, the testimony of an anonymous government insider that was recently posted on shtfplan.com alluded to such a list…
“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me, giving me a look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger into my chest. “You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you can imagine, bigger than anyone can imagine. This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list.If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list,” he stated.
What in the world is happening to America?
What in the world are we turning into?
As I mentioned in a previous article, the NSA gathers 2.1 million gigabytes of data on all of usevery single hour. The NSA is currently constructing a 2 billion dollar data center out in Utah to store all of this data.
If you are disturbed by all of this, now is the time to stand up and say something. If this crisis blows over and people forget about all of this stuff again, the Big Brother surveillance grid that is being constructed all around us will just continue to grow and continue to become even more oppressive.
America is dying right in front of your eyes and time is running out. Please stand up and be counted while you still can.
Back to work! Molly got suddenly worse and a call to the surgeon resulted in us taking her in for emergency surgery Tuesday morning. Molly has had a partial ruptured disc removed in her neck, and we are back home as of Wed. night. This morning she had one spell of screaming in pain as I was laying her on her bed, which damned near made me vomit from guilt. Her two left legs are still unusable, but the surgeon assured us they will come back to normal function. Personally, I think he’s full of crap. But all the prayers from you all have not been wasted, as she is a fighter, and we are her guardians around the clock. She is alert but unable to move around, and waiting for Jean to come back in the office with us. I have her on a day bed at my side, and her ears are straight up listening to every sound coming from the kitchen. To all of you who sent well wishes and prayers by email, we all thank you with a sincere heart.
Her photo would not load here, please go to http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com
June 10th, 2013 by olddog
By Mac Slavo
Something is wrong. Very, very wrong.
Our economy is, as it has been for many years, on the brink of collapse. They may not have announced it officially just yet, but recent data suggest that we are most certainly in another recession (we may never have actually gotten out of the first one). While official statistics indicate there is very mild economic growth, the fact is that the growth is coming from monetary expansion driven by the Fed. As more money is slammed into the system prices rise, forcing consumers to pay more for everything from food to stocks. This, in the eyes of the government is growth. In reality, however55% of America’s wealth has been vaporized in the last five years, a quarter of American households are on food stamps, and consumers are tapped out.
In the middle east, things are heating up, with Russia having deployed their Pacific Fleet to the region, and the US putting boots on the ground in Syria as recently as this week.
On the political front, we have the President of the United States, his administration and his subordinates at domestic intelligence agencies, the IRS, the Pentagon and the Justice Department embroiled in scandals and activities that have even their most ardent supporters questioning what is really going on behind closed doors.
Yes, something is wrong. But no one is talking – at least not in an official capacity.
Thus, we are left to connect the dots ourselves with the help of various sources made available through alternative media.
We certainly can’t expect government officials to openly admit that some very bad things have happened, are happening and will likely happen in the future. But there are those inside the halls of our most hallowed and respected institutions that risk their lives to get information out so that we can be prepared for what may well be coming down the pike.
We can downplay anonymous sources and pretend like this is all made up, or, we can simply look around and see what’s going on in the world and put two-and-two together.
A report filed in December of 2012 from a source operating inside of the Department of Homeland Security noted that there would be a massive hit to precious metals around the Spring of 2013. This drop in prices was to be a prime indicator that events would start accelerating. That slide in precious metals prices has happened – to the tune of over 25% in just a few months.
Now, with revelations that the Obama administration has been snooping on journalists, as well as millions of Americans, the same DHS source has revealed that his department has been actively preparing plans to deal with the coming calamity that can be described as nothing short of the ultimate global doomsday scenario.
With our national leadership involved in criminal behavior bordering on treason, there is a real possibility that a crisis, or crises, will be needed to take the focus off of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and all of those involved in an agenda that has militarized our domestic police force, supplanted our most fundamental laws, and impoverished our fellow citizens.
Government officials are some of the dirtiest people on this planet – often concerned with only money, power and their personal advancement. So, it’s not too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that some of them will do whatever it takes maintain their positions.
The following report from the Northeast Intelligence Network is frightening, because it involves you, your family, and and everything you hold dear.
They are getting ready for some serious sh%t to hit the fan. You should be doing the same.
“If anyone thinks that what’s going on right now with all of this surveillance of American citizens is to fight some sort of foreign enemy, they’re delusional. If people think that this ‘scandal’ can’t get any worse, it will, hour by hour, day by day. This has the ability to bring down our national leadership, the administration and other senior elected officials working in collusion with this administration, both Republican and Democrats. People within the NSA, the Department of Justice, and others, they know who they are, need to come forth with the documentation of ‘policy and practice’ in their possession, disclose what they know, fight what’s going on, and just do their job. I have never seen anything like this, ever. The present administration is going after leakers, media sources, anyone and everyone who is even suspected of ‘betrayal.” That’s what they call it, ‘betrayal.’ Can you believe the size of their cahones? This administration considers anyone telling the truth about Benghazi, the IRS, hell, you name the issue, ‘betrayal,’” he said.
