Log in



Archive for August, 2013

To solve his narcissistic lust for world recognition, Obungahole may well start WW3,

August 31st, 2013 by

while the GOP Congress is focused on their re-election. 

And

America Totally Discredited

By William Riley

1724liberty@gmail.com

If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British.  Now that the British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take “unilateral action” against Syria.  But what good would “a shot across Syria’s bow” actually do?  A “limited strike” is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria.  Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad.

Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort to massacre entire Christian villages.  Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters?  There is no good outcome in Syria.  The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse.  Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?

It isn’t as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country.  At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam.  It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.

Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria.  On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals.  And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the “rebels” in Syria.

But there was a problem.  The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels.  So something had to be done.

If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the “moral justification” that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels.  In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.

So that is where we are today.  The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this…

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.

-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.

-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.

-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.
Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it.  In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.

The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000 a year on “intelligence”, but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious.  WND has been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.

Shouldn’t we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?

Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive.  As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.

We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was.  It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.

If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch.  They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless.  They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.

A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States.  I don’t think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now.  The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see…

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: “The president has no constitutional authority … to take this nation to war … unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked.  And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.”

3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: “Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution.”

4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: “I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America.”

5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: “While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack.”

6. The New York Times: “American officials said Wednesday there was no ‘smoking gun’ that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation.”

7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: “The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States.”

8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: “I definitely believe there needs to be a vote.”

9. Donald Rumsfeld: “There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation.”

10. Robert Fisk: “If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.”

11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: “So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?”

12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: “We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves.”

13. A Syrian Army officer: “We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people.”

14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba’ath Party official: “We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding.”

15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: “A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel.”

16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: “…the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war.”

17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences”

18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) “means the immediate destruction of Israel.”

19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: “Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force.”

20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength.”

21. The Jerusalem Post: “The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday.”

22. Ron Paul: “The danger of escalation with Russia is very high”

23. Pat Buchanan: “The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.”

24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: “We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children’s future because we think we just have to do something.”

25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: “Isn’t it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?”


America Totally Discredited

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/08/30/america-totally-discredited-paul-craig-roberts/

By Paul Craig Roberts

A foolish President Obama and moronic Secretary of State Kerry have handed the United States government its worst diplomatic defeat in history and destroyed the credibility of the Office of the President, the Department of State, and the entire executive branch. All are exposed as a collection of third-rate liars.

Intoxicated with hubris from past successful lies and deceptions used to destroy Iraq and Libya, Obama thought the US “superpower,” the “exceptional” and “indispensable” country, could pull it off again, this time in Syria.

But the rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington’s rush to war when there is no evidence. A foolish Obama was pushed far out on the limb by an incompetent and untrustworthy National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the pack of neoconservatives that support her, and the British Parliament cut the limb off.

What kind of fool would put himself in that vulnerable position?

Now Obama stands alone, isolated, trying to back away from his threat to attack without authorization from anyone–not from the UN, not from NATO, not from Congress who he ignored–a sovereign country. Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime. Washington has until now got away with its war crimes by cloaking them in UN or NATO approval. Despite these “approvals,” they remain war crimes.

But his National Security Advisor and the neocon warmongers are telling him that he must prove that he is a Real Man who can stand alone and commit war crimes all by himself without orchestrated cover from the UN or NATO or a cowardly US Congress. It is up to Obama, they insist, to establish for all time that the President of the United States is above all law. He, and he alone is the “decider,” the Caesar, who determines what is permissible. The Caesar of the “sole superpower” must now assert his authority over all law or Washington’s hegemony over the world is lost.

As I noted in an earlier column today, if Obama goes it alone, he will be harassed for the rest of his life as a war criminal who dares not leave the US. Indeed, a looming economic collapse could so alter the power and attitude of the United States that Obama could find himself brought to justice for his war crimes.

Regardless, the United States government has lost its credibility throughout the world and will never regain it, unless the Bush and Obama regimes are arrested and put on trial for their war crimes.

Obama’s destruction of US credibility goes far beyond diplomacy. It is likely that this autumn or winter, and almost certainly in 2014, the US will face severe economic crisis.

The long-term abuse of the US dollar’s reserve currency role by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, the never-ending issuance of new debt and printing of dollars to finance it, the focus of US economic policy on bailing out the “banks too big to fail” regardless of the adverse impact on domestic and world economies and holders of US Treasury debt, the awaiting political crisis of the unresolved deficit and debt ceiling limit that will greet Congress’ return to Washington in September, collapsing job opportunities and a sinking economy all together present the government in Washington with a crisis that is too large for the available intelligence, knowledge, and courage to master.

When the proverbial hits the fan, the incompetent and corrupt Federal Reserve and the incompetent and corrupt US Treasury will have no more credibility than Obama and John Kerry.

The rest of the world–especially Washington’s bullied NATO puppet states–will take great delight in the discomfort of “the world’s sole superpower” that has been running on hubris ever since the Soviet collapse.

The world is not going to bail out Washington, now universally hated, with currency swaps, more loans, and foreign aid. Americans are going to pay heavily for their negligence, their inattention, their unconcern, and their ignorant belief that nothing can go wrong for them and that anything that does is temporary.

Two decades of jobs offshoring has left the US with a third world labor force employed in lowly paid domestic nontradable services, a workforce comparable to India’s of 40 years ago. Already the “world’s sole superpower” is afflicted with a large percentage of its population dependent on government welfare for survival. As the economy closes down, the government’s ability to meet the rising demands of survival diminishes. The rich will demand that the poor be sacrificed in the interest of the rich. And the political parties will comply.

Is this the reason that Homeland Security, a Nazi Gestapo institution, now has a large and growing para-military force equipped with tanks, drones, and billions of rounds of ammunition?

How long will it be before American citizens are shot down in their streets by “their” government as occurs frequently in Washington’s close allies in Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain?

Americans have neglected the requirements of liberty. Americans are so patriotic and so gullible that all the government has to do is to wrap itself in the flag, and the people, or too many of them, believe whatever lie the government tells. And the gullible people will defend the government’s lie to their death, indeed, to the death of the entire world.

If Americans keep believing the government’s lies, they have no future. If truth be known, Americans have already lost a livable future. The neocons’ “American Century” is over before it begun.

Update: I have heard from educated and aware friends that the presstitute media on the evening news are beating the drums for war. This shows what paid whores the US media is and their total disconnect from reality. Anyone who wastes their time on the US media is a brainwashed idiot, a danger to humanity.

Update 8:52 PM August 30: Is the White House idiot going to be a victim of his own careless presidential appointments?
Does he have no one to tell him how to escape the dilemma his moronic Secretary of State and National Security Advisor have put him in? Someone needs to tell the WH Fool that he must say that he accepts the conclusion of the world
community that there is not sufficient evidence for launching a military attack on Syria and killing even more people
than were killed in the alleged, but unproven, chemical attack, and that he awaits further and better evidence.
God help the moron and the unfortunate country that the fool represents.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

Will Obama Doom Himself As A War Criminal

August 31st, 2013 by

And

Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/08/30/will-obama-doom-himself-as-a-war-criminal-paul-craig-roberts/

http://anationbeguiled.com/?p=7266

Paul Craig Roberts

Obama, pushed by his Israeli and neocon masters, especially his National Security

Advisor, Susan Rice, who, in effect, functions as an Israeli agent, crawled far out on the limb, only to have it sawed off by the British Parliament.

In response, the “socialist” president of France, Hollande, who lacks French support for
France’s participation in a US/Israeli orchestrated military attack on Syria, has crawled
back off the limb, saying that, while everything is still on the table, he has to see some evidence first.

As Cameron and Obama have made clear, there is no evidence. Even US intelligence has declared that there is no conclusive evidence that Assad used chemical weapons or even has control over the weapons.

Even the US puppet government in Canada has disavowed participating in the Obama/Israeli war crime.

This leaves Obama with support only from Turkey and Israel. Recently, the Turkish government shot down in the streets more of its own people–peaceful protesters, not
imported mercenaries trying to overthrow the Turkish government–than were killed in
the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad.

As the entire world is aware, the Israeli government has been committing crimes against the people in Palestine for decades. A distinguished Jewish jurist concluded in an official report that the Israeli government committed war crimes in its attack on the civilian population of Gaza.

No country regards the criminal states of Turkey and Israel as cover for a war crime. If Obama is pushed by Susan Rice and the evil neocons, who are strongly allied with Israel, into going it alone and conducting a military strike on Syria, Obama will have made himself an unambiguous War Criminal under the Nuremberg Standard created by the US Government. Unprovoked military aggression is a war crime under international law. That is completely clear. There are no ifs or buts about it.

If Obama now strikes Syria, when he has no cover from the UN, or from NATO, or from the American people, or from Congress, having ignored the House and Senate, Obama
will stand before the entire world, starkly, as a War Criminal. Unless the world is
prepared to flush international law, arrest orders for the War Criminal will have to come from the Hague. Obama will have to be handed over and put on trial. He will have no
more leg to stand on than did the Nazis.

The evil neocons are telling Obama that he must prove that he is a man and go it alone.
If Obama does, he will prove that he is a War Criminal.

Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/08/26/syria-another-western-war-crime-in-the-making-paul-craig-roberts/

Paul Craig Roberts

The British Parliament has rejected British military intervention in Syria. The US puppet, Cameron, who

serves as Prime Minister was forced to admit that he had no evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons,
and Parliament said, no evidence, no war. It is unlikely the French will go along without the British,
so this leaves Obama all alone with Israel. If Washington goes ahead with the strike, Obama will be
branded with the War Criminal moniker. 

The decisive action by Parliament shames the cowardly US Congress.

http://rt.com/news/uk-parliament-vote-syria-181/

Update:

The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand. However, as with Iraq, Washington's decision to commit aggression against Syria is not based on any facts. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-un-war-investigation-006/ 

The US and UK governments have revealed none of the “conclusive evidence” they claim to have that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Listening to their voices, observing their body language, and looking into their eyes, it is completely obvious that John Kerry and his British and German puppets are lying through their teeth. This is a far more shameful situation than the massive lies that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell claims that he was deceived by the White House and did not know that he was lying. Kerry and the British, French, and German puppets know full well that they are lying. 

The face that the West presents to the world is the brazen face of a liar. 

Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself. 

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government. 

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-un-weapons-inspectors-attacked-as-they-try-to-enter-poison-gas-attack-site-8784435.html 

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons.http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/obama-administration-accepts-rebels-account-on-syria-prepares-for-war/ See also http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/syria-accepts-un-inspectors-us-spurns-call-as-too-late/ 

In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection. http://rt.com/news/un-chemical-oservers-shot-000/ 

The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right. 

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. 

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.” http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.”http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/ It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/ The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.” 

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality. 

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government. 

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism? 

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.” 

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes. 

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments. 

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government. 

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.

10 13 11 flagbar

Will Obama Doom Himself As A War Criminal?

August 30th, 2013 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/08/30/will-obama-doom-himself-as-a-war-criminal-paul-craig-roberts/

Paul Craig Roberts

Obama, pushed by his Israeli and neocon masters, especially his National Security

Advisor, Susan Rice, who, in effect, functions as an Israeli agent, crawled far out on the limb, only to have it sawed off by the British Parliament.

In response, the “socialist” president of France, Hollande, who lacks French support for
France’s participation in a US/Israeli orchestrated military attack on Syria, has crawled
back off the limb, saying that, while everything is still on the table, he has to see some evidence first.

As Cameron and Obama have made clear, there is no evidence. Even US intelligence has declared that there is no conclusive evidence that Assad used chemical weapons or even has control over the weapons.

Even the US puppet government in Canada has disavowed participating in the Obama/Israeli war crime.

This leaves Obama with support only from Turkey and Israel. Recently, the Turkish government shot down in the streets more of its own people–peaceful protesters, not
imported mercenaries trying to overthrow the Turkish government–than were killed in
the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad.

As the entire world is aware, the Israeli government has been committing crimes against the people in Palestine for decades. A distinguished Jewish jurist concluded in an official report that the Israeli government committed war crimes in its attack on the civilian population of Gaza.

No country regards the criminal states of Turkey and Israel as cover for a war crime. If Obama is pushed by Susan Rice and the evil neocons, who are strongly allied with Israel, into going it alone and conducting a military strike on Syria, Obama will have made himself an unambiguous War Criminal under the Nuremberg Standard created by the US Government. Unprovoked military aggression is a war crime under international law. That is completely clear. There are no ifs or buts about it.

If Obama now strikes Syria, when he has no cover from the UN, or from NATO, or from the American people, or from Congress, having ignored the House and Senate, Obama
will stand before the entire world, starkly, as a War Criminal. Unless the world is
prepared to flush international law, arrest orders for the War Criminal will have to come from the Hague. Obama will have to be handed over and put on trial. He will have no
more leg to stand on than did the Nazis.

The evil neocons are telling Obama that he must prove that he is a man and go it alone.
If Obama does, he will prove that he is a War Criminal.


Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/08/26/syria-another-western-war-crime-in-the-making-paul-craig-roberts/

Paul Craig Roberts

The British Parliament has rejected British military intervention in Syria. The US puppet, Cameron, who

serves as Prime Minister was forced to admit that he had no evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons,
and Parliament said, no evidence, no war. It is unlikely the French will go along without the British,
so this leaves Obama all alone with Israel. If Washington goes ahead with the strike, Obama will be
branded with the War Criminal moniker. 

The decisive action by Parliament shames the cowardly US Congress.

http://rt.com/news/uk-parliament-vote-syria-181/

Update:

The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand. However, as with Iraq, Washington's decision to commit aggression against Syria is not based on any facts. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-un-war-investigation-006/ 

The US and UK governments have revealed none of the “conclusive evidence” they claim to have that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Listening to their voices, observing their body language, and looking into their eyes, it is completely obvious that John Kerry and his British and German puppets are lying through their teeth. This is a far more shameful situation than the massive lies that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell claims that he was deceived by the White House and did not know that he was lying. Kerry and the British, French, and German puppets know full well that they are lying. 

The face that the West presents to the world is the brazen face of a liar. 

Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself. 

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government. 

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-un-weapons-inspectors-attacked-as-they-try-to-enter-poison-gas-attack-site-8784435.html 

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons.http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/obama-administration-accepts-rebels-account-on-syria-prepares-for-war/ See also http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/syria-accepts-un-inspectors-us-spurns-call-as-too-late/ 

In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection. http://rt.com/news/un-chemical-oservers-shot-000/ 

The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right. 

