Archive for April, 2014
April 30th, 2014 by olddog
Smile you smug TRAITOR!
By BOB UNRUH WMD EXCLUSIVE
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.
The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.
“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”
WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court.
The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”
Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”
The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.
The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.
They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.
The brief was on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.
Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York's Zuccotti Park.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.
Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.
Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.
It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back” on DVD. This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea” DVD.
“It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges said of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.”
Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.
The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case.
“The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explained.
“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.
“No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.
“According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government,” he said.
It’s not like rounding up innocent U.S. citizens and stuffing them into prison camps hasn’t already happened.
In 1944, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and locked them up, under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.
The newest authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to jail those “suspected” of helping terrorists.
The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.”
The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who “associate” or “substantially support” terror groups.
“These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities,” Rutherford officials reported.
At the trial court level, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.
Obama then appealed, and his judges on the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.
Since the fight started, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”
The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”
She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”
“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.
Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”
“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote. “To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.
“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.
“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” -Thomas Jefferson.
My guess is Thomas Jefferson would shit his pants if he was here today, and if he did I would gladly clean his pants and smear it on OBUMA’S smirking face. His traitor’s in the Supreme Court just made our children in the military our enemies. How would you like to shoot your own son in defense of your home and liberty? You who have children in the military better make the effort to educate your children, and convince them to get the hell out as soon as possible if they want to avoid killing their parents, because this shit is going to give these bastards just what they have wanted for a long time, CIVIL WAR! Apparently the great experiment died from a pandemic of stupidity!
( PANDEMIC: A disease affecting almost everyone in a very large area.)
HAD THEY BEEN INFORMED, AMERICANS WOULD HAVE HANGED THE BANKERS ON THE NEAREST TREE, AFTER SKINNING THEM ALIVE!
The greatest tragedy is the number of American’s who would do anything their masters wanted, including murdering their parents, brothers and sisters.
STILL BELIEVE YOU DON’T HAVE TO STAY INFORMED?
Obuma would not make a pimple on an Oath Keepers ass!
April 29th, 2014 by olddog
Submitted by Tyler Durden
Forwarded by Marilyn Barnewall
I have been wondering about this ever since this Executive Order was signed. My thoughts had more to do with O’s relationship with Ayers and a lot of others who have been determined to have at one time been terrorists… but maybe the definition has changed. The article below focuses on the government rather than O’s personal relationship with Ayers. It seems to me, O has signed a law preventing him from lawfully putting his feet on American soil. MB
On Bill Ayers:
After college, Ayers devoted much of his time to his activism. He was among the demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Developing a more militant version of the SDS, Ayers helped found the Weathermen the following year. The group thought more drastic measures were needed to end the war in Vietnam. In October 1969, the Weathermen took to the streets in what was called the “Days of Rage” protests. The event started off with the bombing of a statue in Chicago’s Haymarket Square and then erupted into a clash between the group members and the police. During the conflict, 287 Weathermen were arrested.
Later that year, the group took responsibility for bombing several police cars in Chicago in retaliation for the killing of Mark Clark and Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party by the police. By early 1970, many members of the group were in hiding, including Ayers. The organization was rocked by tragedy in March of that year when three members—Theodore Gold, Terry Robbins, and Ayers’ girlfriend Diana Oughton—were killed while making bombs in New York City.
Sounds like terrorism to me.
Here’s an explanation of the law from the government’s own pages:
S U P P L E M E N T A L L I S T O F P U B L I C L A W S
Update for April 21, 2014
The Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records
Administration, has assigned law numbers to the following bill(s)
approved by the President:
S. 2195 / Public Law 113-100
To deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United
Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or
a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests.
(Apr. 18, 2014; 128 Stat. 1145; 1 page)
The law is reported to also have application to those people who have associated with known terrorists.
Obama Signs Law Banning Himself From Entering The US
Submitted by Tyler Durden
You just can’t make this stuff up.
A few days ago the President of the United States signed into public law bill S. 2195, now known as Pub.L. 113-100.
The law aims to “deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests.”
In other words, if the US government thinks that if you have been spying on the United States, then they won’t let you in the country.
Gee, let’s think for a moment– who has been engaging in espionage against the United States? Anyone?
Ah, right. The US government. Mr. Obama himself. The entire US intelligence network. They’ve all been engaging in espionage against the United States, especially its citizens.
But let us not forget, the law also bars entry for folks who have engaged in terrorist activity against the United States.
Just so that we don’t mince words, my dictionary defines terrorism as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Once again, the US government. Violence? Check. Intimidation? Check.
The government has awarded itself the power to hold people indefinitely without trial under military detention, assassinate US citizens by drone attacks, or use tax authorities to harass political opposition groups.
The Department of Homeland Security is working to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (and counting), enough to maintain a shooting war within the US for 22 years.
And local police departments are trading in their light blue uniforms for black paramilitary attire, combat boots, automatic assault rifles, and armored vehicles.
The whole place has become a giant police state where you can’t even apply for a passport anymore without being threatened with fines and imprisonment.
When the Republic was founded, there were three federal crimes listed in the Constitution: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.
Today the number of laws, codes, and regulations is astounding. It is a federal crime, for example, to knowingly make a false statement to a federally insured bank.
(Naturally, though, banks can lie through their teeth and defraud their customers with impunity…)
Not to mention, there are hundreds of federal agencies as innocuous as the Fish and Wildlife Service which have gun-toting police forces to kick down doors and throw people in jail.
The government doesn’t rule with the consent of the governed. They rule through fear, intimidation, and threats of violence. They spy. They deceive. They steal.
So you can probably appreciate the irony and arrogance of the President signing this new law, which bars spies and terrorists from entering the country.
The entire notion is so absurd, it’s like Barack calling the kettle black. And technically speaking he has just legally banned himself from being in the Land of the Free.
April 28th, 2014 by olddog
By Danny Schechter
Global Research, April 25, 2014
For years, it was a term only used in connection with those big bad and sleazy Mafioso-type businessmen in Russia.
Russia had Oligarchs; we didn’t.
That became a big difference between the official narrative of what separated our land of the free and the home of the brave from THEM, the snakes in the shades and private planes, in the post-Soviet period.