“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me, giving me a look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger into my chest. “You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you can imagine, bigger than anyone can imagine.This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list,” he stated.
“What’s that exactly mean, being on that list, that is,” I asked, trying to make sense of it all.
“It means that there will be censorship under the color of authority of anyone in the U.S. who is attempting to expose what’s going on in our name. It’s about controlling any damning information from reaching epidemic proportions. It’s damage control to the extreme. It’s about the upcoming censorship of the internet in the name of national security. The plans are already in place.These latest reports about “spying eyes” have turned this administration and others connected to it into something very, very dangerous. They feel cornered and threatened, and I’m hearing about some plans they have to shut down the flow of information that is implicating them of wrongdoing. Time is short,” he stated.
“How are they going to do this? How is it even possible?” I asked.
“First, they intend to use the Justice Department to silence journalists like in the Rosen case, but they won’t stop there. They will use a host of national security policies, laws, letters, whatever to take out the bigger threats,” he stated.
Next, they will use some sort of excuse, an external threat, and I believe it will be a combination of the economic collapse and a Mid-East war that will begin in Syria to throttle the information that is accessible on the Internet. And you know what? People will believe it!”
Based on what I’ve seen, most of which I should not have seen, the DHS is co-ordinating efforts with other federal agencies to begin to threaten American citizens with incarceration for non-compliance. You know the old talk of color coded lists? Well, this is what they will be using. People exposing the truth about Benghazi, killing the U.S. Dollar, even those questioning Obama’s legal status and eligibility to be President are the current targets. And they’ve had five long years to get to this point. The ugly truth is that these policies and practices did not start under Obama, but long before. This is about the killing of our Constitutional Republic. The murder of our country and the stripping of our rights. While many have been preoccupied with one issue, few have seen the bigger issue. This is the ‘end game,’ for all the marbles,” he stated.
More to come
“Please,” pleaded my source, “get this information out while you can. Tell people what I’m saying, that we don’t have much time, that after the latest exposure of spying, Obama, Jarrett, Axelrod, and others, including members of Congress, have put their plans into high gear.
This is about the Marxist takeover of America. This is about our country being able to survive another July 4th holiday. This is about a world war about to break out that will kill millions of people, all because of the agenda of this administration.”
“They are very dangerous and will do anything and everything to stop the onslaught of negative information that’s being reported by the main stream media. But only about one quarter of the real information is being reported. The other three quarters will be the game changer. But first, tell people what I’ve said. Let them know that more will follow but get this information out right now while the internet is still relatively free. Do it today.”
My source provided additional information, but I am abiding by his wish to get this much out. I am writing now to let people know that we are in for seriously dangerous times ahead. Deadly times. War, and censorship under the color of authority and under the pretext of of national security. It’s about to get a lot uglier. Stay tuned.
Original report at Northeast Intelligence Network via Steve Quayle
We and others have been warning about the surveillance state for years. Look at today’s headlines. It’s now 100% confirmed. Up until this week most Americans didn’t believe it was possible.
We have also warned that the government had turned their security and policing apparatus not against foreign threats, but domestic ones. It should now be clear thatyou are the target.
Likewise, we and others have warned of the real possibility that this ends with a war that will change the very landscape of this planet. There should be no doubt that the chess pieces have already been positioned.
This IS coming. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next month. But in our lifetimes we will see this manifest right before our eyes.
It’s been done throughout history. Government sponsored democide has taken the lives of hundreds of millions of people. For some it’s just a means to an end; nothing more than a statistic.
What makes you, I or our families any different than those who they came for before?
June 3rd, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
When Gerald Celente branded the American media “presstitutes,” he got it right. The US print and TV media (and NPR) whore for Washington and the corporations. Reporting the real news is their last concern. The presstitutes are a Ministry of Propaganda and Coverup. This is true of the entire Western media, a collection of bought-and-paid-for whores.
It seems that every day I witness a dozen or more examples. Take May 31 for example.
The presstitutes report that US Secretary of State John Kerry and his German counterpart are working on Russia to convince that country to be a “party to peace” in Syria by not supplying the Syrian government, whose country has been invaded, with arms. Kerry and the Israelis especially do not want Russia to deliver the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria.