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. 

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.” http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.”http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/ It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/ The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.” 

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality. 

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government. 

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism? 

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.” 

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes. 

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments. 

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government. 

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.

10 13 11 flagbar

THIS BEST BOOK IS THE WORST

August 29th, 2013 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Duigon/lee215.htm

By Lee Duigon

NewsWithViews.com

Imagine how surprised and delighted I was last week when my book, “Bell Mountain” (see mini-ad on this page), won an award—a Global Ebook Award, to be exact. Yessir, I was popping my buttons over that.

But then somebody showed me another book, originally published ten years ago, that won a whole shelf-full of awards and endorsements. My book’s target audience is “Young Adults.” Folks, take a look at my competition.

“Boy Meets Boy,” by David Levithan, is described on its amazon.com page like so:

“Paul’s simple high-school life is confused by his desire for another boy who seems unattainable, until Paul’s friends help him find the courage to pursue him.” The rest of the description is along the same lines.

This tale of teenage sodomy has won the following awards: BCCB Blue Ribbon Book; YALSA Top Ten; Booklist Editors’ Choice; and a real biggie, the American Library Association Best Book for Young Adults. It’s also on half a dozen recommended reading lists, and may be found in public school libraries and municipal libraries throughout the land.

It seems there are a lot of adults who think it a desirable thing for your 14-year-old son to be engaged in homosexuality.

And Jerry Sandusky is sitting in jail because…?

It’s part of our ruling class’s slobbering love affair with sodomy. The governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, ersatz Catholic and jive Republican, says homosexuality is not a sin (he knows better than the Bible), and recently signed into law a diktat making it a crime to attempt reparative therapy for children who are troubled by unwanted desires for homosexual relationships. A psychologist could go to jail for that, just like in California. And we’ve got officers being kicked out of the U.S. military for not confessing that same-sex pseudo-marriage is “right,” and the attorney general of Oregon proposing to “rehabilitate” Christians who believe it’s wrong, and so decline to be personally involved in such perverted ceremonies. And a federal judge in New Mexico has declared that being forced to act in violation of your deeply-held religious beliefs is “the price of citizenship.”

Can anyone doubt that our country’s founders, if they were alive today, would raise armed forces to oppose this tyranny?

Oh, but it’s not tyranny! Out of the goodness of their hearts, our rulers grant that we reserve the right to believe, privately, that homosexuality is an abominable sin, as clearly stated in the Bible—as long as our actions proclaim the opposite. Get it? We can cling to our absurd religious beliefs, as long as we agree to act against them all the time. That’s what our rulers call “religious liberty.”

Who put these satanic imps in a position to tell us that? We did! In sloth and folly and apathy, we gave them the power.

But we’re not entirely to blame. How many times have we been hoodwinked by a candidate who lied to us, pretending to share our views, falsely promising to protect us—only to turn around, as soon as he’s elected, and become just another agent of Big Sodomy? How many of us pressed the button for Candidate A in the voting booth, only to have it recorded as a vote for Candidate B?

What are we to do?

Until we can fix our broken electoral system, the only thing we can do is to stand firm. Christians, I say, have a duty to pull their children out of the homosexual-proselytizing public schools and either educate them at home or in a Christian school.

We have a duty to insist that the Bible is right and our ruling class is wrong, and to act accordingly. This we must do in the millions, supported by our churches. If we can’t, or won’t, hold on to our freedom of conscience, we won’t be able to hold on to anything. We must defy those who would leave us with no freedom but the freedom to sin.

We must vote out incumbent politicians, massively. We are currently under the heel of a regime that would wipe away our religious liberties. This regime must go. If another comes along that’s just as bad, we’ll have to vote out that one, too. Who can say how many times we’ll have to do it before our leaders get the message that they are not our drovers? The important thing is to keep on doing it.

They don’t believe we can do it. They think they can just go on lording it over us forever. Whether it’s their aggressive promotion of homosexuality, or their scheme to change the electorate by granting citizenship to tens of millions of illegal aliens, they are convinced that they can radically transform our country—and it is our country—whether we like it or not.

We must not let them do it. We must fear God more than we fear them.

I can’t believe we’re living in an age when Russia may become a freer and more righteous country than America. Can you?

© 2013 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved


Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on www.amazon.com

Website: LeeDuigon.com  E-Mail: leeduigon@verizon.net


OLDDOGS COMMENTS

When will American’s wake up to the fact that the most important thing about voting is WHO COUNTS THE VOTES.

As for me, I have never voted, and never will, until people accept open voting published by the newspapers. If you are afraid of making your vote public, then I contend you should NOT VOTE! There is no other way to assure honest voting! If your vote is not published correctly then you have an option to protest it. If it’s not open to the public, it’s not and never will be reliable. As long as we have FAGS in office, we will not have an honest election. They are intellectual lepers.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

 

Blanket Immunity For American Taxpayer A Plan to Dismantle Debt Lawfully

August 28th, 2013 by

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/27/blanket-immunity-for-american-taxpayers-a-plan-to-dismantle-debt-lawfully/

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall

In the United States House of Representatives, the “Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending” (otherwise known as H.R. 2634) was passed on April 24, 2008. The heading of that Act explains the concept behind what it covers:

“H. R. 2634 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 24, 2008

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

AN ACT

To provide for greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts owed to the United States and the international financial institutions by low-income countries, and for other purposes.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008′.”

In other words, the United States wants to cancel the debts owed to it by international financial institutions in low-income countries. This is a little like a man who stands on the street starving while offering to buy the rest of the world dinner – using a credit card, of course.

You can read the rest of the Jubilee Act H.R. 2634 HERE.

It doesn’t take a lot of mathematical skill to figure this out. The dollar, or more accurately stated the Federal Reserve Note, has depreciated to the point where its value (being generous) is about 6 or 7 cents when compared to the 100 cents it was worth when the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23, 1913 and the unlawfully established Federal Reserve System took over the reins of America’s monetary management.

The 100-year contract established with this privately-owned corporation known as “The Federal Reserve” will come to an end on December 23, 2013.On its 100th anniversary, the Federal Reserve System leaves the American people about 17 trillion dollars in debt – times five in long-term debt. As of 2012, the Gross Domestic Product of the United States was close to $16.5 trillion. Comparatively, Spain’s Gross Domestic Product for 2012 was about $1.3 trillion. Spain’s debt was $2.3 trillion. Spain has a 167 debt-to-GDP ratio. The United States has a 106 percent debt-to-GDP; Italy’s debt at $2.5 trillion is 108 percent debt-to-GDP. The European Union was at 85 percent at year-end 2012.

When you take all of the above and input it into my brain, it comes out this way: For every dollar we print to repay our debt, we go 46 cents more in debt than we were before we printed the currency (or sold the bond or keyed a number into a computer) to reduce our debt. In other words, as things stand at this moment in time it is impossible for America to repay her debt. You can find the statistical data for debt-to-GDP HERE. And this is just the tip of the iceberg as it relates to actual US debt. Or, look at it this way. One trillion seconds is almost 32,000 years. So to pay off the debt, if Congress put a hundred dollar bill per second into an account to pay the debt, it would take well over 4,000 years to get the job done.

There is much history regarding the concept of what is called odious debt. Americans need to pay attention to what it is and learn to use the concept to tell the US Treasury and Federal Reserve System where to go look for the trillions of dollars they say the American people owe in government debt. According to the Doctrine of Odious Debt, we the people owe about 25 percent of what the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve System tell us we owe.

The concept of odious – or immoral – debt is not a bee I got in my bonnet one day and decided to dream a little dream of reduced debt, fewer taxes, more jobs, and a return to the Rule of Law. This is a serious matter and is one with which the nations of France, Russia, Germany and the United States are very familiar because it has been used by those nations and others.

After the Civil War, it was found that the Confederate States incurred great debt in its attempt to secede from the Union. The North won that war. It would have been immoral for the taxpayers of the United States (North and South) to be forced to pay the debts of the Confederacy which had seceded from the Union during the time the debt was incurred. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution repudiated those debts.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 4 of Amendment 14 raises some very interesting questions regarding “insurrection” or “rebellion” as, it can be argued, Citizens of this nation had an economic war declared against them by too big to jail banksters when the protections of the Glass Steagall  Act and the McFadden Act were, with careless disregard for the outcome, over-ridden. For close to ten years, Washington’s political machine has used debt to enslave the American populace… what else can you call debt that is so huge it is not repayable? The only thing that stands behind the value of the US Federal Reserve Note – American currency, regardless of what you call it – is the blood, sweat and tears of the American people. If you don’t pay your taxes, you go to jail. According to the 14thAmendment, public debt must be authorized by law. From where does our Rule of Law in America flow? The Constitution!

We do not honor debts resulting from dishonorable purposes. We did not honor the debts of the Confederacy. After the Spanish-American War ended in 1898, the US turned to the Doctrine of Odious Debt when it rejected Cuba’s debts to Spain. We said the debts “…were imposed upon the people of Cuba without their consent and by force of arms.”

The peace negotiators argued that much of the debt was used to crush the efforts of the Cuban people to revolt against the domination of the Spanish. The money was spent in a way that was contrary to the interests of the Cuban people. To ask them to pay for debts incurred to help continue keeping them in a perpetual state of slavery would be immoral… it was odious debt – or, unlawful debt. To command the people of any nation to keep their shoulders to the rock of debt and keep pushing it uphill under threat of imprisonment if they do not is… slavery. Does that mean that any funds spent by the NSA for PRISM to spy on the American people are odious – immoral? How about the funds spent by the IRS in an effort to crush the efforts of some of the American people from revolting against unconstitutional domination?

According to an excellent research article written by Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International and author of “Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World’s Environmental Legacy” (London: Earthscan, 1991), the legal Doctrine of Odious Debts was shaped and honed by Alexander Nahum Sack about 25 years after the settlement of the Spanish-American War. If you are interested in a more in-depth overview, you can find Ms. Adams’ article reprinted at the LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE SITE. She said:

“After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks repudiated Russia’s debts indiscriminately. Sack, a professor of law in Paris and former minister in the Tsarist government, authored two major works on the obligations of successor systems and defined in law which debts are legitimate and which illegitimate. With colonial territories becoming independent nation states and colonies changing hands, with monarchies being replaced by republics and military rule by civilians, with constantly changing borders throughout Europe, and with the ascendant new ideologies of socialism, communism, and fascism overthrowing old orders, Sack’s debt theories dealt with the practical problems created by such transformations of state. Like many others,

Sack believed that liability for public debts should remain intact, for these debts represent obligations of the state–the state being the territory, rather than a specific governmental structure. This he based not on some strict dictate of natural justice but on the exigencies of international commerce. Without strong rules, he believed, chaos would reign in relations between nations and international trade and finance would break down. But Sack believed that debts not created in the interests of “the state” should not be bound to this general rule. Some debts, he said, were “dettes odieuses.” If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this debt is Odious for the population of all the State,”

As I understand what is said in this well researched article, “…if a government becomes despotic and incurs debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, ”it sounds to me like all of the quantitative easing from TARP to TALF to the multi-trillion dollar loans made by the Federal Reserve System to Wall Street investment banks and international banks (as well as corporations — $16 trillion alone in 2011), can be considered “odious debt” and stricken from the books – and the backs – of the American (and French, and German, and British, and Greek, and Italian, and Spanish) people.

Since 2002, Argentina has fought the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) attempts to impose restrictive measures of economic austerity on the country. The IMF wanted to do what the IMF is known worldwide for doing: It wanted to finance infrastructure, pay for research… you know the routine: Make a country borrow and spend money building roads and airports and bridges and other “shovel ready projects.” Such strategies force any nation deeper and deeper and deeper in debt until

it is in economic ruin. Sound familiar?

On the other hand, it is equally true that Argentina seems to lack character as a state when it comes to repaying its loans. They seem to believe that banks in other nations should lend them money but they can choose not to repay – and other nations and banks should keep lending them money. They have not yet figured out that the credit process is a two-way street: “I lend you money; you repay the money.”

Aside from nations that view the Doctrine of Odious Debt as a means to get out of debt every ten years, this concept may lend itself to an exit strategy for sovereign nations of the world to escape the crushing debt being heaped on the heads of people worldwide. The idea does hold some thoughtful possibilities. Iceland thought so – and its crooked bankers and its crooked politicians sit in Icelandic prisons rather than getting multi-million dollar bonuses annually… and Iceland thrives. Too bad the Greeks and Spanish haven’t followed in their footsteps.

What the Doctrine of Odious Debt makes quite clear is that a lie has been forced upon the majority of the world’s population by oligarchic elites. They like the concept of a two-class system with them as the elitists, running things, while the rest of us who used to be middle class are shoved into the labor class forced into careers they, not we, decide are best for us.

Undoubtedly, one reason Julian Assange sits in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is because he gave copies of documented conversations between elitist bankers and others about how to cripple the economies of South America. The conversations Assange theoretically gave the South American governments focused on how to take South America’s energy resources, prevent economic recovery, and force the governments of the continent to pursue a neo-colonialist policy “so Spain, Italy and Germany can, with British capital, benefit from the difficulties sure to follow when the recommended policies are followed. ”Anyone who has read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man will recognize the parallels.

And, without intending to, Ecuador has exposed a great weakness in the world financial systems.

On December 16, 2008, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa didn’t make a scheduled interest payment on private bonds. Ecuador had defaulted in 1998 when going through a financial crisis. This time, however, was different. Correa told the world that his small nation was not going to pay “obviously immoral and illegitimate debts.”

Ecuador’s gross domestic product (GDP) is close to 50 billion euros and its “immoral debt” is about 11 billion euros. It’s a small country. But that isn’t the point. The “immoral debt” point made by Rafael Correa, was announced on television on December 12, 2008.He said immoral and illegitimate debts were those debts that violated the Ecuadorian Constitution and oppressed his people.

The question, then, becomes: What debts are “odious” or “immoral,” and which are not? What is an illegitimate debt? President Correa related the Ecuadorian “immoral debt” to violations of that nation’s Constitution. If the Tea Party and Liberty Action Groups have any understanding of the significance of what is being said here, they will find access to constitutional legal and accounting expertise that can answer the question: What debts are odious or immoral? Which debts are not?

In America, we can look at mortgage-backed derivatives and millions of unlawful foreclosures and costing the people trillions of dollars to immediately identify trillions of dollars of property value and profits by banks that can be defined no way other than immoral. Well, perhaps unlawful, too. These debts and the government funds loaned to the banksters that created them and who got bailed out by additional funds from taxes on American citizens can probably make the best claim of “immoral” or “odious” debt of any citizens in the world.