Actually, I first heard the term oligarchy when I was studying labor history at Cornell a half a lifetime ago. We were taught about something called the “Iron Law of Oligarchy.”
It was a concept coined by Robert Michels, a friend of sociology guru, Max Weber, way back in 1911. Here’s how it was defined in that relic of another age: The Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Michels came to the conclusion that the formal organization of bureaucracies inevitably leads to oligarchy, under which organizations originally idealistic and democratic eventually come to be dominated by asmall, self-serving group of people who achieved positions of power and responsibility. This can occur in large organizations because it becomes physically impossible for everyone to get together every time a decision has to be made.”
So, oligarchies have been with us seemingly forever—it’s an “iron law,” says he– but in current usage the term references the small elite—the 1% of the 1% that dominates economic and political decision making.
Every body on the liberal left is now discovering information spelled out in a number of studies that caught the attention of Bill Moyers and his writing colleague Michael Winship. They discuss the way governments become partial to oligarchs and insure that the rich rule:
“Inequality is what has turned Washington into a protection racket for the one percent. It buys all those goodies from government: Tax breaks. Tax havens (which allow corporations and the rich to park their money in a no-tax zone). Loopholes. Favors like carried interest. And so on. As Paul Krugman writes in his New York Review of Books essay on Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, “We now know both that the United States has a much more unequal distribution of income than other advanced countries and that much of this difference in outcomes can be attributed directly to government action.”
According to the AFL-CIO,” CEOs of major companies earn an average of 331 times more than their employees!” The NY Times reports America’s middle class is “no longer the world’s richest.”
Asking if democracy can “tame” plutocracy, Bob Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future, cites another study:
“A recent exhaustive study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page found that elites got their way not often, but virtually all of the time (emphasis mine!) I guess the answer to his question re the possibility of “taming” plutocrats is, in the current moment, is a thundering NO.”
Even the barons of business news admit that wealth is concentrated as almost never before, Here’s Bloomberg:
”Just today, the world’s 200 richest people made $13.9 billion. In one single day, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index… This is the Fed’s “wealth effect,” … It’s a construct that the Greenspan Fed conjured up out of thin air and presented to the incredulous American people as a valid economic theory. Bernanke then promoted it to the Fed’s stated raison d’être. His theory: if we immensely enrich during years of bailouts, money-printing, and interest rate repression the richest few thousand people in the world, everyone would be happy somehow.”
Adding critical fire power to this perspective, Eric Zuesse, cites the study to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, that finds that “the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, “Who governs? Who really rules?” in this country, is:
“Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts…
When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.”
The underlying research for this study drew on “a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.”
Much of this involves what economist Simon Johnston calls the “capture” of the state by corporate interests. He explains in a recent post: “Before 1939, wages and profits in the financial sector in the United States amounted to less than 1% of GDP; now they stand at 7-8% of GDP. In recent decades, financial assets have expanded dramatically relative to any measure of economic activity, as life expectancy increased and the post-WWII baby boomers began to think about saving for retirement. Compared to the size of the US economy, individual banks are now much bigger than they were in the early 1990’s.”
Sounds pretty frightening—and depressing.
None of us should be shocked by these findings. Last year I did a TV documentary series,Who Rules America based, in part, on the writings of C. Wight Mills on The Power Elite years ago and the detailed research by sociologist William Domhoff who forecast these trends.
As the economy changes, so does internal politics, as Tom Lodge observes in the case of South Africa:
“the degenerative changes that are observed within the ANC … appear to reflect a global trend in which mass parties are being replaced by electoral machines that depend less and less upon militant activism” and more on transactional exchanges between the electorate and the political elite. Amid these electoral limitations, what becomes the source of agency for ordinary people to instruct change in governance?”
What indeed? It behooves us to lobby our media to start reporting on the world as it is, not what it was, when today’s senior editors grew up, believing in the myths of American pluralism. And, now, disregarding who really has, and wields, power.
News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs at Newsdissector.net, and edits Mediachannel.org. His latest book is “When South Africa Called, We Answered, How Solidarity Helped Topple Apartheid. (2014). Comments to [email protected]
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
April 24th, 2014 by olddog
By Professor Steven Yates
April 22, 2014
Liberty is disappearing from the world, little by little. With taxes going up, real (inflation-adjusted) wages going down, wealth and power consolidating in expansionist governments and global corporations, especially banks but also food leviathans like Monsanto, it is impossible to deny that what some are calling “the deep state” is becoming the prevailing governing structure of our time. The “deep state” encompasses government/military facilities and corporations via myriad hierarchies, overlapping boards and directorships, “think tanks,” and contractual ties.
The police state, moreover, is on the march like never before. There are now hundreds of cases of police brutalizing people, sometimes to death, or shooting to kill on the slightest provocation (important and recent cases here, here, here, here, and here; with a case in New Mexico drawing massive protests here). A once-respected profession is clearly attracting sadists and sociopaths. Homeland Security has militarized police departments around the country, having offered millions in grants for equipment once seen only on battlefields. SWAT teams are being used to go after people selling raw milk or growing food without government authorization. I started to write that in the U.S. you are now in more danger from cops than you are from criminals; but today the only differences are that the former wear uniforms and badges, and collect government paychecks.
This has all happened despite the fact that in the wake of Ron Paul’s efforts, those of groups like Campaign for Liberty and of educational organizations like the Ludwig von Mises Institute, there are now probably more people calling themselves libertarians and more people interested in libertarian ideas than ever before. Ideas about liberty circulate in the blogosphere and on hundreds of websites. Competent speakers travel the country presenting a lucid case for Constitutionally limited government. Their writings are readily available. But they’ve been unable to make headway either within the neocon controlled GOP, in a hostile academic community, or in a culture largely indifferent to the world of ideas.
There are plenty of countervailing pressures with enormous resources behind them. Look at how much the Obama regime has spent promoting its Obamacare train wreck. Look at the money being poured into foreign wars and interventions. American academia remains a cesspool of political correctness and intellectual conformity. Schools by and large have turned into obedience training centers for future employees (taxpayers) and consumers. Common Core assures that mass illiteracy will increase among the non-homeschooled.