This was the extent of the presstitutes’ report. The presstitutes made no mention of the fact that the invasion of Syria by al-Qaeda affiliated radical Muslims was organized and equipped by Washington via its proxies in the region, such as Saudia Arabia and the oil emirates. Americans sufficiently stupid to rely on the presstitute media do not know that it is not Syrians who want to overthrow their government, but Washington, Israel, and radical Islamists who object to Syria’s secular non-confrontational government.
One might think that the US media would wonder why Washington prefers to have al-Qaeda governing Syria than a non-confrontational secular government. But such a question is off-limits for the US media.
Israel, unlike Washington which so far hides behind proxies, has actually openly committed war crimes as defined by the Nuremberg trials of Nazis by initiating unprovoked aggression against Syria by militarily attacking the country.
In reporting Kerry’s pressure on Putin, presstitutes made no mention that the Washington-backed attempted overthrow of the Syrian government has run into difficulty, causing president obama to ask the Pentagon to come up with a no-fly plan, which means according to the Libya precedent NATO or US air attacks on Syrian government forces. As the S-300 missiles are a defensive weapon, obama’s plan to send in Western or Israeli air forces to attack the Syrian army is why Kerry is pressuring Russia not to honor its contract to deliver to Syria the S-300 missiles, which can knock US, NATO, and Israeli aircraft out of the sky.
Those who believed that Kerry could have made a difference as president must be disillusioned to see what a warmongering whore he is. In america marketing is everything; truth is nothing.
The real news story is that Washington is trying to convince Putin to acquiesce to
Washington’s overthrow of the Syrian government so that Russia can be evicted from its only naval base in the Mediterranean Sea, thus making it Washington’s sea, Washington’s Mare Nostrum. The american pressitutes put all the onus on the Russian government for not helping Washington to overthrow the Syrian government in order that Washington has another victory over Russia and can start next on Iran.
William Hague, who serves, with Washington’s approval, as British foreign secretary to the shame of a once proud nation, made this clear when he declared: “We want a solution without Assad. We do not accept the stay of Assad.” This is amazing hypocrisy, because the Syrian government is more respectful of human rights than Washington and London.
While Kerry was trying to con Putin, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the obama administration’s immediate priority was removing Assad from power. http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/302773-white-house-no-role-for-assad-in-transitional-government So for the US and UK, “peace” means the overthrow of the Syrian government by force.
Why isn’t the United Nations protesting? The answer is that the countries and their UN representatives have been purchased by Washington. Money talks. Integrity and justice don’t. Integrity and justice are poverty-inflicted. The UN belongs to the evil empire. Washington owns it. The american Empire has the money. It pays for the headlines and for the budget that lets the UN delegates enjoy New York City,
In the world today, integrity is worthless, but money is valuable, and Washington has the money because, as the dollar is the world reserve currency, it can be printed in sufficient quantities to purchase every country’s government, including our own. One year out of office and Tony Blair was worth $35 million. Look at the amazing Clinton riches. According to news report, $3.2 million was spent on Chelsea’s wedding.http://www.goingwedding.com/news_detail.asp?newsid=67
Hague said that the UK and France “seek to end the ban on arming Syrian rebels.” Hague did not explain how the invasion force was armed if there is a ban against arming it. But Hague did tell us who the invading force is: “the Syrian National Coalition,” which consists of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt (still the American puppet), the United States, Britain, France, Turkey, Germany and Italy. Obviously, the talk about a “Syrian rebellion” is pure BS. Syria is confronted with an attempted overthrow of its government by the US and its puppet states. Kerry is trying to convince Putin to let Washington overthrow Syria.
As if this wasn’t enough, also on May 31, I listened to e.j. dionne and david brooks on National Public Radio discuss the state of the obama presidency. Both were protective of “our president.” Neither would dare say: “the military-security complex’s president,” “Wall Street’s president,” “the Israel Lobby’s president,” “Monsanto’s president,” “the mining and fracking president.” obama is “our president.”
Both brooks and dionne agreed that the media had got rid of the Benghazi issue and that the IRS persecution of Tea Party members was under the media’s control and was not a threat to obama. david brooks did acknowledge that there were economic problems ignored and no new ideas. However, the blatant fact that under obama the US is in a constitutional crisis, well described by Dr. Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois,http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35134.htm was not mentioned by NPR’s pundits, who define correct thoughts for the NPR audience, people too busy to pay attention.
In america today, the executive branch in explicit violation of the US Constitution detains indefinitely or murders any US citizen alleged without proof by an unaccountable member of the executive branch to be in any way associated with the broad but undefined term, “terrorism,” even innocently as a donor to hungry or ill Palestinian children. The executive branch clearly violates the US Constitution and US statutory laws against torture and spying on citizens without warrants. Congress does not impeach the president for his obvious crimes, and the Federal Judiciary enables them.