What else might represent “immoral debt?”

If, as Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa says, “illegitimate debts violate the Ecuadorian Constitution and oppressed his people,” every other country that is drowning in immoral debt can make the same logical and lawful claim. If debt is defined as anything unconstitutional, a claim can be made that the entire Federal Reserve System is “unconstitutional.”

Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;” Section 8 also says Congress has the responsibility “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”.

There is a lawful way to change the Constitution of the United States. It involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each must approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote a joint resolution amending the Constitution. The joint resolution does not require the signature of the President but is sent directly to the states for ratification. Once ratified via a vote by the People, the Constitution is lawfully amended. That is the process put in place by our Founding Fathers.

As anyone who is familiar with the history of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 knows, this procedure was not followed. Instead, politicians who supported the concept of a central bank (which America had only briefly on two occasions until 1913) let their opponents go home for Christmas on December 23rd and proceeded to pass this Act unconstitutionally. The Congress cannot, under its own limited power, change the Constitution of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the banking system that evolved from it have never been constitutional.

Foreign nations should be aware: You may be doing business with an unlawful Corporation if you’re doing business within the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System continues to be in violation of the US Constitution and not qualified to create debt in the name of the people of the United States of America… the debt of the Fed being thus “immoral” or “odious.

”That means it may be debt we, the citizens of this Great Nation, can write off.

 Even by-passing the unlawful – which means “odious” and/or “immoral” – debt created by the Federal Reserve System, there is much debt from equally unconstitutional sources. For example, only the Congress has the constitutional (moral) authority to declare war. Could that mean that any debt from non-declared wars represents “immoral debt? ”It’s certainly a good argument!

Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa says immoral and illegitimate debts violated the Constitution of his country and oppressed his people. He refused to pay them. If that is the standard by which we define “immoral debt,” it is of critical importance. It presents to the American people – to the people of the world – a strategy for getting rid of a lot of debt… immoral debt. “Oh, Immoral Debt, How do I define thee? Let me count the ways…”

It sounds like what we Americans needs is a good, old fashioned South American style refusal to repay “immoral debt.” If you really look closely at the debt incurred since 1988, a vast majority of it could easily be defined as unconstitutional and, thus, immoral – or, if you prefer, “odious.”

I love irony… especially when it bites someone in the butt who really deserves it.

MB

10 13 11 flagbar

Preventing Gun Rights Debate With Targeted Messaging

August 26th, 2013 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/preventing-gun-control-debate-with.html

By John Galt

When it comes to the verifiable truth, the establishment continues to admit that they are losing. Hillary Clinton was clear when she said they were losing the war of information to alternative media:

When facts are not on your side, the strategy must shift towards appeals to emotion, or outright propaganda. We have seen this in the war on terror and the subsequent real wars that have resulted. No WMDs? No matter. Just rile people up enough to the point where they are terrorized without the presence of real terror and now you've got a plan.

Another area where emotions trump facts is gun control. And, there again, the establishment admits they are losing on both accounts: emotions and facts. Instead of fully capitulating, however, a guidebook was produced with the title: "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging." It's worth a closer look.

Much as Hillary Clinton addressed the loss in the info-war, we have Attorney General Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder expressing the need to literally brainwash the public into believing that gun control is a cornerstone solution to all that is wrong with America. Because, as the above guide suggests:
There is an intensity gap that has built up over years. In the general public, those who view themselves as supporters of gun rights are more deeply committed to and emotionally invested in their position than those supporting stronger gun violence prevention measures. 

Notice that Holder discusses the obsession youth seem to have with violence from what they see "in the media" without ever addressing the U.S. government's obsession with using real guns and violence. This is what an emotion vs. fact argument tends to look like.  A true "anti-gun, anti-violence" message might have included not sending guns to Mexican cartels, or preemptively waging war on the planet.

Nevertheless, we see the call from Holder to employ effective messaging through repetition; and for that, ironically, they would need the help of the media.

The 70-page document mentioned above is an instruction manual to do just that. An excellent summary of the document has been presented by Ethics Alarms, wherein they rightly point out the hypocrisy that rather than empower people to resist imminent threats of violence, the strategy manual is about exploiting violence for political gain after the fact.

“The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek,” the guide points out. “When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” Early on, the document it makes it clear that the “communication efforts” must always concentrate on stirring up emotions, not relying on facts or engaging in substantive debate. “A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”

 Recommended phrases to use in forums and interviews include, 

“It breaks my heart that every day in our country (state or city) children wake up worried and frightened about getting shot.” 

“Just imagine the pain that a mother or father feels when their young child is gunned down.” 

"The real outrage – the thing that makes this violence so unforgivable – is that we know how to stop it and we’re not getting it done.”

These are prime examples of how to short-circuit critical thinking and replace it with the obvious emotions any empathetic individual should have toward any violence. There is also, of course, the assumption that "gun violence prevention measures" involve anything but guns. However, the facts get in the way. Just one study, in fact, obliterates this notion. The Cato Institute's Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens used "an extensive collection of news reports from over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America."

The immediate difference between just this one statement, and what is suggested throughout the "effective messaging" manual is that it relies on a comprehensive overview of actual reports, rather than the emotional pull of one single event, or theoretical event, i.e. "imagine the pain of a mother or father…"

People have been taught through government/media messaging that any appeal to facts is callous, which gets leveraged to prove their non-factual statements. Whereas, the call to facts and logic is precisely the opposite, it seeks real-world solutions to stop violence, not just make people feel good about being involved in failed policies.

Another study conducted at Harvard makes the case for gun proliferation even clearer: the more guns a nation has, the less crime it has. This can be further supported on a state-by-state case basis.

Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws

The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? Of course not. As I wrote about recently, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city". If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.

After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89% decline in burglaries

(Source)

However, if one wants really wants to appeal to emotions, don't worry, that is also available to supporters of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. How about some of these stories? Can you imagine the pain of your sister, mother, grandmother, girlfriend or wife not standing a chance against a violent criminal?

Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year. (Source)

Female Marine Kills Attacker in Self-Defense: Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who had been stalking her.

Minneapolis Good Neighbor Apprehends Robbery Suspect: Seeing an armed criminal rob a woman of her purse at gunpoint and pistol-whip her, a Minneapolis CCW holder pursued the robber in an attempt to capture him, which resulted in a confrontation in which the citizen had to shoot the robber, who later died of his wounds.Ohio Woman

Shoots Ex-Boyfriend That Restraining Order Failed to Stop: An Ohio woman who feared that her ex-boyfriend and father of their two children was not going to be deterred by the restraining order requiring him to stay away armed herself with a pistol and was glad she did when the ex-boyfriend broke into her home and assaulted her with a crowbar. Fearing for her life, she shot and killed the intruder. Under Ohio's newly-adopted Castle Doctrine, there is a presumption of self-defense in circumstances such as these.

Released Inmate Shot Dead During Redding, CA Home Invasion: 37-year-old Jesse Theis was released early Thursday morning from the Shasta County Jail and before sun-up Friday, he invaded a Redding, CA home. The 66-year-old female homeowner fired warning shots when she heard someone trying to force entry into her home. When the invader tried a short time later to climb into her window, she shot him dead. They had been released due to a county prison policy designed to ease over-crowding by requiring the daily release of those inmates prison officials deemed “low-risk.”

Armed Houston Dad Foils Attack on 14-Year-Old Daughter: Hearing a commotion shortly after his daughter had left for school early one morning, Richard Goodie left his house to see two men, one of them armed, accosting his daughter. Goodie’s warning shot failed to frighten off the assailants, one of whom put the daughter in a choke hold and a pistol to her head while threatening to kill the girl if her father did not back off. While the assailant was dragging the daughter away, some space opened up between the daughter and the bad guy, allowing the father to shoot the suspect in the stomach, ending the encounter and putting the second suspect to flight. No charges are expected against the father, who says he did what he had to do to save his daughter.

NC Woman Defends Family Members: A North Carolina family was returning to their vehicle at 1 a.m. after some Black Friday shopping at a Myrtle Beach, SC Walmart when they were set upon by armed robbers. One of the robbers shot a woman in the foot, even though she had surrendered her purse on their demand. The woman’s son attempted to protect his mother, and was shot at and pistol-whipped for his efforts. The woman’s sister, hearing shots fired as she entered her vehicle, picked up her own loaded pistol from the vehicle’s console and confronted the robbers. Not wanting to shoot directly at the robbers for fear of hitting her family or bystanders, she fired two shots over the heads of each robber, scaring them off. Her family credits the legally-armed woman with saving the lives of her sister and nephew.

Ohio Woman Fights Off Sex Offender: An Ohio woman had her concealed pistol permit for three years, but wasn’t sure whether she could actually use the gun if needed. She found out recently that she could when a 23-year-old sex offender accosted her at a bank and forced his way into her car while making sexually suggestive remarks. The woman was able to reach her pistol in her car console but couldn’t bring it to bear against her attacker while struggling with him in the confined space of her vehicle. Her warnings of having a gun had no effect on the assailant, so she stuck the gun out the open passenger door and fired one shot in the air, scaring him off. Police apprehended him a short time later in the same area. The woman now knows she is capable of defending herself, and urges other women to take heart from her experience and prepare to defend themselves. Police said her use of the gun was appropriate, and was exactly the reason law-abiding people get carry permits.

There are many, many more examples. And, ironically, if the above events had not taken place, and some of these people fell victim to gun-related death, they would have been exploited in a call for further gun control!

Between this messaging manual in favor of gun control, and the studies showing the negative effects of gun control, the information is out there on both sides of the argument. There is no longer any excuse to rely solely on emotional appeals … unless of course you have your facts wrong, or you are in the deliberate service of a specific political agenda.

10 13 11 flagbar

The Confidential Memo at the Heart of the Global Financial Crisis

August 24th, 2013 by

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/08/23/the-confidential-memo-at-the-heart-of-the-global-financial-crisis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/the-confidential-memo-at-the-heart-of-the-global-financial-crisis/

By TRUTHER

When a little birdie dropped the End Game memo through my window, its content was so explosive, so sick and plain evil, I just couldn’t believe it.

The Memo confirmed every conspiracy freak’s fantasy: that in the late 1990s, the top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to rip apart financial regulation across the planet. When you see 26.3 percent unemployment in Spain, desperation and hunger in Greece, riots in Indonesia and Detroit in bankruptcy, go back to this End Game memo, the genesis of the blood and tears.

The Treasury official playing the bankers’ secret End Game was Larry Summers. Today, Summers is Barack Obama’s leading choice for Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, the world’s central bank. If the confidential memo is authentic, then Summers shouldn’t be serving on the Fed, he should be serving hard time in some dungeon reserved for the criminally insane of the finance world.

The memo is authentic.

I had to fly to Geneva to get confirmation and wangle a meeting with the Secretary General of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy. Lamy, the Generalissimo of Globalisation, told me,

“The WTO was not created as some dark cabal of multinationals secretly cooking plots against the people… We don’t have cigar-smoking, rich, crazy bankers negotiating.”

Then I showed him the memo.

It begins with Larry Summers’ flunky, Timothy Geithner, reminding his boss to call the Bank bigshots to order their lobbyist armies to march:

“As we enter the end-game of the WTO financial services negotiations, I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs…”

To avoid Summers having to call his office to get the phone numbers (which, under US law, would have to appear on public logs), Geithner listed the private lines of what were then the five most powerful CEOs on the planet. And here they are:

Goldman Sachs: John Corzine (212)902-8281

Merrill Lynch: David Kamanski (212)449-6868

Bank of America: David Coulter (415)622-2255

Citibank: John Reed (212)559-2732

Chase Manhattan: Walter Shipley (212)270-1380

Lamy was right: They don’t smoke cigars. Go ahead and dial them. I did, and sure enough, got a cheery personal hello from Reed – cheery until I revealed I wasn’t Larry Summers. (Note: The other numbers were swiftly disconnected. And Corzine can’t be reached while he faces criminal charges.)

It’s not the little cabal of confabs held by Summers and the banksters that’s so troubling. The horror is in the purpose of the “end game” itself.

Let me explain:

The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.

Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: “derivatives trading”. JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as “assets”.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.

But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?

The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet — in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous.

How could they pull off this mad caper? The bankers’ and Summers’ game was to use the Financial Services Agreement (or FSA), an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organisation.

Until the bankers began their play, the WTO agreements dealt simply with trade in goods – that is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules devised by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept trade in “bads” – toxic assets like financial derivatives.

Until the bankers’ re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives “products”.

And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives.

The job of turning the FSA into the bankers’ battering ram was given to Geithner, who was named Ambassador to the World Trade Organisation.

Bankers Go Bananas

Why in the world would any nation agree to let its banking system be boarded and seized by financial pirates like JP Morgan?

The answer, in the case of Ecuador, was bananas. Ecuador was truly a banana republic. The yellow fruit was that nation’s life-and-death source of hard currency. If it refused to sign the new FSA, Ecuador could feed its bananas to the monkeys and go back into bankruptcy. Ecuador signed.

And so on – with every single nation bullied into signing.

Every nation but one, I should say. Brazil’s new President, Inacio Lula da Silva, refused. In retaliation, Brazil was threatened with a virtual embargo of its products by the European Union’s Trade Commissioner, one Peter Mandelson, according to another confidential memo I got my hands on. But Lula’s refusenikstance paid off for Brazil which, alone among Western nations, survived and thrived during the 2007-9 bank crisis.

China signed – but got its pound of flesh in return. It opened its banking sector a crack in return for access and control of the US auto parts and other markets. (Swiftly, two million US jobs shifted to China.)

The new FSA pulled the lid off the Pandora’s box of worldwide derivatives trade. Among the notorious transactions legalized: Goldman Sachs (where Treasury Secretary Rubin had been co-chairman) worked a secret euro-derivatives swap with Greece which, ultimately, destroyed that nation. Ecuador, its own banking sector de-regulated and demolished, exploded into riots. Argentina had to sell off its oil companies (to the Spanish) and water systems (to Enron) while its teachers hunted for food in garbage cans. Then, Bankers Gone Wild in the Eurozone dove head-first into derivatives pools without knowing how to swim – and the continent is now being sold off in tiny, cheap pieces to Germany.

Of course, it was not just threats that sold the FSA, but temptation as well. After all, every evil starts with one bite of an apple offered by a snake. The apple: the gleaming piles of lucre hidden in the FSA for local elites. The snake was named Larry.