Libertarians act as if the world is moving towards embracing their ideas. They are in denial. Too few people in the general public care about any of these issues unless something affects them directly. Many are hunkering down. They’ve given up. Liberty is slowly being vanquished in the country that most consciously gave rise to it: the United States of America.
A solid, self-conscious philosophy of liberty has appeared just once in human history. Its development wasn’t easy. It began with the 1100 Charter of Liberties and the Magna Carta of 1215; English kings promptly ignored then. Further steps were taken with the 17th century Levellers and, still more, with the English Bill of Rights. Liberty finally took root when the British Colonists declared independence and established their own government first under the Articles of Confederation and then the U.S. Constitution. The entire process (from 1100 to 1791 when the Constitution was ratified) took 691 years! Arguably that didn’t finish the job!
If the case for liberty is so strong, why was it so hard to create? Why are free societies so rare? And why is liberty now fading? Why is it proving impossible to sustain?
The answers to these questions lie with what I’ve begun calling the conditions of liberty. If these conditions aren’t satisfied, liberty won’t happen. If conditions for liberty have disappeared, it will die. This is the cardinal problem in twenty-first century America.
First, let’s get clear what we are talking about. Let’s distinguish liberty from freedom. Persons are free if they can choose meaningfully between A and B and more broadly, pursue their own paths in life rather than being forced down paths chosen for them by others. Liberty is the state of affairs in which the majority of the population (those not in jail for crimes against other persons) is free.
Freedom means the freedom to choose meaningfully between live options, but it does not mean freedom to do anything one pleases. A hedonistic ethic of license does not lead to liberty. In practice, it leads to short-circuited lives, broken families, ruined neighborhoods, wrecked economies, and general social breakdown. The masses prefer the security of stability. If something disrupts this, they will demand government do something about it. This matter is worth exploring. I am not sure how many libertarians understand it.
Think of the third of my Four Cardinal Errors. A central condition of maintaining liberty is a civilization-spanning moral compass, a general recognition of right versus wrong. General agreement on fundamental moral truths about the value of human life, the rightness of freedom within the bounds of morality, the justice of honestly acquired property and honest free transactions, and the reasonableness of treating others as persons, not objects, is crucial even if we disagree on specifics here and there. If both the general population and those in places of power are “immersed” in a moral view of the universe, this will suffuse the culture and build it from the bottom up instead of imposing it from the top down. The latter doesn’t work. The “war on drugs” proves that. But moral people don’t use illegal drugs. Rule of law without massive political centralization will be possible with a moral people, because the latter respect the idea of law and maintain it themselves. They will pass it to their children.
The Founding Fathers understood that in any population there is a minority drawn to power. This minority will pursue whatever paths to power are available, be they loopholes in documents like the Constitution or lapses of public vigilance. If wealth leads to power, this minority will pursue wealth (and did). Understanding this minority and placing checks on it ought to be a priority item. As a condition of liberty, morality places checks on the power of leadership via a vigilant critical mass in the public. Vigilance is indeed the price of liberty. A vigilant critical mass will see to it that leaders play by the same rules they play by. People will then trust their leaders, as they trust each other.
Checks on the majority are also necessary. If the lion’s share of its members do not place checks on their own actions from within—via their sense of a valid difference between right and wrong—then others demand that checks be placed on them from without. Only government can do this. I’ve occasionally called this theparadox of liberty. Liberty is not license. To have it, the majority of persons must reduce the range of freedoms to within morally acceptable boundaries. Otherwise their range of freedoms will reduced for them.
This all implies that, all other things being equal, there is no absolute answer to the question of how small government should be. A moral people will have a greater capacity for self-rule, and be able to keep government small. In a population filled with drug-users, thieves, scam artists, etc., the more responsible will demand larger government. The masses, we should always remember, want stability. If they have to choose between stability and freedom, they will choose the former. Not every population is ready for self-rule. There are places in the world whose “choice” is between dictatorship and chaos. Think of Somalia.
The only moral system that has showed promise at satisfying all the conditions for liberty is rooted in Christianity. The prevalence of Christianity, in my opinion, goes a long distance towards explaining why liberty emerged in the West and nowhere else. A Christian worldview places God at the center and cites His commands in Scripture as the basis for proper conduct, whether towards oneself, family members, one’s affairs with money and business, and others generally. A debate has raged over to what extent, or whether, the Founding Fathers were building a Christian nation. John Adams, our second president, put it this way in 1798: “[W]e have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Yet during the 1800s, Western civilization slowly replaced the Christian worldview with that of materialistic naturalism (or materialism). This was the third of my Cardinal Errors. By the 1900s, the process was complete in the centers of intellectual influence where those in power looked for their most basic convictions. Materialistic naturalism places Man at the center: Enlightenment rational humanism. But Man is an abstraction; there are many of us, and we are quite different from one another. Our cultures are quite different from one another. Secular theories of morality reflect this. Not one such theory holds up under sustained criticism. Many philosophers followed anthropologists in becoming ethical relativists. According to ethical relativism, moral beliefs are cultural artifacts: useful fictions that compel people to behave but have no deeper truth or significance than stories we tell ourselves.
The most influential secular moral theory has beenutilitarianism. Its major exponent was British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). Mill, whose classical liberalism is often cited as a precursor of libertarianism, held that we should pursue the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number, where happiness typically means pleasure and the absence of pain. Actions are right if they yield a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness; wrong if they yield the opposite. To many, this idea made superficial sense. But think it through: there is no reason to believe happiness is the highest good in any unqualified sense. Happiness for whom? You or the sociopath? And achieved how? Some people achieve happiness by dominating others. Moreover, is pain intrinsically bad? While presumably inflicting pain on others is wrong, pain often communicates important information that something is wrong in one’s body; in this case pain is a temporary good!
In societal practice, utilitarianism leads to debacles like the Tuskegee Experiments, in which human beings and their health were literally sacrificed so that “scientific medicine” could study—in all its supposed moral neutrality—the progress of a disease (syphilis). Utilitarian arguments are used to justify abortion on demand. They are increasingly employed by medical “ethicists” taking us toward acceptance of euthanasia. It is significant that in Belgium it is now legal for children with terminal illnesses to be euthanized if they request it and can show that they understand the consequences, whatever this amounts to. The new law extends one that had been in place since 2002, allowing euthanasia for adults. Europe is slightly ahead of the U.S. on this curve, partly because Enlightenment rational humanism happened there first and has deeper roots there.