President Nixon was driven from office because he lied about when he learned of a burglary for which he was not responsible. President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying about a sexual affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.
President george w. bush took america to wars based on obvious lies, and so did president obama. Both administrations are guilty of war crimes and almost every possible infraction of constitutional and international law. Yet, no presstitute member of the media would dare mention impeachment, and the House would never bring the charge.
There is no doubt whatsoever that in the 21st century presidents, their lawyers, Justice (sic) Department officials, and CIA and black-op operatives have broken law after law, and there is no accountability. For the presstitutes, this is a non-issue. “Rule of law, Constitution? We don’t need no stinking rule of law or Constitution.”
For the presstitutes, the bought-and-paid for-whores for evil, the issues are obama’s stable poll numbers; teenage girls arrested for fighting at a kindergarten graduation ceremony; ”Microsoft’s Bill Gates extended his lead over Mexico’s Carlos Slim as the world’s richest person,” “the $14 million-dollar girl: Beyonce rakes it in.”
Constitutional crisis? What is that? I mean, really, look at Beyonce’s legs. Didn’t you hear, the dollar rose today?
The presstitutes have not investigated any important issue. Not 9/11. Not the accumulation of unaccountable power in the executive branch. Not the demise of the Bill of Rights. Not the Boston Marathon bombing. Not the endless and unexplained wars against Muslims who have not attacked the US.
The Boston Marathon saga reached new levels of absurdity with the FBI’s murder of Ibragim Todashev, who was being pressured to admit to various associated crimes. The presstitutes first reported that Todashev was armed. It was a gun, then a knife, then after the presstitutes duly reported the false information planted on them, which for the insouciance american public was sufficient to explain Toashev’s murder, the FBI admitted that the victim was unarmed.
Nevertheless, he was shot seven times, one to the back of the head. His father wants to know why the FBI assassinated his son, but the presstitutes could not care less. Don’t expect any answer from the american press and TV media or from NPR, an organization that pretends to be a “listener station” but is financed by corporate contributions.
How’s Todashev’s murder for Gestapo justice? Where is the difference? A bullet in the back of the head. And america is the shining light on the hill, the font of freedom and democracy brought to the world courtesy of the military/security complex out of the barrel of guns and hellfire missiles from drones. And relentless propaganda in the schools, universities, and media.
Washington certainly learned from Mao and Pol Pot. You kill them into submission.
But you will never hear about it from the presstitutes.
If anyone disagrees with anything Mr. Roberts has published, it is because they are too stupid to know anything about America’s history, and have been brainwashed by the education and media industry. This man should be America’s next President!
June 1st, 2013 by olddog
By Larry Greenley
Fifty years of JBS warnings about the UN are coming true.
At the founding meeting of The John Birch Society in 1958, Robert Welch warned of a plan by our political elites to surrender American sovereignty to international organizations, such as the United Nations:
A part of that plan, of course, is to induce the gradual surrender of American sovereignty, piece by piece and step by step, to various international organizations — of which the United Nations is the outstanding but far from the only example….
Just a few years later the JBS established its signature action project, "Get US out! of the United Nations," with the long range goal of creating sufficient understanding about the UN to enable congressional action to end our membership in the UN.
Now fast-forward to the present. On May 28, CQ News reported that "Former Sen. John Kerry’s appointment as secretary of State has given supporters of the Law of the Sea treaty hope that he will revive a longstanding campaign for ratification…."
This is the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty (LOST) that the UN described in 2007, saying LOST's "scope is vast: it covers all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and over-flight; all uses of its resources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf and in the territorial seas…. The Convention is widely recognized by the international community as the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out."
In other words, the UN is saying that the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea which administers LOST would have authority over everything, everything, over, on, and under the oceans and seas of the world. If you don't agree with restricting the independence of the United States to this degree, then you're a good candidate for joining in the Get US out! project.
The JBS has recently produced an excellent new tool for convincing others that it's time to end our membership in the UN, a booklet entitled America and the United Nations.
Of course, there are many other good reasons to Get US out! There's the new Obama-backed UN Arms Trade Treaty that was designed to disarm American citizens, and that will likely be presented for ratification by the Senate sometime soon.
There's also the UN's Agenda 21, which large numbers of Americans have become alarmed about during the past couple years. Agenda 21 provides a platform for the eventual total government control over our entire material existence, all in the pursuit of the UN's definition of "sustainable development."
If you agree that it's high time that the United States should withdraw its membership in the United Nations, please contact your senators and representative and let them know you support the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2013, H.R. 75.
Your Friends at The John Birch Society