Does all this evil and pain flow from a single memo? Of course not: the evil was The Game itself, as played by the banker clique. The memo only revealed their game-plan for checkmate.

And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.

While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster, Rubin and Summers didn’t do too badly. Rubin’s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called “Citigroup”. Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.

Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama. Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin’s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US “Economics Tsar” and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury). In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to “consulting” for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers’ net worth by $31 million since the “end-game” memo.

That Obama would, at Robert Rubin’s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game.

Special thanks to expert Mary Bottari of Bankster USA www.BanksterUSA.org without whom our investigation could not have begun.

The film of my meeting with WTO chief Lamy was originally created for Ring of Fire, hosted by Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Further discussion of the documents I laid before Lamy can be found in “The Generalissimo of Globalization,” Chapter 12 of Vultures’ Picnic by Greg Palast (Constable Robinson 2012).

http://www.amazon.com/Vultures-Picnic-Petroleum-High-Finance-Carnivores/dp/0452298644/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/?tag=wwwgregpala03-20

10 13 11 flagbar

The Constitution That Never Was

August 19th, 2013 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/the-constitution-that-never-was.html

By Susan Boskey

Lately the Internet has been abuzz about “Constitution-free zones.” Through out American history the government has had increased authority to search and protect at the borders. However, in the name of national security, the Department of Homeland Security has exceeded already expanded government authority. A DHS executive summary of February 2013 reminded Americans of the legitimate “warrantless searches” they can perform at U.S. (extended) borders and at their functional equivalent (international airports).

The border search exception permits government officials to conduct ‘routine’ searches based on no suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever. –Congressional Report Service, 2009

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of 1787 requires that a search or seizure conducted by a government agent must be “reasonable.” U.S. courts have generally decided Fourth Amendment reasonableness included probable cause and the need for a judicially granted warrant. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has made several exceptions to the requirements of reasonableness.

The Supreme Court’s border-search exceptions have effectively removed Fourth Amendment protection. What’s more, the extended border spans a distance of 100 miles inland all the way around the country. The estimate is that the extended border includes most large metropolitan areas and approximately 197 million or two-thirds of Americans. This is what the ACLU has named the Constitution-free zone.
Here is the evidence for the “extended” border:
Title 8 of the Federal Code of Regulations

CHAPTER I: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SUB CHAPTER B: IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS

PART 287: FIELD OFFICERS; POWERS AND DUTIES

287.1 – Definitions.

(a)(1) External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.

(2) Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

Bottom line: If federal laws are subject to the Constitution as the law of the land and cannot supersede them, it is logically impossible for the Constitution to be alive “here” but absent “there.” Classical physics tells us two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Can one be a little pregnant? No, you are either pregnant or not at all. If the Constitution is the law of the land, can there be a time or place where it is NOT the law of the land?” I don’t think so.

The border exception is just one example of the many unconstitutional laws that continue to be made with impunity. When George W. Bush said the Constitution was just a G-D piece of paper, patriots let out a collective gasp of horror. Actually, what President George Bush blurted out may have been one of the most intelligent things he ever said.

We have a government, apparently it holds itself exempt from the Constitution, holds itself exempt from oversight and public interest. You have this other side of government which I've said it's the state religion of–you know, it's–the state religion of the government is national security. And you don't question it. You don't speak ill will of it. And the last thing you do is hold up a mirror, because you hold up a mirror, you get criminalized. –Thomas Drake, former senior executive of NSA

According to deep research of 34-year career attorney and law researcher, Dr. Eduardo Rivera, the Constitution of 1787 has never been officially adopted, and this fact lies at the root of why the U.S. Government gets away with so much that is unconstitutional. He cites April 30, 1789, the day George Washington was inaugurated and took the Article II oath for the office of President of the United States as a pivotal day in American history. Here’s why.

As president of a separate executive branch per the Constitution, Washington held two distinct offices, head of government and head of state. As head of government (Article II. Section 2), a U.S. president is the chief executive responsible for overseeing the day-to-day issues of the bureaucracy and has the power to either to accept or veto legislation passed by Congress. As head of state (Article II. Section 1.), a U.S. president has a largely ceremonial role but also explicit powers to grant reprieves and pardons and to retain the title of commander-in-chief of all military forces during times of war. Additionally, the Constitution identifies two distinct oaths, one for each office: the familiar Article II oath for the office of head of government and the Article VI oath for the office of head of state.

George Washington took the Article II oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” as President of the United States. This oath lawfully affirmed him as head of government, the chief executive.

Article II. Section 1 oath – Head of Government

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. So help me God.

The oath George Washington did not take, however, was the Article VI oath to lawfully affirm him as head of state of the United States of America. Per Article VI of the Constitution, this second oath assures “the Adoption of this Constitution.”

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added)

Article VI oath – Head of State

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (emphasis added)

Why then did George Washington not also take the Article VI oath on Thursday, April 30, 1789? Simple. He had not fulfilled one of the three constitutional qualifications for the presidency, the residency requirement of fourteen years. (See below.) Given the 1776 founding of America, no one could meet this qualification for the office of President of the United States of America until after July 4, 1790.

Article II. Section 2. Clause 5

  1. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
  2. neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
  3. and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

To have been lawfully affirmed and “bound” to “support and defend the Constitution” for the office of head of state, Washington would have had to additionally take the Article VI oath conferring the “adoption” of “this Constitution” The Article VI oath reads, “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution hereafter.” Given the importance of the meaning of words in matters of law, all executive officers means all; yet the Article VI oath has become the oath taken only by federal employees other than the president, the top executive officer of the country.

The Article II oath continues as the only oath required of presidents. It affirms a president as the chief executive officer, an employee (in commerce) answerable to the Congress of the U.S. Government. Even so, all presidents since Washington have continued to act as head of state. The Constitution as law of the land may have been one of the earliest and cruelest hoodwinks on the American people ever.

Susan Boskey, freelance researcher and writer, is author of the book, The Quality Life Plan®: 7 Steps to Uncommon Financial Security www.AlternativeFinancialNow.com and more recently helped bring to market the book, Beyond the National Myth: waking up in the land of the free www.nationalmyth.org

10 13 11 flagbar

Video FEMA Preparing For The Worst In Region 3 Why?

August 18th, 2013 by

http://www.pakalertpress.com

OR FOR BETTER AUDIO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

feature=player_embedded&v=REbuE9Ir82E

By Susan Duclos

Well this is pretty creepy. According to a notice sent by Senator Sheldon R. Songstad, Ret. ofSouth Dakota State and published, with a video, which will be shown below, titled “Emergency Fema Region 3 Alert!!!,” the government obviously believes something big is coming.

8-18-2013 10-50-44 AM

Region three includes, DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV.

The preparations listed include; Nine-week training course for UN Peacekeepers in CONUS to learn Urban Warfare, English, and US weapons systems beginning 4th week of July for 386,000 troops to be completed by October 1st.

$11 million in antibiotics to be delivered to FEMA region III by October 1st ordered by CDC;

FEMA purchase orders for over $14.2 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Region III by October 1st;

FEMA purchase orders for 22 million pouches of emergency water to be delivered to region III by October 1st;

FEMA purchase orders for $13.6 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Austin by October 1st;

2800 MRAPs must be delivered to DHS by October 1st;

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

I know that many of you simply cannot believe anything bad can happen to us American citizens because we live in the land of the free, and the home of the brave, but I’m telling you now that you better be prepared to defend yourself from your own government in the near future. You will soon see all your hopes and dreams go up in smoke if you are not prepared to fight back.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

10 13 11 flagbar

Record High Demand For Physical Gold Threatens To Break The Back Of The Paper Gold Market

August 17th, 2013 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/

record-high-demand-for-physical-gold.html

By Michael Snyder 08 17 13

The demand for physical gold is exploding all over the world, and bullion banks are now experiencing a supply crunch that is absolutely unprecedented. As physical demand continues to rise, the massive Ponzi scheme that the bullion banks have been engaged in is going to become increasingly obvious, and at some point the lack of physical gold is going to break the back of the paper gold market and we are going to see the price of gold go to levels that we have never seen before.


You see, the truth is that the central banks of the world and the bullion banks have made “paper promises” that vastly exceed the amount of actual physical gold in existence. This kind of scheme works fine if everyone does not come asking for their gold at the same time. Unfortunately for the ones running this scheme, people are now starting to ask for their gold back and it is causing huge problems.

It started earlier this year when Germany asked for 300 metric tons of their gold which was supposedly being held at the New York Fed.  If the New York Fed really did have as much physical gold as they claim that they do, that request should have been no problem.  Instead, the Germans were told that it would take seven years to fulfill the request.

At that point, alarm bells started to go off in financial circles all over the planet.  People all over the globe began asking for their gold back, and now this is causing serious stress for the bullion banks.

The following is what Hong Kong hedge fund manager William Kaye told King World News the other day…
 

There are serious strains in the (gold) system. I’ve never witnessed such a serious strain in my lifetime in terms of the backwardation of gold, and in terms of the lease rates being negative for such an extended period of time. This suggests that there are two forces at work: One is that there are serious strains in the system — that the bullion banks are struggling to come up with the physical gold for spot delivery that the market demands.


Right now the bullion banks are experiencing unprecedented difficulties coming up with the physical gold and physical silver that they are supposed to have. Evidence of this supply squeeze is starting to pop up all over the place.  Some of this evidence was summarized in a recent article by Jim Willie
 

It’s so ugly that in the silver market, JPMorgan has not yet satisfied and delivered on the June silver futures contracts!  It’s so ugly that using hidden entities that Andrew Maguire has detected in London, JPM is using hidden entities to hog 90% of the July silver deliveries! It appears that JPM doesn’t have the silver to meet June delivery, and is trying to replenish their own vaults by taking delivery in London, secretly, to replenish their inventory!   Where are they getting it from?  Maybe the SLV!

The JPM clients have removed between December and June- close to 40,000 kg of gold- thats 40 metric tons.  While JPM’s house account has removed over 40 tons in the same period!  What’s the lesson there?  It appears JPM’s best friends and clients don’t trust them anymore!

My best source (originally a trader with Scotia Mocatta) tells me that the allocated gold account raids have resulted in 40-60,000 tons of gold!   (The US likely doesn’t have any of its reported 8,500 tons left at all!).   Rubin and Clinton might have made $2-$3 trillion leasing and selling the US gold.  Someday the US may have to replenish its gold.

We’ve had other things like ABN Amro’s default, and another small Dutch bank just made the same statement that they’re not going to redeem on gold accounts.  Morgan Stanley is stalling on every single metals transfer request.  When it is finally transferred the serial numbers and weights are different than what was documented.  Clearly the broker dealers are going into the market to find the gold, to find supply just in order to meet their daily requirements.

The Brinks’ accounts are going bare and are almost down to zero – these are all problems on the supply side!

At some point the lack of physical gold and the lack of physical silver are going to become glaringly apparent to the general public, and at that point we could see a fundamental shift in the marketplace. Keith Barron speculated on what the “trigger” for this shift might be during a recent interview with King World News
 

All I know is that this ‘trigger’ which is going to ignite this move is coming, and it will involve substantial repricing of both gold and silver. One possible trigger may turn out to be a failure of the COMEX. We do know that there is a shortage of physical gold for delivery, and that’s because so much gold is going to Asia right now.

You can see by the price action in the U.S. dollar right now that the Asians are dumping their dollars. But, interestingly, they are also paying a premium to get physical gold right now with no delay in shipment. So there is a loss of faith in the paper gold and silver markets by major participants. It’s almost as if they expect a failure.

Barron is fully convinced that we will eventually see a “breaking” of the COMEX which will shock the world…
 

I firmly believe there will be a point in the future when this sort of event triggers a run on the COMEX, and more and more entities are going to ask for physical delivery. This will have the effect of breaking the COMEX and creating a failure. When that takes place you will see an explosion in the prices of gold and silver that will literally shock market participants around the world.

And the truth is that this has been a long time in coming.  The bullion banks should never have made so many empty paper promises.

There is only so much physical gold out there.  Warren Buffett once estimated that if all of the gold in the entire world was gathered into one place, it could be formed into a cube that would only be 69 feet long by 69 feet high by 69 feet wide.

That isn’t a whole lot of physical gold.

But there is a massive amount of “paper gold” out there today.  In fact, as I noted recently, the Reserve Bank of India says that “the traded amount of ‘paper linked to gold’ exceeds by far the actual supply of physical gold: the volume on the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) OTC market and the major Futures and Options Exchanges was OVER 92 TIMES that of the underlying Physical Market.”

Did you grasp that?

The reserve bank of India says that there is more than 92 times as much “paper gold” as there is physical gold.

This is why you want to own physical gold.

And right now the global appetite for physical gold is absolutely voracious.

According to CNN, consumer demand for physical gold is now at an all-time record high…
 

Bargain-hunters are snapping up gold jewelry and coins as investors desert the metal and world prices plunge.

Global consumer demand for gold hit its highest level ever in the second quarter, spiking to 1,083 tons, up 53% compared to the same time last year.

Most of that demand came from China and India, where consumers rushed to buy jewelry, coins and gold bars.

In fact, according to the latest World Gold Council Gold Demand Trends report, demand for gold bars and gold coins in the second quarter was up 78 percent over the same quarter last year…
 

Globally, jewellery demand was up 37% in Q2 2013 to 576 tonnes (t) from 421t in the same quarter last year, reaching its highest level since Q3 2008. In China, demand was up 54% compared to a year ago; while in India demand increased by 51%. There were also significant increases in demand for gold jewellery in other parts of the world: the Middle East region was up by 33%, and in Turkey demand grew by 38%.

Bar and coin investment grew by 78% globally compared to the same quarter last year, topping 500t in a quarter for the first time.  In China, demand for gold bars and coins surged 157% compared with the same quarter last year, while in India it jumped 116% to a record 122t. Taking jewellery demand and bar and coin investment together, global consumer demand totalled 1,083t in the quarter, 53% higher than a year ago.

For the tenth consecutive quarter, central banks were net buyers of gold, purchasing 71t, which reinforces the trend that began in Q1 2011.

All of this physical demand is putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the paper market.
At some point the paper market is going to break.

When that happens, the price of gold is going to go absolutely skyrocketing.