The idea that we were wired for complete personal moral autonomy has proven to be the biggest illusion of the past 150 years. Populations gradually freed from a Christian-derived moral compass did not become proud, rational actors in Francis Bacon’s “new Atlantis.” They turned instead to mass consumption and mindless entertainment. Some turned to drugs, and some to pornography; markets responded. This illustrates an important point about libertarian free markets that is often lost: they are capable of generating great prosperity, but absent morality, are also capable of generating destruction. What, after all, is the largest trafficked commodity in the world in this era of “free trade”? Illegal drugs. What is the largest money maker on the World Wide Web. The answer: pornography.
So much for populations living “immersed” in materialistic naturalism. Our so-called leaders used the rationality of science and technology to make ever more powerful weapons, even as each generation drifted further from its Constitutional moorings than its predecessor. Food “science” was used to discover how adding mildly addictive flavor enhancers encourages still more mass consumption that earn profits for the corporations. Unfortunately, these also caused mass obesity, which in turn has led to other health problems. Out of Monsanto’s well-funded laboratories have come GMOs, the long term effects of which on the biosphere are unknown but probably not zero!
We began to lose the liberty our Founders bequeathed to us because we dismantled the checks on power that only a common Christian morality could supply. With the Ten Commandments forcible removal from state courthouses on specious legal reasoning and belief in God routinely mocked by pundits of various stripes ranging from comedians such as the late George Carlin to public intellectuals such as British biologist Richard Dawkins, nothing has replaced Christian morality. Utilitarianism neither places checks on power, nor does it provide the masses anything recognizable as a moral point of view.
We have thus seen the rise of the pseudo-ethic of “greed … is good” (Gordon Gekko, from the 1987 film Wall Street). Arguably “Gekko-ism” is the ethic of the “one percent” (it’s more like the .01%), the bankster class that has risen to power over the past couple of generations not through productive work but because of the end of reasonable regulations on banks such as Glass-Steagall, the rise of the bundled securities, the derivatives bubble, and “quantitative easing.”
This is the superelite I spoke of in Four Cardinal Errors, getting richer and more powerful each year while creating a world whose masses are increasingly cash-strapped.
Some believe it is too late, that this process has passed the point of no return, and that the West will pass through totalitarianism on its way to irreversible decline. I hope this is wrong, but I fear it may be right. There are lessons to be drawn, either way.
Markets cannot decide everything. Ludwig von Mises was a brilliant thinker. But when all is said and done, he had no interest in moral philosophy. He was essentially a materialist, a utilitarian by default, and his views on economics in civilization are tainted by the drawbacks of each. Ayn Rand, too, can be admired for her fierce independence. But she, too, was a materialist with a view of human nature that is just plain wrong. Her ideas marry Aristotle’s man-the-rational-animal to Enlightenment humanism (with a little Nietzsche thrown in for good measure). She, too, ridiculed those who believe in a “supernatural ghost.” There is no place in either’s views for the idea that man is a sinner in need of redemption, whose actions in society need to be checked by the authority of morality, standing above culture and the marketplace.
Recent libertarianism has moved in strange directions—strange, if their aim is effectiveness in society. Mises, whatever his strengths and weaknesses, was not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism has largely taken over the Mises Institute. This is the idea that anything government purports to do, free markets can do better; and that what free markets won’t support may make a good hobby but that’s all. “Let the market decide” becomes an incantation, however, not serious reasoning from where we are as a society. The movement towards anarchism is taking place in a political and economic environment in which, like it or not, more and more people are turning to government for their basic needs—in many cases through no fault of their own. A year or so ago I corresponded for a while with a gentleman who described himself as an anarcho-capitalist, for whom it was clearly more than a hobby. I asked him how he planned to encourage the masses to become anarcho-capitalists. His answer boiled down to persuading them, one at a time, with rational arguments, which meant persuading a lot of people to give up support systems that someday might be life-sustaining (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid). Good luck with that. Not even Ron Paul would have been able to cut these programs.
Markets can never be totally and unconditionally “free,” especially in materialistic societies. Markets give the masses what they want, without moral comment. If they want useful items in large numbers, the market will supply them if allowed to do so. Civilization will benefit. I am not saying otherwise. This is not an attack on the marketplace. It is an attempt at a realistic assessment, given mass habits, expectations, and the prevailing worldview. If the masses want to put chemicals in their bodies that don’t belong there, or have their unborn children killed, or take any number of other forms of destructive action, left to itself the market will supply all these, too. Does anyone seriously believe civilization will benefit?
There are readers, I am aware, who will see me as having capitulated to “statism” (the Mises Institute folks kicked me out some time ago). I would ask, even if you believe the federal government should get off pot users’ backs and legalize it, do you honestly believe there should be no laws or admonitions against Ponzi schemes beyond “let the buyer beware”? Tell that to elderly couples who have been scammed out of their life savings! Do you seriously believe there should be no laws against kiddie-porn? Sex-trafficking?
Finally, as I complete the last draft of this piece, Chile (where I now live) was just struck by a powerful 8.2 earthquake. Both damage and loss of life were minimized in affected cities because of building codes—codes taken seriously today but it is not clear would exist had the Chilean government not enacted regulations years ago that tall edificios be built for earthquake-resistance. Should these be repealed, so that Chile can end up like Haiti, where there are no codes and where the capital city was leveled by a 7.0 quake three years ago? Should there be no government patrols sent to affected areas to stop or prevent looting? Unfortunately, there are Chileans who will steal anything not nailed down—one of many indications I have seen that Chile is not ready for liberty. (Not that certain groups in the U.S. won’t loot, if the lights go out.)
Genuine liberty requires a civilization-wide moral compass and sense of responsibility that is largely self-enforcing, because a moral people does certain things and refrains from doing or allowing others. A moral compass places restrictions on actions, restrictions best acquired from their parents as children, which means, of course: stable, loving families. It puts in place the critical mass that ensures that the political class is on a short leash.