This article first appeared here at the American Dream.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

10 13 11 flagbar

NSA Domestic Spying Built On Lies

August 16th, 2013 by

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/

1058/NSA-Domestic-Spying-Built-On-Lies.aspx

By Chuck Baldwin

Kit Daniels recently wrote a brief but very enlightening news story on InfoWars.com:

“On the August 6 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Dr. Ron Paul responded to this very straightforward statement which appeared in a recent New York Times article:

“‘Some analysts and Congressional officials suggested Friday that emphasizing a terrorist threat now was a good way to divert attention from the uproar over the N.S.A.’s data-collection programs, and that if it showed the intercepts had uncovered a possible plot, even better.’

“‘Well, it’s not amazing that this is the truth,’ Paul said in response. ‘It’s amazing, I think, that the New York Times would admit it.’

“Paul went on to say that the NSA’s claim of saving Americans from dozens of terrorist attacks is simply rhetoric to prove that the agency’s massive spying on Americans is a good thing.

“‘Their (the NSA officials) claimed successes are all built on lies,’ Paul said.

Paul referred to NSA Deputy Director John Inglis’ admission that the agency’s warrantless wiretapping only prevented maybe one terrorist plot and even that one is questionable, which contradicts the NSA’s earlier claim of 54 thwarted plots.

“‘It’s all based on lies and I think this is probably a benefit to us because most Americans now are being very, very leery of what our government tells us,’ Paul continued. ‘This is a terrible thing to have to go through… who wants to have to give up on their country?’

“‘We don’t want to give up on our country but I think it’s high time we gave up on a lot of our politicians and the way our government is being run.’”

See the report at:

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-calls-nsas-alexander-and-clapper-liars/

What is even more amazing than the New York Times reporting such a story is the fact that some of Barack Obama’s biggest Hollywood supporters are beginning to recognize the evil machinations of Obama’s domestic spying.

Breitbart.com covered the following story:

“Actor Matt Damon told Black Entertainment Television (BET) that President Barack Obama ‘has some explaining to do:’

“‘There are a lot of things that I really question–the legality of the drone strikes, these NSA revelations. Jimmy Carter came out and said we don’t live in a democracy. That’s a little intense when an ex-president says that. So you know, he’s got some explaining to do, particularly for a constitutional law professor.’

“When asked his opinion of the President's second term, Damon chuckled and said, ‘He broke up with me.’

Damon is not the only one in Hollywood angry over the NSA’s domestic spying. Included in the list are Alec Baldwin, Judd Apatow, Steve Martin, Rob Schneider, Patton Oswalt, John Cusack, Janine Turner, and even (Egad!) Michael Moore.

Here is my problem: how is it that liberal actors in Hollywood can see, and are willing to speak out against, the unconstitutional citizen spying apparatus that Barack Obama is implementing against the American people and our country’s pastors and Christian leaders neither see it nor have spoken out against it? What the heck is going on? You mean to tell me that actors in Hollywood care more about freedom than the men standing behind America’s pulpits? Creepers, Batman!

Plus, neither let us forget that it was George W. Bush who put all of the infrastructure, policies, and laws in place which created the machinery for everything that Obama’s NSA is currently using against the American citizenry. This is NOT a political issue. Both Republican and Democrat administrations and congresses have collaborated to eviscerate the Bill of Rights and turn America into a giant surveillance society.

What is it about people (including Christians and Republicans) that cause them to be infatuated with a police state? All one has to do is say that some law, no matter how egregiously oppressive it might be, is in the interest of “national security,” and, presto, everyone blindly supports it. Yes, yes, I realize that not everyone supports it. Ron Paul and a few others oppose this slippery slope; but the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats, pastors and Christians, liberals and conservatives, the media elite and journalists, do support it.

With all of this love and infatuation that so many people have with the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the NDAA, the NSA, etc., why don’t these same people love Nazi Socialism? After all, the surveillance society created by G.W. Bush and Barack Obama makes Hitler’s spy apparatus look amateurish by comparison.

Does anyone really not know that the NSA is lying to us? Does anyone really believe that the surveillance society is about protecting the American people from a few thousand Sand People?

The last report I read on the topic said that the TSA now has almost ONE MILLION people on the no-fly watch list. Almost one million! Al Qaeda has never numbered more than a few thousand people (not to mention that Al Qaeda is a contrivance of our own CIA). And at the rate we keep killing their “number two” guys, it is questionable just how many of them are truly left. Let’s put it this way: there are far more people on the TSA watch list than there are Al Qaeda members worldwide. But it really doesn’t matter how many or few of them there are; they justify America’s politicians turning the United States into a giant police state–for our own protection, or course. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!

Researcher Joel Skousen quotes a Reuters news report saying, “Details of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program that feeds tips to federal agents and then instructs them to alter the investigation trail were published in a manual used by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for two years.

“A 350-word entry in the Internal Revenue Manuel instructed agents of the U.S. tax agency to omit any reference to tips supplied by the DEA’s Special Operations Division, especially from affidavits, court proceedings or investigative files. The entry was published and posted online in 2005 and 2006, and was removed in early 2007. The IRS is among two dozen arms of the government working with the Special Operations Division, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Reuters broke another report about the way the government lies to us entitled, “U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans.” From the report: “‘I have never heard of anything like this at all,’ said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.

“‘It is one thing to create special rules for national security,’ Gertner said. ‘Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations.’”

See the report at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

Ron Paul knows the NSA is lying to us; Alex Jones knows they are lying to us; Stewart Rhodes knows they are lying to us; Joel Skousen knows they are lying to us; Matt Damon knows they are lying to us; Alec Baldwin knows they are lying to us; the New York Times knows they are lying to us; Reuters news knows they are lying to us; even Michael Moore knows they are lying to us. So, why don’t America’s pastors and Christian leaders know they are lying to us?

© Chuck Baldwin

10 13 11 flagbar

OBAMACARE PROVISION FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS

August 15th, 2013 by

http://benswann.com/obamacare-provision-forced-home-inspections/

By Joshua Cook

 “Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.”

According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:

  • Families where mom is not yet 21.
  • Families where someone is a tobacco user.
  • Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
  • Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,

“This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation. Intervention may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

Part of the program will require massive data collecting of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

A manual called Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention includes firearms as potential safety hazard  and will require inspectors to verify safety compliance and record each inspection into a database.

Last session South Carolina Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a bill, H.3101 that would nullify certain provisions of Obamacare. The bill would give the state attorney general the authority to authorize law enforcement to arrest federal agents for trespassing. It would make forced home inspections under Obamacare illegal in South Carolina. It passed in the House but died in the senate.

Kent Brown and Rep. Rick Quinn discuss “forced” home inspections under Obamacare in the video below.

Joshua Cook is a native and resident of the South Carolina Upstate. He received his MBA from North Greenville University and is actively involved in South Carolina politics.

10 13 11 flagbar

Humanity Is Drowning In Washington’s Criminality

August 14th, 2013 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/08/13/humanity-is-drowning-in-washingtons-criminality-paul-craig-roberts/

By Paul Craig Roberts

Americans will soon be locked into an unaccountable police state unless US Representatives and Senators find the courage to ask questions and to sanction the executive branch officials who break the law, violate the Constitution, withhold information from Congress, and give false information about their crimes against law, the Constitution, the American people and those in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. Congress needs to use the impeachment power that the Constitution provides and cease being subservient to the lawless executive branch. The US faces no threat that justifies the lawlessness and abuse of police powers that characterize the executive branch in the 21st century.

Impeachment is the most important power of Congress. Impeachment is what protects the citizens, the Constitution, and the other branches of government from abuse by the executive branch. If the power to remove abusive executive branch officials is not used, the power ceases to exist. An unused power is like a dead letter law. Its authority disappears. By acquiescing to executive branch lawlessness, Congress has allowed the executive branch to place itself above law and to escape accountability for its violations of law and the Constitution.

National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper blatantly lied to Congress and remains in office. Keith B. Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency, has also misled Congress, and he remains in office. Attorney General Holder avoids telling Congress the truth on just about every subject, and he also remains in office. The same can be said for President Obama, one of the great deceivers of our time, who is so adverse to truth that truth seldom finds its way out of his mouth.

If an American citizen lies to a federal investigator, even if not under oath, the citizen can be arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison. Yet, these same federal personnel can lie to Congress and to citizens with impunity. Whatever the American political system is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with accountable government. In Amerika no one is accountable but citizens, who are accountable not only to law but also to unaccountable charges for which no evidence is required.

Congress has the power to impeach any presidential appointee as well as the president. In the 1970s Congress was going to impeach President Richard Nixon simply because he lied about when he learned of the Watergate burglary. To avoid impeachment, Nixon resigned. In the 1990s, the House impeached President Bill Clinton for lying about his sexual affair with a White House intern. The Senate failed to convict, no doubt as many had sexual affairs of their own and didn’t want to be held accountable themselves.

In the 1970s when I was on the Senate staff, corporate lobbyists would send attractive women to seduce Senators so that the interest groups could blackmail the Senators to do their bidding. Don’t be surprised if the NSA has adopted this corporate practice.

The improprieties of Nixon and Clinton were minor, indeed of little consequence, when compared to the crimes of George W. Bush and Obama, their vice presidents, and the bulk of their presidential appointees. Yet, impeachment is “off the table,” as Nancy Pelosi infamously declared.http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html Why do Californian voters send a person to Congress who refuses to protect them from an unaccountable executive branch? Who does Nancy Pelosi serve? Certainly not the people of California. Most certainly not the US Constitution. Pelosi is in total violation of her oath of office. Will Californians re-elect her yet again? Little wonder America is failing.

The question demanding to be asked is: What is the purpose of the domestic surveillance of all Americans? This is surveillance out of all proportion to the alleged terrorist threat. The US Constitution is being ignored and domestic law violated. Why? Does the US government have an undeclared agenda for which the “terrorist threat” is a cover?

What is this agenda? Whose agenda is more important than the US Constitution and the accountability of government to law? No citizen is secure unless government is accountable to the Constitution and to law. It is an absurd idea that any American is more threatened by terrorism than by unaccountable government that can execute them, torture them, and throw them in prison for life without due process or any accountability whatsoever. Under Bush/Obama, the US has returned to the unaccountable power of caesars, czars, and autocrats.

In the famous play, “A Man For All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of England, asks: So, you would have me to cut down the law in order to chase after devils? And what will we do, with the law cut down, when the devil turns on us?

This is the most important legal question ever asked, and it is seldom asked today, not in our law schools, not by our bar associations, and most certainly not by the Justice (sic) Department or US Attorneys.

American conservatives regard civil liberties as mere excuses for liberal judges to coddle criminals and terrorists. Never expect a conservative Republican, or more than two or three of them, to defend your civil liberty. Republicans simply do not believe in civil liberty. Democrats cannot conceive that Obama–the first black president in office, a member of an oppressed minority–would not defend civil liberty. This combination of disinterest and denial is why the US has become a police state.

Civil liberty has few friends in government, the political parties, law schools, bar associations, or the federal judiciary. Consequently, no citizen is secure. Recently, a housewife researched online for pressure cookers looking for the best deal. Her husband was searching for a backpack. The result was that a fully armed SWAT team appeared at the door demanding to search the premises and to have questions answered. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/

I am always amazed when someone says: “I haven’t done anything wrong. I have nothing to fear.” If you have nothing to fear from the government, why did the Founding Fathers put the protections in the Constitution that Bush and Obama have stripped out? Unlike the Founding Fathers who designed our government to protect the citizens, the American sheeple trust the government to their own demise.

Glenn Greenwald recently explained how the mass of data that is being accumulated on every American is being mined for any signs of non-terrorist-related criminal behavior. As such warrantless searches are illegal evidence in a criminal trial, the authorities disguise the illegal way in which the evidence is obtained in order to secure conviction based on illegally obtained evidence.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35773.htm

In other words, the use of the surveillance justified by the “war on terror” has already spread into prosecutions of ordinary criminals where it has corrupted legal safeguards and the integrity, if any, of the criminal court system, prosecutors and judges.

This is just one of the many ways in which you have much to fear, whether you think you are doing anything wrong or not. You can be framed for crimes based on inferences drawn from your Internet activity and jokes with friends on social media. Jurors made paranoid by the “terrorist threat” will convict you.

We should be very suspicious of the motive behind the universal spying on US citizens. The authorities are aware that the terrorist threat does not justify the unconstitutional and illegal spying. There have been hardly any real terrorist events in the US, which is why the FBI has to find clueless people around whom to organize an FBI orchestrated plot in order to keep the “terrorist threat” alive in the public’s mind. At last count, there have been 150 “sting operations” in which the FBI recruits people, who are out of touch with reality, to engage in a well-paid FBI designed plot. Once the dupes agree, they are arrested as terrorists and the plot revealed, always with the accompanying statement that the public was never in any danger as the FBI was in control.

When 99 percent of all terrorism is organized by the FBI, why do we need NSA spying on every communication of every American and people in the rest of the world?

Terrorism seldom comes from outside. The source almost always is the government in power. The Czarist secret police set off bombs in order to blame and arrest labor agitators. The Nazis burned down the Reichstag in order to decimate the communists and assume unaccountable power in the name of “public safety.” An alleged terrorist threat is a way of using fear to block popular objection to the exercise of arbitrary government power.

In order to be “safe from terrorists,” the US population, with few objections, has accepted the demise of their civil liberties, such as habeas corpus, which reaches back centuries to Magna Carta as a constraint on government power. How, then, are they safe from their government? Americans today are in the same position as the English prior to the Great Charter of 1215. Americans are no longer protected by law and the Constitution from government tyranny.

The reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution was to make citizens safe from their government. If citizens allow the government to take away the Constitution, they might be safe from foreign terrorists, but they are no longer safe from their government.

Who do you think has more power over you, foreign terrorists or “your” government?

Washington defines all resistance to its imperialism and tyranny as “terrorism.” Thus, Americans who defend the environment, who defend wildlife, who defend civil liberties and human rights, who protest Washington’s wars and robbery of the people in behalf of special interests, all become “domestic extremists,” the term Homeland Security has substituted for “terrorist.” Those who are out of step with Washington and the powerful private interests that exploit us, other peoples, and the earth for their profits and power fall into the wrong side of Bush’s black and white division of the world: “you are for us or against us.”

In the United States independent thought is on the verge of being criminalized as are constitutionally guaranteed protests and the freedom of the press.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/10/james-risen-prison-journalism-criminalised The constitutional principle of freedom of speech is being redefined as treason, as aiding an undefined enemy, and as seeking to overthrow the government by casting aspersions on its motives and revealing its secret misdeeds. The power-mad inhabitants of Washington have brought the US so close to Gestapo Germany and Stalinist Russia that it is no longer funny. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to see the difference.

The neoconservatives have declared that Americans are the “exceptional” and “indispensable people.” Yet, the civil liberties of Americans have declined the more “exceptional” and “indispensable” that Americans become. We are now so exceptional and indispensable that we no longer have any rights.

And neither does the rest of the world. Neoconservatism has created a new dangerous American nationalism. Neoconservatives have given Washington a monopoly on right and endowed its military aggressions with a morality that supersedes the Geneva Conventions and human rights. Washington, justified by its “exceptionalism,” has the right to attack populations in countries with which Washington is not at war, such as Pakistan and Yemen. Washington is using the cover of its “exceptionalism” to murder people in many countries. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/11/us-drones-pound-yemen-but-targets-arent-all-militants/print/ Hitler tried to market the exceptionalism of the German people, but he lacked Washington’s Madison Avenue skills.

Washington is always morally right, whatever it does, and those who report its crimes are traitors who, stripped of their coddling by civil liberties, are locked away and abused until they confess to their crimes against the state. Anyone who tells the truth, such as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, are branded enemies of the state and are ruthlessly persecuted.

How does the “indispensable, exceptional nation” have a diplomatic policy? How can a neoconized State Department be based on anything except coercion? It can’t. That is why Washington produces nothing but war and threats of war.

Wherever a person looks, whatever a person hears, it is Washington’s threat–“we are going to bomb you into the stone age” if you don’t do what we want and agree to what we require. We are going to impose “sanctions,” Washington’s euphemism for embargoes, and starve your women and children to death, permit no medical supplies, ban you from the international payments system unless you relent and consent to being Washington’s puppet, and ban you from posting your news broadcasts on the Internet.

This is the face that Washington presents to the world: the hard, mean face of a tyrant.

Washington’s power will survive a bit longer, because there are still politicians in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America and in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the NGOs in Russia, who are paid off by the almighty dollar. In exchange for Washington’s money, they endorse Washington’s immorality and murderous destruction of law and life.

But the dollar is being destroyed by Quantitative Easing, and the domestic US economy is being destroyed by jobs offshoring. http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/TAA0731131.html

Rome was powerful until the Germans ceased to believe it. Then the rotten edifice collapsed. Washington faces sooner or later the same fate. An inhumane, illegal, unconstitutional regime based on violence alone, devoid of all morality and all human compassion, is not acceptable to China, Russia, India, Iran, and Brazil, or to readers of this column.

The evil that is Washington cannot last forever. The criminals might destroy the world in nuclear war, but the lawlessness and lack of humanity in Washington, which murders more people as I write, is no longer acceptable to the rest of the world, not even to its European puppet states, despite the leaders being on Washington’s payroll.

Gorbachev is correct. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a debacle for the entire world. It transformed the US from the “city upon the hill,” the “beacon for humanity,” into an aggressive militarist state. Consequently, Amerika has become despised by everyone who has a moral conscience and a sense of justice.

10 13 11 flagbar

There is only one way to stop Hillary Clinton

August 13th, 2013 by

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/08/there-is-only-one-way-to-stop-hillary-clinton-2541496.html

By Lawrence Sellin

If current political trends continue, there are two inescapable outcomes: Hillary Clinton will be elected President in 2016 and, by the end of her eight years in office, the United States will no longer exist.

The Democrat electoral juggernaut cannot be stopped for two reasons.

First, the Democrats seem to have perfected the art of voter fraud and it may now be considered an integral component of their national campaign strategy. The results of the 2012 election suggest that massive voter fraud is not required. Selective alteration of the count in specific precincts of large swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida would be enough. That might help explain why Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton are vehemently opposed to voter ID requirements.

In parallel, the mainstream media will censor or manipulate the news in order to promote Hillary’s political ambitions, even at the expense of their own journalistic integrity and the well-being of the country.

Additional factors that will contribute to a permanent Democrat majority and a one-party state are the amnesty and the voting rights that will soon be given to 11 million or more illegal aliens.

The extent of corruption in the federal government and our political system is no longer compatible with liberty. Unless there is a significant reversal soon, it is only a matter of time that a catastrophe will be upon us, which will inexorably lead to national collapse and fragmentation.

The Republican Party can no longer be considered a political vehicle capable of providing effective opposition to the far-left policies of the Democrat Party and the propaganda of the establishment media. It too has become a party of big government, which is unresponsive and unaccountable to its constituency.

As a recent example of the tyrannical approach and abuse of power practiced by the political elite, the Republicans have joined with the Democrats to force Obamacare on the American people while at the same time exempting themselves.

In “The Discourses” (1517), Niccoló Machiavelli wrote:

“To usurp supreme and absolute authority, then, in a free state, and subject it to tyranny, the people must have already become corrupt by gradual steps from generation to generation. And all states necessarily come to this, unless… they are frequently reinvigorated by good examples, and brought back by good laws to their first principles. “

Both the Democrat and Republican parties know that telling the truth about Barack Obama would topple the corrupt status quo and terminate their exclusive grip on political power, allowing the American people to regain control of their government.

In 2008, pressured by a biased, left-leaning media, a spineless Republican Party leadership joined the Democrats in refusing to fully vet Obama and, in violation of the Constitution and common sense, permitted an ineligible candidate of questionable background to run for President.

Since 2008, a conspiracy of silence has descended upon the public discourse regarding all questions related to Obama’s eligibility and personal history. Despite the truly enormous historic Constitutional implications, the politicians and the media, not only remain silent, but actively suppress legitimate inquiry.

Disclosing the truth about Obama would also expose the rampant corruption of our political and media elite, reveal their complicity in Obama’s violations of Constitution, uncover their willful ignorance of his alleged felonies and confirm their participation in the greatest election fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history.

Nothing short of a massive political earthquake as those revelations would provide can derail an inevitable Hillary Clinton Presidency.

Only the truth will set us free.

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Since it is now impossible to organize any kind of rebellion-revolution and stay out of jail or worse, and it would most likely start a civil war with the powers that be, and the nations stupid liberals against us, a revolution seems counter productive. This leaves only the most intensive education campaign as an option, and who has the credibility to design a better kind of government? As I see it, the bastards in Banking have won, and we who will not be enslaved will soon die fighting for our freedom, while the pukes that surrender, laugh their ass off. Those who support this government are not American’s, they are the lowest form of cowards. We passed the point of no return years ago, and now death before dishonor is our future. Suits the shit out of me!

10 13 11 flagbar  

TWO FACES OF CONSERVATISM

August 10th, 2013 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn191.htm

Mirrored at Western Conservative Summit

http://anationbeguiled.com/?p=7145

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall

NewsWithViews.com

I personally know a lot of Democrats who, in reality, are Conservatives. They’re always shocked when I tell them that. And they react as if they have been stung by a life-threatening virus.

In Article One of this series, I provided two definitions of “Conservative” that appear to be splitting the GOP. I said the 2,000 attendees of the Western Conservative Summit in Denver last weekend appeared to be fairly evenly split, one group willingly accepting the Republican Party’s definition and one group which disagrees with that definition. I believe that until this definitional difference is resolved, the Republican Party will continue to be torn, continue to consist of numerous split groups of special interests, and be unable to muster the total Conservative base for support. And, without that total support, they cannot and will not win national elections.

The problem with the Party’s definition of the word “Conservative” is that it allows the meaning to change as Party objectives and issues change. People, generally speaking, do not commit themselves to changing objectives and issues. They commit to and support principles that evolve from philosophies. Conservative philosophy as defined by the Party needs to exclude from it political issues that change from day-to-day. How can someone commit to something which changes from day-to-day? Answer: They cannot and will not… at least, intelligent people will not.

Another cause of the current division within the GOP is the Party Leadership’s constant acceptance of (or compromise with) issues that not only are not compatible with Conservative principles, they are in total opposition to them. Another is a population that appears to want to entertain itself to death. Too few people have an interest in seriously studying how to preserve the foundations of our country. It would take years for a massive re-education program to effect change in social attitudes that are constantly being beguiled by the media. A politically ignorant population never remains free from tyrants seeking personal power and wealth accessible to them only by getting elected to public office and then abusing their power.

Political ideologies emerge from philosophy and the principles contained within that philosophy. It doesn’t work the other way around. The Republican Party is, in my humble opinion, trying to appeal to Conservatives on the basis of political ideology. As long as they continue with that strategy, they will be unable to solidify the support of the Party’s Conservative base.

My definition says that conservatism is based on three basic elements; 1) America’s founding documents (which guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and points out that the rights of the people do not come from government and that government works for the people, not the other way around); 2) Truth based on discernable facts (rather than media/political talking points and expert opinions – as in scientists who, until scientific evidence of fraudulent research practices were made public, were adamant that “humans are the primary cause of global warming’); and, 3) the guarantee that the Rule of Law will dominate the social order so that all people have equal access to justice, regardless of race, color, creed, or social status. There are sub-elements, but none violate these three primary principles.

That is the basis of Conservative principles and philosophy. The truth is, I don’t care what religion someone professes (if any) provided they believe in these things. Democrats (not Liberals, but Democrats) who believe in these three things could easily call themselves “Conservative” – and many Republicans who say they are Conservative would fail the definitional test.

Why does the Democrat Party have such an easy time splitting Conservatives into different groups on the basis of issues… abortion, illegal immigration, gun control, and – you name the issue? Because there is no leadership in the Party and because Republicans are not providing a strong and easily understandable philosophy of what the word “Conservative” means.

After the 2012 elections, people said that Mitt Romney’s Conservative message was not clearly given and it did not gain the support of the Republican Party’s base. That’s totally wrong! Mitt Romney – and I like the guy and I like his family – did not put forth a Conservative message. He and Paul Ryan put forth a Conservative fiscal policy view and talked about some other issues, but that falls far short of being a Conservative message based on Conservative philosophy. Mitt (and Paul Ryan, too) placed too much emphasis on “Conservative” meaning “fiscally Conservative.” Being fiscally Conservative is an issue that emerges from Conservative philosophy. It is just an issue. It is part of the philosophy, but it is not THE philosophy.

What does fiscal conservatism have to do with Conservative philosophy? If you are a constitutionalist, you know the answer to that question. People who set as the bedrock of their philosophy the Constitution of the United States know that having Ben Bernanke give $500 billion to New Zealand (this year) or $5 trillion to European and Japanese banks and corporations in 2011 is not constitutional. They know that the Federal Reserve System is not constitutional.

Thinking conservatives know that our fiscal (financial) problems come from an unconstitutional source. They know the First Amendment, Article 8 says that the United States House of Representatives is responsible for the debt of this nation, not a private corporation called the Federal Reserve. They know that to change the Constitution requires an Amendment and that passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did not change the dictates of our founding documents. But those Senators and Congressmen who have spent too much time in Washington, D.C. don’t want to take on the issue of the Federal Reserve’s unconstitutional status and so they cannot use their greatest strength to win their most critical arguments regarding an over-spending nation that sinks us deeper and deeper into debt every day they vote on one issue or another. They want to keep things as they are when the Federal Reserve is involved… and that blasts one Republican definition of “Conservative” out of the water. It does not mean “traditionalist” if the tradition in question violates the Constitution of this nation!

When you say you are a constitutionalist, you do not get to choose which parts of the Constitution you agree with and which parts you disagree with. It’s a bit like the Holy Bible: You support it in its totality, or you do not support it at all. To do otherwise suggests that you place yourself and your judgment above the Constitution and that is unacceptable to Conservative philosophy… but it is what the Republican Party has been doing and that is why the Party has and is continuing to lose its Conservative base.

The same is true of all Republican issues. The three primary principles of Conservative philosophy – Constitution, Truth, Rule of Law – make the stand that must be taken on illegal immigration (violation of the Rule of Law), welfare and give-aways (for which there is no constitutional provision), education (Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution) – apparent. Follow the Constitution and you have all of the right answers to all Conservative issues. But Republicans seem to believe they can replace the philosophy of Conservatives with political ideology. They cannot. You’d think they’d understand that by now.

Okay, with that said, how does all of the above apply to the speeches given by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Texas Senator Ted Cruz at the Western Conservative Summit last weekend?

I said in the two articles preceding this one that I would give you answers to the errors of each of these speeches that are representative of why Republicans cannot get Conservatives to coalesce as a group behind Republican ideology. The short answer is that Republicans have no ideology… just a list of issues that give Democrats all of the ammunition they need to divide and conquer the various splinter groups. Ideology emits from philosophy – and Republicans are not functioning from a principled philosophy. They believe their ideology replaces the philosophy. It does not.

Governor Walker’s speech was very Republican. He spoke (and very well, indeed) of issues – education, balancing a budget, collective bargaining, Walker gave three guides he believes will help Conservatives elect Conservative candidates: 1) We need to be more optimistic. I would point out that people who believe in a philosophy are optimistic and that people who seek to push politicized issues and call them philosophy will gain no support from those seeking honest representation of their beliefs. Republican issues do not deal with beliefs… Conservative philosophy does.

Governor Walker told Republican candidates to talk in more relevant terminology. He’s right. People don’t want to hear words like “sequestration” thrown around. They do want to hear political messages in positive, relevant terminology they deal with in their everyday lives. But more importantly, they want to be able to tie the positive, relevant message they receive to their core beliefs – to their philosophy of life which embodies the Constitution as an American citizen, Truth, and the Rule of Law.

If Walker is looking to a presidential run in 2016, I said in my article about him that he has two major problems. Governor Walker spoke of the importance of Truth during his presentation. Leadership, which he also spoke of, is based on Truth (which also has strong ties to peoples’ philosophies of life). If you want to get the total picture of Governor Scott Walker as a politician, Google these words: “Scott Walker Operation Freedom.”

I hate to be the harbinger of bad news for Scott Walker fans (and I like him, too), but there is a mess in his past – actually, there are two of them – that need to be cleared up before he or any Wisconsin politician can become a viable national candidate for political office. Here is the shortest of the articles I found that will help explain Walker’s problem:

MILWAUKEE, Oct 12 (Reuters) – A former aide to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was convicted on Friday of stealing money from a fund for families of U.S. soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A jury in Milwaukee County Circuit Court found Kevin Kavanaugh guilty of embezzling more than $42,000 from Operation Freedom, a military appreciation event held each year at the Milwaukee County Zoo.

Kavanaugh, who worked for Walker when the first-term Republican governor served as Milwaukee County executive, faces up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. Sentencing is expected on Dec. 7.