Too many libertarians have not thought through what this all involves. They stay inside their comfort zones of political philosophy and Austrian economics. Genuine liberty requires a Christian worldview, and must shun a superficially arrogant pseudo-rationalism that mocks Christianity and substitutes false idols on its altar, be they science, reason, markets, money, sex, or what-have-you.
Where do we go from here? Good question! There is so much to reverse that it probably can’t be accomplished in a generation, much less a two-term presidency! And we are rapidly running out of time! Many Christians, of course, believe we are in the “last days” prior to Christ’s return, and that He alone will set things right. No one, though, knows God’s timetable. Others believe that because of the fiscal irresponsibility of our elites we are looking at a game-changing “reset” when the dollar collapses and takes much of the world down with it. I don’t endorse this idea, but it isn’t impossible. One thing is for sure: unless libertarians break with materialist naturalism and help restore the Christian worldview seen in Founders like John Adams, for the time being they will go on spinning their wheels as liberty gets crushed under those of the “deep state.”
© 2014 Steven Yates – All Rights Reserved
April 23rd, 2014 by olddog
By Tony Cartalucci
Attempts to paint Pakistan as a dangerous enemy of the West and a prime candidate for military intervention has been made once again by those in the Western media. ABC News, in an article titled, “‘Double dealing’: How Pakistan hid Osama Bin Laden from the U.S. and fueled the war in Afghanistan,” claims that:
What if the United States has been waging the wrong war against the wrong enemy for the last 13 years in Afghanistan?
Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Carlotta Gall, who spent more than a decade covering Afghanistan since 2001, concludes just that in her new book, “The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014.”
Gall told “On the Radar” that Pakistan – not Afghanistan – has been the United States’ real enemy.
And while Gall’s “book” might be easily dismissed as irrelevant warmongering, it echoes a narrative that was crafted by some of the most notorious policy makers in the US and promoted widely in 2011 across the Western media. This included the BBC’s documentary, “Secret Pakistan,” from which it appears Gall is deriving her premise.
Unraveling the Propaganda
The documentary “Secret Pakistan” can be summed up with two very telling quotes. The first is from Sherard Cowper-Coles, a British diplomat who served as the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2009-2010, before that as ambassador to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and now the international business development director of British defense contractor BAE Systems. He claims during the BBC documentary that (44:00):
“…the real military threat is the Taliban – a serious insurgency that’s got nothing to do with Bin Laden. Bin Laden, in operational terms, is utterly spectacularly irrelevant.”
Quite clearly this contradicts the “war on terror” narrative peddled to Western audiences for over a decade and instead suggests that current US, British and NATO operation in Afghanistan has more to do with Western interests in the region than fighting the alleged perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attack on Washington and New York City.
The next important quote comes toward the end of the documentary where former CIA officer and current fellow at the corporate-funded think-tank, Brookings Institution, Bruce Riedel (57:35) claims:
“…there is probably no worst nightmare for America, for Europe, for the world in the 21st century than a Pakistan that is out of control, under the influence of extremist Islamist forces armed with nuclear weapons.”
This comment, however, is not as straight forward or as truthful as Cowper-Coles’. However, if one realizes that this destabilization Riedel is hinting at is actually the work of the US and NATO done as a pretext to intervene more directly in Pakistan, then it becomes truly telling – and we see the BBC documentary, along with Gall’s recent book, as yet more examples of a corporate-media conjured casus belli.
War With Pakistan
Afghanistan was never the final destination for the many empires in human history that found themselves mired there. The United States and its axis partners are no different. Just as it was a strategic springboard for the Greeks, British, and Russians to project their power beyond, the US sees Afghanistan in a similar light, with neighboring Iran, Pakistan, and China in particular mind.
The most overt example comes in the form of nearly a decade of deadly US drone attacks carried out in Pakistani territory. These attacks have led to over 3,000 killed, a quarter of which have been civilians, and constitutes an act of war no other nation on Earth would tolerate. While the US claims these operations are “anti-terror” in nature, they appear to be instead a component among a much greater campaign to undermine and destabilize Pakistan politically.
Other components include the direct US support of separatists in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province. Baluchi terrorists straddle the Iranian-Pakistani border and have long been considered by the West as armed proxies of great utility.
In a 2006 report by the corporate-financier funded think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism,” violence starting as early as 2004-2005 is described. According to the report, 20% of Pakistan’s mineral and energy resources reside in the sparsely populated province. On page 4 of the report, the prospect of using the Baluchi rebels against both Islamabad and Tehran is proposed.
In Seymour Hersh’s 2008 article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” US support of Baluchi groups operating against Tehran is reported as already ongoing. As already mentioned, in Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” the subject of arming and sending Baluchi insurgents against Tehran is also discussed in great depth.
The 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report makes special note of the fact that above all, the Baluchistan province serves as a transit zone for a potential Iranian-India-Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline as well as a port, Gwadar, that serves as a logistical hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia’s landlocked nations as well as a port for the Chinese.
The report notes that the port was primarily constructed with Chinese capital and labor with the intention of it serving as a Chinese naval station “to protect Beijing’s oil supply from the Middle East and to counter the US presence in Central Asia.” This point in particular, regarding China, was described in extricating detail in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report means to co-opt and contain China’s influence throughout the region are discussed.
More recently, longtime proponent of a Baluchi insurgency in Pakistan, Selig Harrison of the corporate-funded Center for International Policy, has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself.
Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating:
“Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”
Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating,
“China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ”
He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying:
“to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”
Clearly, US geopolitical policy makers have put much time and effort into the destabilization of Pakistan, using NATO’s presence in neighboring Afghanistan as a means of executing it. With China’s containment becoming an increasing obsession among US policy makers, understanding how Pakistan’s destabilization plays a role in such containment is essential in assessing how far the US is willing to go in South Asia. With NATO troops slated to begin permanently pulling out of Afghanistan, Gall’s attempt to dust off a narrative that will give those NATO troops a new mandate to linger on in the region may be a tentative first step in attempting to sell a confrontation with Pakistan to Western audiences.