Kavanaugh, 62, was the treasurer of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, a charity involved in Operation Freedom, from 2006 to 2009. Walker appointed him to serve on the Milwaukee County Veteran Service Commission during Walker’s term as Milwaukee County executive.

It’s one thing to hear a politician talk about the importance of truth. It’s another thing to hold that politician accountable to providing the truth about things locked away in his or her closet. This is a particularly nasty case because it involves stealing money from the children of veterans who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the scandal goes much deeper than the Reuters article suggests. Seven people who were Walker appointees were arrested.

The point is, there are questions that must be answered and those of us who are looking for a strong Conservative leader need answers to questions that arise from the information provided from Wisconsin newspapers HERE before we offer that support.

Governor Walker’s second problem is his refusal to address the abuses heaped on the head of Wisconsin resident and Ambassador Lee/Leo Emil Wanta by his Department of Revenue, the Wisconsin County Court system (particularly Dane County), and the Governor at the time Wanta was prosecuted/persecuted, Tommy Thompson. The official Wanta biography can be found HERE and provides links to court documents that prove the abuses Wanta suffered.

The Wanta situation was not created by Governor Walker. It is in no way his fault. Rather, Tommy Thompson was Governor when the Department of Revenue attacked Wanta viciously for taxes due from a company known as Falls Vending Service, Inc. Wanta owned not a single share of stock in that company and had no responsibility for its debts in any way… the court transcripts provide complete and accurate evidence of the man’s innocence. See Chapters 3 and 4 of the Wanta biography. It is a situation that provides Scott Walker with an opportunity to prove his commitment to the truth and honor of which he speaks publicly. I have written the Governor letters, sent them registered mail – and, over a two year period, have not received a response. That tells me, Governor Walker isn’t interested in eliminating possible corruption from his state government.

There may be a simple answer to all of the above and if there is, Governor Walker needs to provide it before setting his sail for bigger seas in the national political arena. That is all I am saying.

As for the two problems I said Senator Ted Cruz faces if he is looking to throw his Senatorial hat into the Presidential ring in 2016, here they are.

The Cruz message rings true. It is a conservative message that references principle and philosophy. But he needs to be more specific as to the content of the philosophy and the principles it represents. That’s easy enough to do.

The other thing he needs to do with his message is to apply the philosophy to the issues of unemployment, fiscal responsibility, illegal aliens, Second Amendment violations of the American right to bear arms, education, abortion – all of the conservative issues that enable Liberals to keep us from solidifying into a single group because as long as they can keep us splintered into small groups over different issues, they can beat us at the ballot box.

I have no doubt that Senator Cruz can accomplish exactly the right approach to solving the only problem I identified with his speech.

It is the second problem about which Senator Cruz can do nothing. His father was born in Cuba. As a result, he is not a Natural-Born American. His mother was born in America, but his father was not. It breaks my heart because I have no doubt I would feel honored to vote for this man to be my President.

We conservatives must be very careful not to fall into the trap of absolving Barack Obama from his phony presidency – phony because he is not a Natural-Born American – by suggesting that what he did was okay because we do the same thing: Elect someone who isn’t eligible to be President.

Senator Cruz, by the way, won the Presidential straw poll vote done by the Centennial Institute’s Western Conservative Summit 2013. The others with whom he was competing: Congressman Paul Ryan, Senator Rick Santorum, Senator Jim DeMint, Governor John Kasich, Governor Susana Martinez, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Rick Perry… and, of course, Governor Scott Walker.

Click here for part —–> 123,

© 2013 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved


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

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

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

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

 

10 13 11 flagbar

 

Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership

August 9th, 2013 by

http://www.humanevents.com/2010/11/23/afghanistan-and-the-culture-of-military-leadership/

By: Lawrence Sellin PhD 

lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

Not long after I left Afghanistan in September 2010, a young Lieutenant and a graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point wrote to me concerned that the Army has yet to grasp all of the elements of leadership needed for the challenges of the 21st century. She wrote:

“I think that there are serious problems with the culture of Army leadership: close-mindedness, careerism, an aversion to innovation or creativity born of the fallacy that everything can fit into a step-by-step procedure, and a task-oriented mindset that creates an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism…and not only those who can think, but those who possess the moral courage to stand up for the hard truths that their bosses are unwilling to accept. I think this is going to be especially important as we transition away from Iraq and Afghanistan and attempt to prepare for unknown future conflicts.”

Indeed.

It has always seemed odd to me that the US military spends billions of dollars on service academies, war colleges, graduate programs and other forms of education in order to train people to think, but then places them inside a bureaucracy that prevents them from doing so.

The step-by-step procedures and task orientation methods like the
Military Decision Making Process can create a mindless group mentality that inhibits discussion and stifles innovation. Although intelligent people may be embedded within such a system, all can be dragged downstream by the same aimless bureaucratic current.

The systemic misuse of PowerPoint as an intellectual crutch and the
Pavlovian briefing culture are now endemic in the military bureaucracy and function as substitutes for honest thinking and logical analysis. Both provide little, if any, authentic situational awareness, but offer the illusion of understanding and progress.

During my 2010 tenure at ISAF Joint Command (IJC) in Afghanistan, the twice daily Commanders Update Assessments were not much more than the recitation of new numbers on old slides to which little attention was paid by the audience. Most of the comments made by the senior officers were about the delivery rather than the meaning of the data or information presented.

Bureaucracies are both self-perpetuating and self-absorbed. They change course with the agility of an oil tanker and can crush smaller vessels in their path. Although oppressive and inefficient in peacetime, bureaucracies in a war setting can be hazardous for the common soldiers who are providing the sweat and shedding the blood.

IJC is now undergoing a transition from a version 2.1 to a version 3.0 structure. This will actually increase the size of the bureaucracy at a time when the opposite is needed.

Many of the military organizations and processes already functioning in Afghanistan are complicated and convoluted. There are numerous stove-piped and redundant programs operating in parallel, which provide little more than a collection of simultaneous arguments. The information being generated and shared is far greater than any organization can absorb, let alone analyze and understand. It confuses the volume of information with the quality of information. Such organizations ooze inefficiency and limit effectiveness.

In a situation where a selective application of counterinsurgency doctrine can easily balloon into nation building, adding bodies becomes a solution to every problem and there is a temptation to simply do more of everything rather than executing a few critical tasks effectively.

There can be, quite literally, “too much going on.” With so many people doing so much with so little organizational comprehension, motion becomes the equivalent of progress and a smooth process can be mistaken for an effective process. More information is not necessarily better information and knowledge is no substitute for wisdom.

Last autumn the US government announced that after eight years and $27 billion, the results of the Afghan Army and Police training program were so bad that it was declared a failure. If the effectiveness of the training was ever questioned internally, it had no obvious effect.

It was a program on automatic pilot, where everyone was being reassured that everything was going according to plan and “progress was being made.” Despite the fact that symptoms of failure were already appearing in the press years earlier, no one in the chain of command spoke up and hence, no one should be surprised. The pressure to conform is enormous.

One wonders how much American, Coalition, and Afghan blood was shed while the program was heading toward failure and how much more will be shed before the Afghan security forces are ready to defend their country.

According to a recent report of the Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction, more than eight years into the war, the
U.S. government has spent billions of dollars on the “build” component of the “clear, hold, and build” counterinsurgency strategy, but no one knows what that money has bought and there remains no clear way to track the spending.

The ugly truth is that often mistakes will only be detected, if ever, long after the senior officers responsible for the fiascos have been promoted and have moved on. There is little incentive for doing better as long as the money keeps flowing, fresh troops keep arriving, and there is little demand for genuine accountability.

Many reach high rank in the military through a combination of political acumen, a finely-tuned sense of risk aversion, and a laissez-faire attitude toward demonstrable progress, where the appearance, rather than the substance of success, is a satisfactory outcome. The longer you are in a system, the more the bureaucracy can shape your thinking and behavior. You become a stakeholder both in terms of maintaining the status quo and protecting your own career aspirations.

As one moves up the bureaucratic ladder, the tendency to give and accept happy talk increases. Negative views can only be expressed as whispers in private conversations. Public criticism is suicide and, contrary to popular belief, changing the system from within is at best serendipity or at worst urban myth. In a system highly resistant to change, innovation can be a risky proposition.

There are quiet and unpublicized acts of courage in the ranks, which sadly, often lead to frustration, admonition, and early departure. A cynic might conclude that many of the best in the military are weeded out when they are ultimately confronted by a definitive choice between principle and politics, between innovation and playing it safe, between embracing command responsibility or finding scapegoats among subordinates when operations fail and soldiers die.

The time is long overdue to take a serious, comprehensive look at the manner in which wars like those in Afghanistan and Iraq are conducted. No program is sacred. Only the lives of our soldiers are.
It is never the wrong time to do the right thing.

In the end, it is less about absolute troop levels than how an agreed upon strategy is being executed. More precisely, is there a realistic probability that the expected results will fulfill that strategy within a reasonable time frame?

That includes the manner in which counterinsurgency theory is applied.

They don’t call it the “long war” for nothing. In the context of a protracted conflict, soldiers’ lives and scarce resources should not be used merely as experimental materials to confirm a hypothesis.

Counterinsurgency is a strategy based on control, which is complicated, difficult and troop intensive. Like insurgency, counterterrorism is based on disruption and can provide an appropriate transition in support of a prudent withdrawal strategy. In fact, special operations may be the single most important factor driving the Taliban toward the bargaining table.

As Afghan expert Steve Coll wrote, the US still faces the same challenges that eventually defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan:

“Partly they just ran out of time, as often happens in expeditionary wars. Their other problems included their inability to control the insurgents’ sanctuary in Pakistan; their inability to stop infiltration across the Pakistan-Afghan border; their inability to build Afghan political unity, even at the local level; their inability to develop a successful reconciliation strategy to divide the Islamist insurgents they faced; and their inability to create successful international diplomacy to reinforce a stable Afghanistan and region.”

Solving those issues effectively could take a very long time. We simply cannot afford not to learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Our approach to warfighting is in dire need of a surge in simplicity, critical thinking, focus, and cost-effectiveness. If we are to be successful now and in future conflicts, it will require more individuals willing to ask tough questions, tell the unvarnished truth, and lead from the front.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

10 13 11 flagbar

Management Firm Prohibits Residents From Owning Firearms and Weapons

August 9th, 2013 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/victim-disarmament-zone-apartment.html

By Mac Slavo

Imagine you’ve been living in your home or apartment for several years. You’re an avid hunter, sports shooter, or simply someone who wants to protect their family should an individual with criminal intent coming breaking down your door. You own a handgun, rifle, crossbow, or other self defense weapon.


All of a sudden you receive a memo from your management company or Homeowners Association advising you of a policy change that you can no longer own a weapon if you live on the property. As an American you’d likely be surprised at such a note in your mailbox, especially considering that the fundamental law of the land gives you the right to own a firearm or weapon for self defense.

But this is exactly what happened to tenants of the Oakwood apartment complex in Castle Rock, Colorado.

As of October 1, 2013, residents of the apartments have been told that they can no longer “display, use or possess any firearms.”
Retired Marine Art Dorsch, 77, contacted 9News in Castle Rock, Colorado after receiving the “updated community policies” notice which turns his fine adobe into a “victim disarmament zone.” 

“I’m a hunter. I’m a licensed conceal and carry person,” Dorsch said to the news channel.

That didn’t matter to the apartment manager who wants to create a mini-Chicago. 

A handwritten note on the typed letter reads “The manager said no licenced [sic] concealed” is allowed either. 

“It upsets me very much,” Dorsch said.

 The Ross Management Group, which operates Oakwood Apartments and thirty other properties, refused a public response on the new guidelines, stating that it’s their policy “not to comment to the news media.”

According to a legal analyst for 9New Castle Rock, in most cases the courts have supported the rights of landlords to support “reasonable regulations” on tenants.
 

The best thing this tenant can do is either move out or get rid of the guns. 

The question is, “is an outright ban on firearms reasonable in light of the U.S. Constitution?”

As one commentator noted, would it be reasonable for a landlord to restrict a tenant from voting, or voting for a particular political party?

Or, could a landlord restrict a tenant from speaking their mind under first amendment protections?

Could a landlord dictatate to a tenant what religion he or she can practice?

Or can a tenant be forced to provide access to law enforcement officials or the apartment landlords for warrantless searches of their home?

It’s one thing if you agree to live in a ‘gun free zone’ prior to moving into your home or apartment (and even that is a bit sketchy). But here we have people who have lived in their residences for month or years now being told they can no longer own a firearm to protect themselves.

And to be clear, no actual reason was given for the new regulation – just a “this is how it is, do it or get out.”
What, exactly, is a reasonable regulation if a landlord, HOA or even lender (like the bank which underwrites your mortagage) can force you to give up your Constitutionally protected rights?

Rather than disarming citizens, we should be empowering them to deter crime, just like the Armed Citizen Project which is doing just that – one free shotgun at a time.

Mac Slavo's many articles can be found on his website SHTFplan.com, where this article first appeared.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

If this does not produce some Corporate destruction law suits, this country has no law….period! This kind of shit is why I cannot sleep more than four hours a day anymore. My G.D. country has gone to the corporations! The Corporate States of America has the power, and there is no law for the people.


Colorado Apartment's Gun Ban Thrown Out

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/colorado-apartments-gun-ban-thrown-out.html

By Activist Post editor

The question of what is reasonable under HOA regulations seems to have been answered, at least in the case of The Douglas County Housing Partnership and their reversal of a policy that was set to be imposed by Ross Management Group.


An emergency meeting of the housing authority was called in the wake of the outcry following a new notice to Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, Colorado which stipulated that owners would no longer be permitted to have guns in their residence as of October 1, 2013. (Source).

The notice enraged tenants like retired Marine, Art Dorch, who originally contacted 9News to report the memo given to his community of seniors. Despite the initial statement by the management group that they would not respond to the press, it appears that The Douglas County Housing Partnership is doing it for them.

As 9News notes:
 

The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars. (Source)

The restriction being suggested by the management group is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the long-standing individual rights of Colorado residents — a matter addressed in the Douglas County Housing Partnership's statement. Beyond that, no mention of a restriction on gun ownership was ever cited in original lease agreements.
 

"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff," a Douglas County Housing Partnership release said. "This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual's rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few."

The Partnership should be commended for taking quick action against the attempts by the Ross Management Group to subvert the Constitution and individual liberty.

The Ross Management Group is still refusing to comment to the press, according to 9News, but it looks like a wider investigation by the Denver Housing Authority into additional possible de facto gun bans on other properties could very well draw them out from behind closed doors.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Forty cheers for the Douglas County Housing Partnership! It’s about time something good happened for gun owners. No doubt, the gun owners stood up and raised hell as all supporters of freedom should. Still, repatriation has tripled in the last quarter, as more and more people see the light, and are steering clear of the shipwreck ahead. If you are not willing to die protecting your home, you better make some plans, and do it NOW.

OBUMA WILL NOT GO OUT WITHOUT A BIG BANG!

10 13 11 flagbar

Civil Disobedience The Right of Revolution

August 8th, 2013 by

http://farmwars.info/?p=11173&utm_source=

feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_

campaign=Feed%3A+FarmWars+%28Farm+Wars%29

Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” written in 1849 is as relevant to the times now as it was then. We have a right to stand up and question any institution or individual that claims authority over us, just as he did then. In fact, it is our duty as citizens to do so. Thoreau decided that he could not be associated with the government of his day without disgrace. How about our government today? Can we associate with it without disgrace?

I can hear his words echoing in my mind: “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right” (Thoreau, 1849). Our government enacts laws that intend to subjugate and enslave. We are hit from all sides with programs that invade our privacy, take away our rights as free citizens, and make chattel of us. Our government is out of control, and its laws do not stand for what is right. Therefore, it is our duty as citizens to question its authority. It is our duty as citizens to revolt. Thoreau states: “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist the government when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.” This revolution is not one to eliminate the government, but to make it better. “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” (Thoreau, 1849). So how do we go about this revolution? Thoreau makes it clear that

It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong…but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support (Thoreau, 1849).

We can resist in many ways, but the most effective method of resistance is to not support what we know to be wrong. We must live so that we are a counter friction, not supporting the wrongs that we condemn (Thoreau, 1849). If we deem it wrong to go to war over oil, we should not support anyone who supports that war, and make our next vehicle purchase one that uses the least amount of gas and oil as possible. We can withdraw monetary support for a bloated, oppressive government by not supporting the income tax system. We can stop supporting the unsafe import system by reading labels for the country of origin and refusing to purchase items that place us at risk. If we are tired of the restrictions on free speech, we should shout as loudly as we can that the First Amendment to the Constitution has not been rescinded, and refuse to listen to the media talking heads who do nothing but spout government-sponsored propaganda. By withdrawing our support for the things we know to be wrong, we can make a difference. Some who take the road of resistance will be imprisoned, but take solace from the following: “Under a government, which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison” (Thoreau, 1849).

As Dylan Thomas so aptly put it: “Do not go gentle into that goodnight…rage, rage against the dying of the light.” May we find the strength to rage against the dying of the light of our nation while our republic gasps its last breath. May we, as individuals, find the courage to stand up to the powers that be and make the right choices. It starts with one person, and one choice. Do not abrogate your responsibility and sit on the fence of compromise. Decide to do what is right today.

References:

Thomas, D. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bigeye.com/donotgo.htm

Thoreau, H.D. (1849). Retrieved fromhttp://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

Copyright 2007, Barbara H. Peterson

10 13 11 flagbar

 

THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WEAPON MASSIVE DISOBEDIENCE

August 7th, 2013 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron113.htm

By Ron Ewart

NewsWithViews.com

"Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty, as cooperation with good." —Mahatma Gandhi

We've all been taught to obey the law because in a nation of laws and not of men, following the law is the strength of the nation. In a free nation, following the law is paramount because not following the law leads to chaos and anarchy. But there is another scenario that is not taken into account with the necessity of following the law and that scenario occurs when those that make the law exceed their authority for creating law, or go berserk in passing laws, as is happening today.

All over America, law is being created without legal authority and in violation of constitutional limits on power, driven by an international mindset that manifests itself in the flawed ideology of social justice and radical environmental restrictions and limitations. This flawed ideology believes that man is a plague on the earth and must be severely regulated. One way to regulate the world population is to get them to believe that they are causing the pending catastrophe of global warming and their activities need to be scaled way back, but more particularly, American activities. The ideology also includes the implementation by law to make all humans equal under the guise of social justice, an impossible condition without the use of excessive government, totalitarian force.

After receiving an e-mail from one of our No Trespassing sign customers, expressing extreme anger over what he was facing from the local government and reading the response from his attorney over the situation, it occurred to us that Americans and more particularly rural landowners, are being driven into the uncomfortable position of either capitulating to unreasonable local government laws, or fighting the growing aggressive law enforcement by local authorities. As the landowner will soon learn the hard way, fighting government alone will rapidly exhaust their monetary resources, as the law and their attorney eats up the landowner's savings in the fight.

We are not aware of what portion of the local code our customer violated, but the response from his attorney laid out his rather unattractive alternatives in challenging the code violation. We've edited the attorney's response below, but it will give the reader a good idea of what the landowner was up against.

"1. The County office called me. They want to schedule an inspection today or tomorrow. As you know, I am in __________ and will not be in your County until July 24th. So, if you want the inspection to occur in the near future, I would recommend hiring a local attorney to be present. I can give you a referral if you need one. Alternatively, you can hire me to call the Sheriff and attempt to schedule an inspection while I am there. My rate is $250.00 an hour."

"2. Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent the county from knocking on every door in the unincorporated areas and asking permission from the occupant of the property to conduct compliance inspections. No knowledge of a violation is required because supposedly the searches are administrative searches akin to checking for Uniform Building Code violations. They are not supposed to be intended to be utilized in any criminal investigation. (But we’ll see…) If the occupant does not voluntarily permit an inspection the Sheriff’s office (the agency designated by the County Board of Supervisors to conduct the compliance searches) may obtain an inspection warrant. Once the Sheriff’s office has an inspection warrant, the occupant may not prohibit the search. However, the search is limited to the areas designated in the warrant. Similarly, if an occupant allows a search, the occupant can limit the area to be searched. Ie. Garage only."

"3. If an occupant is cited for being in violation of the County code, they will be issued a notice of violation. At such time, the occupant has a reasonable time to conform with the notice or alternatively they may challenge the notice by filing an appeal with the County Clerk. The proceeding will have the County Board of Supervisors providing evidence of violation with a County Officer providing a ruling. If after that proceeding is completed the occupant is not satisfied with the results, then they may appeal to the Superior Court and make what is called an implied challenge to the ordinance as it applies to that particular person."

"I understand your frustration about the scope and procedures set forth in the County ordinance. However, those are the rules we are obligated to follow at this time. If you would like me to represent you in regards to these issues please let me know and I will return the Sheriff’s call and work with you to formulate a plan."

Isn't it nice that the attorney "understood" the landowner's frustration. At $250 per hour he can afford to be understanding.

Unfortunately, there is a trail of tears and lost fortunes for those who take on government administratively or in court by themselves. Many lose their life's savings and many more lose their property. Fighting government alone is a losing proposition in almost all cases, even if you are wealthy. Government usually has the law on their side, unlimited tax dollars and high paid attorneys on staff. There are exceptions of course and some people do win. The fact is though, most lose.

As we were reading the attorney's response to the landowner, the light of inspiration started to grow brighter. If a landowner objects to an inspection, the county will issue an inspection warrant that the sheriff must serve. What would happen if all of the landowners in the entire area where the county was inspecting just objected to any inspection by any government official? The government would then have to issue inspection warrants for all of the landowners and the sheriff, the poor sheriff, would have to serve them all. He wouldn't have the time or the manpower to serve those warrants if enough landowners in the area rose up against the county in a peaceful demonstration of massive disobedience. One or two landowners wouldn't do the trick. It has to be a large number of 50 to 100 or more. 1,000 people disobeying the mandates of government would be much more effective. What can the government do when a thousand people say ….. "No more?"Will the government arrest and throw a thousand people in jail? Not likely! However, they may very well consider revising the law that created the disobedience. We know because we have witnessed government backing up when challenged by a large group of angry people.

Unfortunately, there is a rub to this scenario. Most people are predisposed to following the law, as we mentioned in the opening of this article. They just give in when the government applies pressure under the law. They don't even consider that there is an alternative that uses the power of the people to overcome the power of the government by sheer numbers, because the government is exceeding its constitutional authority, or has gone berserk in passing law after law.

The sad truth is, most people are cowards. They would rather knuckle under than risk a confrontation with government even though a confrontation with government is what it will take to preserve their freedom. The government uses this cowardice against the people. They keep "pushing" the people with law after law to see how much they will take. A death by a thousand cuts. They use and exploit the people's unwillingness to challenge authority ….. out of fear of government. And we call ourselves Americans, as if that is supposed to mean something? Maybe once it did.

Being an American used to mean being self-reliant, independent, a free thinker, courageous and individually responsible. Unfortunately, the irrational fear of government that we see in the eyes of Americans today, is hardly what we consider being an American. Acting as our own attorney, we have challenged a multi-national corporation in court and won. We have challenged the IRS twice and won. We are challenging them a third time and we expect to win. We have challenged a local court over a small infraction and we expect to win there too ….. because we do not fear government. We use the law against them, even though we are fully aware that at any time of their choosing, they have the power to unilaterally "bury" us.

Politicians, at all levels, have created a rogue, out-of-control government that fully intends to regulate us to death and steal our freedom, right in front of our eyes while we watch, cowering in a corner. They would have us live as serfs, rather than proud Americans we have every right to be. We are not alarmists that cry wolf like the environmentalists and politicians do. We are realists and we have a crystal clear vision of the "clear and present danger" that faces all Americans, urban or rural.

If we do not organize, without a doubt, the Republic that we know and what the founding fathers envisioned, is going to die a slow, agonizing and wrenching death. It's already showing tell tale signs. If we do not come together in a cohesive fighting unit, our freedoms and liberty will fade into the dark chasm of socialism, radical environmentalism and one-world government. If we will not come together and be willing to join with those of us who are fighting this WAR against government excesses, our children and grand children will have to live in the invisible chains of the New World Order, perpetrated on us by internationalists who want our money, our guns and our freedom.

Make no mistake, they are well on their way to getting all three. Are you going to stop them, or are you going to just sit there and let them do it? If you are not willing to fight to save this Republic, then suffer the consequences and don't complain when you come face-to-face with the government you allowed to exist ….. then wave goodbye to freedom, liberty and our once proud nation of "WE THE PEOPLE."

Ladies and gentlemen, Americans either rise up together against tyranny in a show of massive civil disobedience, or be buried in the mass graves destined for slaves. One-man armies do not win battles, much less wars. If no one comes forward to lead your neighbors in civil disobedience, then become the leader. Get your neighbors fired up to take action. Leaders aren't born they rise to the occasion.

If the American people do not learn and soon, that the only truly effective weapon against rising government tyranny is massive disobedience, both locally and on a grand scale, they will have forsaken their birthright of freedom and will deserve the consequences. Either confront the government en masse, or be content to be government's slave. If fear is what motivates us, then fear is our master.

© 2013 Ron Ewart – All Rights Reserved


Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners,

(NARLO) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State and dedicated to restoring, maintaining and defending property rights for urban and rural landowners. Mr. Ewart can be reached by e-mail for comment at ron@narlo.org, or by 'phone at 1 800 682-7848.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: ron@narlo.org

10 13 11 flagbar

IMPEACHMENT: ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, AND DON’T NEED TO KNOW

August 6th, 2013 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah120.htm

By Publius Huldah

August 6, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

1. It is NOT necessary that the President, other officers in the executive branch, or federal judges commit a crime before they may be impeached & removed from office.

Federalist Paper No. 66 (2nd para) and Federalist No. 77 (last para) show that the President may be impeached & removed for encroachments, i.e., usurpations of power.

Federal judges may also be impeached & removed for usurpations of power (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

Throughout The Federalist Papers, it is stated that impeachment is for “political offenses.”

2. The House has the SOLE power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2, last clause). The Senate has the SOLE power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3, next to last clause). The decision to convict is not reviewable by any other body – and common sense tells us what that means! The House may impeach, and the Senate may convict, for any reason whatsoever; and their decision cannot be overturned.

3. The meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” at Art. II, Sec. 4, is far broader than one might at first glance think. Somewhere I saw a scholarly paper showing that the “high” refers to the status of the official – it does not refer to the severity of the offense.

Now, note well! Misdemeanor” has a broader meaning than “a lesser category of criminal offense.” Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows the primary meaning is“Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.”

This shows that a President, Vice-president, and all civil Officers and Judges of the United States may be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office for “mismanagement.”

4. Errant members of Congress are never impeached – they are expelled (Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2).

5. Military personnel are never impeached – they are court-martialed (see UCMJ – Uniform Code of Military Justice), and may be kicked out of the military.

6. It is not feasible to criminally prosecute, under federal law, a sitting President: his prosecutors, the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorneys, all serve at the President’s pleasure. He can fire anyone who dares to criminally prosecute him. That is why sitting Presidents who have committed federal crimes must first be removed from office via impeachmentthen be criminally prosecuted. (Federalist No. 69, 4th para).

But do not forget: A President may – and should – be impeached & removed for usurpations of power, mismanagement, incompetence, or for any other reason deemed sufficient by Congress.

The lawful methods of getting rid of a sitting President [whether eligible or not to hold the office], in addition to impeachment, are set forth in the 25th Amendment: Natural death, resignation, or inability to do the job.

The 22nd Amendment permits Congress to make laws providing for succession where a President elect has not qualified.

Do not spin your wheels in fruitless insistence that a person (who may still be an Indonesian national) who occupies the office of President can’t be impeached because he is ineligible to hold that office. The FACT is that he holds the office. Impeachment is a lawful & constitutional method to rid ourselves of this blight.

© 2013 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

With all due respect, for Ms. Huldah, which is an earned and considerable amount, let’s also consider the practical side of Obuma ever getting impeached.

First, we have a congress bought and paid for by special interest groups, and a Senate that is even more fraudulent. And when was the last time any voting, or threatening by the public accomplished anything?

Second, how can we over look the obvious usurpation by our representatives allowing him on the ballot in the first place?

Third, it should be obvious to anyone following this coup d'etat that we have lost control of all branches of our federal government, and the only recourse we have left is a massive rebellion that will scare the stupid supporters of this group of gangsters into submission. And please tell me of the last time you have witnessed any solidarity from the American voters. Bending over, and kissing our butts goodbye seems imminent to me. Live free, or die trying is the only option left.

We will NEVER see justice from these immoral gangsters. 

10 13 11 flagbar


Pages: 1 2 Next
SEO Powered By SEOPressor