There is also the possibility that Gall is simply using recycled news from 2011 onward to sell her book – capitalizing on a geopolitical campaign that has long since unraveled for a West increasingly showing signs of irreversible and accelerating decline. However, it is essential to understand where Gall’s narrative is being drawn from, the deception it constitutes, and the purpose for that deception within the context of the West’s plans against both Pakistan and on a larger scale, for the encirclement and containment of China. Understanding such deceptions inoculates the Western public against another costly and protracted conflict that will benefit neither themselves nor the Pakistani people.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
April 22nd, 2014 by olddog
By John W. Whitehead
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy
Those tempted to write off the standoff at the Bundy Ranch as little more than a show of force by militia-minded citizens would do well to reconsider their easy dismissal of this brewing rebellion. This goes far beyond concerns about grazing rights or the tension between the state and the federal government.
Few conflicts are ever black and white, and the Bundy situation, with its abundance of gray areas, is no exception. Yet the question is not whether Cliven Bundy and his supporters are domestic terrorists, as Harry Reid claims, or patriots, or something in between. Nor is it a question of whether the Nevada rancher is illegally grazing his cattle on federal land or whether that land should rightfully belong to the government. Nor is it even a question of who’s winning the showdown— the government with its arsenal of SWAT teams, firepower and assault vehicles, or Bundy’s militia supporters with their assortment of weapons—because if such altercations end in bloodshed, everyone loses.
What we’re really faced with, and what we’ll see more of before long, is a growing dissatisfaction with the government and its heavy-handed tactics by people who are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.” And it won’t matter what the issue is—whether it’s a rancher standing his ground over grazing rights, a minister jailed for holding a Bible study in his own home, or a community outraged over police shootings of unarmed citizens—these are the building blocks of a political powder keg. Now all that remains is a spark, and it need not be a very big one, to set the whole powder keg aflame.
As I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there’s a subtext to this incident that must not be ignored, and it is simply this: America is a pressure cooker with no steam valve, and things are about to blow. This is what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent.
The government has been anticipating and preparing for such an uprising for years. For example, in 2008, a U.S. Army War College report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order”—all related to dissent and protests over America’s economic and political disarray. Consequently, predicted the report, the “widespread civil violence would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”
One year later, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama issued its infamous reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism.” According to these reports, an extremist is defined as anyone who subscribes to a particular political viewpoint. Rightwing extremists, for example, are broadly defined in the report as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
Despite “no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,” the DHS listed a number of scenarios that could arise as a result of so-called rightwing extremists playing on the public’s fears and discontent over various issues, including the economic downturn, real estate foreclosures and unemployment.
Equally disconcerting, the reports use the words “terrorist” and “extremist” interchangeably. In other words, voicing what the government would consider to be extremist viewpoints is tantamount to being a terrorist. Under such a definition, I could very well be considered a terrorist. So too could John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU), Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams—all of these men protested and passionately spoke out against government practices with which they disagreed and would be prime targets under this document.
The document also took pains to describe the political views of those who would qualify as being a rightwing extremist. For example, you are labeled a rightwing extremist if you voice concerns about a myriad of issues including: policy changes under President Obama; the economic downturn and home foreclosures; the loss of U.S. jobs in manufacturing and construction sectors; and social issues such as abortion, interracial crimes and immigration. DHS also issued a red-flag warning against anyone who promotes “conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps.”
Fast forward five years, with all that has transpired, from the Occupy Protests and the targeting of military veterans to domestic surveillance, especially of activist-oriented groups and now, most recently, the Bundy Ranch showdown, and it would seem clear that the government has not veered one iota from its original playbook. Indeed, the government’s full-blown campaign of surveillance of Americans’ internet activity, phone calls, etc., makes complete sense in hindsight.
All that we have been subjected to in recent years—living under the shadow of NSA spying; motorists strip searched and anally probed on the side of the road; innocent Americans spied upon while going about their daily business in schools and stores; homeowners having their doors kicked in by militarized SWAT teams serving routine warrants—illustrates how the government deals with people it views as potential “extremists”: with heavy-handed tactics designed to intimidate the populace into submission and discourage anyone from stepping out of line or challenging the status quo.
It’s not just the Cliven Bundys of the world who are being dealt with in this manner. Don Miller, a 91-year-old antiques collector, recently had his Indiana home raided by the FBI, ostensibly because it might be in the nation’s best interest if the rare and valuable antiques and artifacts Miller had collected over the course of 80 years were cared for by the government. Such tactics carried out by anyone other than the government would be considered grand larceny, and yet the government gets a free pass.
In the same way, the government insists it can carry out all manner of surveillance on us—listen in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, even enter our biometric information into DNA databases—but those who dare to return the favor, even a little, by filming potential police misconduct, get roughed up by the police, arrested, charged with violating various and sundry crimes.
When law enforcement officials—not just the police, but every agent of the government entrusted with enforcing laws, from the president on down—are allowed to discard the law when convenient, and the only ones having to obey the law are the citizenry and not the enforcers, then the law becomes only a tool to punish us, rather than binding and controlling the government, as it was intended.
This phenomenon is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s henchmen, a.k.a. its guns for hire, a.k.a. its standing army, a.k.a. the nation’s law enforcement agencies.
Indeed, there can no longer be any doubt that militarized police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband. Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens.
That is exactly what we are witnessing today: a war against the American citizenry. Is it any wonder then that Americans are starting to resist?
More and more, Americans are tired, frustrated, anxious, and worried about the state of their country. They are afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government, and they are worried about the economic insecurity which still grips the nation. And they’re growing increasingly sick of being treated like suspects and criminals. As former law professor John Baker, who has studied the growing problem of overcriminalization, noted, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. That is not an exaggeration.”
To make matters worse, a recent scientific study by Princeton researchers confirms that the United States of America is not the democracy that is purports to be, but rather an oligarchy, in which “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy.” As PolicyMic explains, “An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military… In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.”
So if average Americans, having largely lost all of the conventional markers of influencing government, whether through elections, petition, or protest, have no way to impact their government, no way to be heard, no assurance that their concerns are truly being represented and their government is one “by the people, of the people, and for the people,” as opposed to being engineered expressly for the benefit of the wealthy elite, then where does that leave them?
To some, the choice is clear. As psychologist Erich Fromm recognized in his insightful book, On Disobedience: “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary). He acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle.”
Unfortunately, the intrepid, revolutionary American spirit that stood up to the British, blazed paths to the western territories, and prevailed despite a civil war, multiple world wars, and various economic depressions has taken quite a beating in recent years. Nevertheless, the time is coming when each American will have to decide: will you be a slave, rebel or revolutionary?
When the SHTF in America, there will be wailing and gashing of teeth because the spirit of freedom has been lost and obedience has been accepted as the right thing to do. So, my fellow do gooders, what will you do when real men come knocking and asking for provisions to continue the resistance, run for the phone and turn them in, or give them what you can and bless them for their sacrifice? Believe me; you don’t want to hear what I think most American’s will do, or what will happen to them when they do. Remember this! If you call for help instead of giving it, the animals they send are just as likely going to take you out in the process. I wish I could watch! The best scenario will leave your house in ashes or well ventilated.
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
April 21st, 2014 by olddog
Received by email
The first paragraph of Mr. Wheelers statement is perfect.
Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informative. He consulted with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer.
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . He is a polished turd in the salad bowl. (Olddog)
Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively. What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships.
He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it. Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand – how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
And yet he got elected, not once but twice. Thanks to those that did not think it was important to vote for freedom and those that were willing to give up their freedoms for entitlements.
Remember you don't have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave, if you are dependent on government entitlements you just have a different slave owner.
PASS THIS ON TO EVERY THINKING AMERICAN YOU KNOW!
April 20th, 2014 by olddog
Received by email
Jan. 17 2013
TO THE EDITOR:
Republicans and “so called” conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?
We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our great President came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us.
I don’t know the exact statistics, but I’m quite certain the Chicago is a lot safer than Morehead City NC, when it comes to gun violence.
But do Republicans and Conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not! All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth distribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution I’d say, and president Obama needs to change it.
The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the President is Black. They even dared to question whether He was born in this country. I think that all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being President.
Right now it says that a person has to be thirty five years old, and to be a natural born citizen. Well that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for President because their Mother had a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a Doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way.
Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in order to make life fair.
Please withhold my name because I don’t want to receive crank calls.
Which-ever News Paper received this letter to the editor should have dispatched the funny farm cops to pick her/it/him up and take her/it/him to the psychiatric ward for a brain replacement. This is the classic dumbass attitude of government educated whacko’s who want everyone to be like them, and if they’re not, then force them to be. As for me and my house, we desire a separate government to live under, and preferably a different Continent. Stupidity is contagious! HAPPY EASTER FROM OLDDOG
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
April 18th, 2014 by olddog
Press TV does the lefty Hegelian dialectic routine for TPTB calling for dollar devaluation to "end the empire". Shorty Dawkins at Oath Keepers spotted this nonsense and made a great comment to O.K. readers as a teaching moment! You see why I've been complaining about Russia and China as patsies for dollar devaluation?
The following article is interesting in that what it says is basically true, but it is very telling in what it leaves out. It is curious to note that the article only quickly mentions the IMF. Is this because both Russia and China back the use of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR)? The article would have you believe there is a sharp division to be made between the US and its dollar supporters, and Russia and China – where, if you look closely, they are two sides of the same coin.
Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor.
When a journalist as erudite as Yuram Weiler presents a meticulously surreptitious treatise on a subject as intricate as international banking, one can safely conclude it is an intentional attempt to obfuscate the crux of the matter. The world must be constantly informed of the Banking Cartels global control of all foreign and monitary policy. They must be eliminated, or the whole world will become destitute.
US military protecting international banking cartel
By Yuram Abdullah Weiler
“My assessment is that 90% of the value of the US dollar comes from the US military.”
Former Assistant Housing Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts
File photo shows a local branch of Bank of America.
‘Egypt’s judiciary system corrupt’
For decades, America has used its armed strength to enforce the use of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, effectively making the US military the armed wing of the international banking cartel (IBC). Since 1971 when President Richard Nixon stopped paying US debt obligations with gold, America has increasingly used its military might to prop up the value of the dollar and enforce a global financial structure whose primary beneficiary is the US itself, and whose central bank, the Federal Reserve, serves as the IBC’s supervisory authority.
Who or what is this IBC? It consists of Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo along with Deutsche Bank, BNP and Barclays. Eight families reportedly control the IBC: the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans, Kuhn Loebs, Rothschilds, Warburgs, Lazards and the Israel Moses Seifs. Besides owning the US oil behemoths Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco, IBC member institutions are among the top ten shareholders of nearly every Fortune 500 company. While the IBC itself has no formal status, nevertheless its members are represented by an international body, the Financial Stability Board (FSB). Organized as the Financial Security Forum in 1999 by G7 finance ministers and central bank governors, the FSB “seeks to give momentum to a broad-based multilateral agenda for strengthening financial systems and the stability of international financial markets.”
War is extremely profitable for the IBC, since not only do its members profit from financing arms sales to both sides during the conflicts that they themselves often initiate, but also from the post bellum reconstruction. In fact, the most powerful of the central banking institutions in the world, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), was established in 1930 to oversee reparation payments imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles that ended the First World War. In addition to providing banking services for central banks worldwide, the BIS supervised the Bretton Woods international currency agreements from the Second World War until the early 1970s, when Nixon reneged on pledges to pay US debt obligations in gold. The BIS also works with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to expand the IBC-imposed debt-dependency cycle among the nations of the world.
The methodology for global financial domination is really quite simple: America imports more goods than it exports and therefore dollars flow out of the US and accumulate in the central banks of other countries. Since the US has refused to honor these obligations in gold, the central banks are forced to invest in US treasury bills, bonds and other US financial instruments that pay interest which is financed by the issuance of further debt. The result is a US-dominated global financial system dependent upon maintaining the value, or more correctly, minimizing the rate of depreciation, of the dollar, allowing the US to enjoy an extravagant consumer-based economy at the expense of the rest of the world.
Regarding the insidious US debt-domination process, Wall Street analyst Michael Hudson explains that “by running balance-of-payments deficits that it refuses to settle in gold, it has obliged foreign governments to invest their surplus dollar holdings in Treasury bills, that is, to relend their dollar inflows to the US Treasury.” The system is somewhat self-perpetuating, for should a non-US central bank decide to divest its dollars, it would effectively sabotage the economy in its own country. Of course, foreign central banks and financial institutions are well aware that by investing in US treasury securities, they will lose money since the Federal Reserve will only turn around and “print” more dollars, thus further diluting the value of their reserves. However, if these foreign institutions would fail to reinvest their dollars in more T-bills, the rate of depreciation of their dollar holdings would accelerate dramatically. Such awareness holds most governments in check, preventing wholesale dumping of dollars, which of course would bring the entire global system down, along with the IBC.
Hence, demand for US dollars and government and agency bonds continues even as [dollar] value falls. The losses on these holdings represent a tax paid to the ‘Empire’,” writes Catherine Austin Fitts, adding, “The fundamental system is as old as the hills. It is based on force.” Conversely, this ability of the IBC to call upon the US military, which incidentally consumes 40 percent of global military spending, whenever and wherever the cartel’s interests are threatened, results directly from the global dominance of the dollar. India-based scholar and social activist Rohini Hensm writes, “It is the dominance of the dollar that underpins US financial dominance as a whole as well as the apparently limitless spending power that allows it to keep hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world.” In short, dollar dominance allows the obscenely profligate spending to maintain the US military’s global presence, which in turn insures the continuing hegemony of the dollar.
Nevertheless, an increasing number of challenges to this dollar hegemony regime has arisen, some of which have necessitated suppression by the US military. Iraq is a good case in point. In November of 2000, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein announced to the world that Iraq would no longer accept dollars for petroleum transactions. Despite the declining value of the Euro, Saddam demanded payment for Iraqi oil in the troubled currency while declaring dollars to be “the currency of the enemy.” By 2002, Iraqi oil was being traded in Euros, effectively dumping the dollar. Former US President George W. Bush, who was a deputy of the IBC from the oil industry, used the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a convenient excuse to invade Iraq in March 2003, thus eliminating Saddam’s threat to dollar domination.
When former Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi tried to establish a state-run central bank and trade petroleum in non-dollar currencies, the IBC tapped NATO to intervene. On March 19, 2011, a mere month after initial internal unrest, the Transitional National Council “rebels” announced they were establishing the Libyan Oil Company as the supervisory authority on oil production and policies, and designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as the authority for monetary policies. That a local group of rebels one month into a rebellion would form a national oil company and designate a private central bank astounded Robert Wenzel of the Economic Policy Journal who remarked, “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.” Confirming suspicions of IBC involvement, the US Treasury placed sanctions on Qaddafi’s National Oil Corporation, but assured the rebels, “Should National Oil Corporation subsidiaries or facilities come under different ownership and control, Treasury may consider authorizing dealings with such entities.”
Other countries have had enough of the IBC and its armed wing. Both Russia and China have expressed their distaste for the dollar status quo and US threats of sanctions or military force. On Thursday, Sept. 6, 2012, China announced that any nation in the world that wishes to buy, sell, or trade crude oil can do using the Chinese currency, not the American dollar. Following suit the next day, Russia announced that it would sell China all the crude oil it wanted but it would not accept US dollars. In addition, Russia has recently unveiled a payment system, called the PRO 100 Universal electronic card, designed to bypass the IBC should it again decide to block credit card services to Russian banks. “There is little doubt in my mind but that Russia and China and no doubt many other countries around the world are getting angry as hell about the US abusing its foreign currency privilege,” wrote investment banker Jay Taylor.
Iran, of course, has long been targeted by the IBC for refusing to surrender to US-imposed sanctions and threats of military force. Iran had completely eliminated the use of US dollars for oil trading by December 2007 and inaugurated its Bourse (stock exchange) for trading petroleum in non-dollar currencies in February 2008, coinciding with the 29th anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. Additionally, the IBC has tried to cut off Iran from using SWIFT, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, for international transactions. However, with the world's second-largest gas reserves and third-largest oil reserves, Iran retains the potential to strike a major blow against US dollar hegemony.
The question is how can we put an end to this stranglehold on the global financial system by the IBC and its armed wing? Hensm gives us a simple, straightforward answer: “Destroy US dollar hegemony, and the ‘Empire’ will collapse.” If more nations join Iran, Russia and China, and opt out of the US dollar protection racket, then this evil “Empire” will surely collapse along with its armed wing.
Yuram Abdullah Weiler is a freelance writer and political critic who has written dozens of articles on the Middle East and US policy. A former engineer with a background in mathematics and a convert to Islam, he currently writes perspectives on Islam, social justice, economics and politics from the viewpoint of an American convert to Shia Islam, focusing on the deleterious role played by the US in the Middle East and elsewhere. A dissenting voice from the “Belly of the Beast”, he lives with his wife in Denver, Colorado.
More articles by Yuram Abdullah Weiler
April 17th, 2014 by olddog
I have never made a secret of the fact that I consider most humans as dumb as rocks, but if anyone is so stupid they still believe the twin towers came down from the fire’s, I recommend you jump off the nearest bridge and save the world from intellectual contamination. I have no patience with total ignorance, and all who believe the government is not complicit in this tragedy must be sub-human.
Read the text, and watch the video’s if you’re dumb enough to need assurance it was a demolition job, and that too is evidence you’re short on brains. Anyone with more than two inches between their ears would have recognized it immediately on the first news media video that day. No wonder America is being destroyed from the inside out!!! GEEEZE!
WTC Tower construction showing core column’s
To believe the official conspiracy theory regarding the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rise buildings requires an Olympian leap of faith. It asks us to accept impossible coincidences, to assume the laws of physics don't always apply, and to ignore common sense. Being one of 9/11's least likely hypotheses, it requires that we emotionally moor ourselves to its tenets, because an intellectual examination or inquiry would quickly reveal dots that don't connect. Fortunately, a much more cogent theory exists. It suggests that controlled demolition, not fire, was the cause of the collapse of WTC Buildings 1,2, and 7.
But this theory, although supported by overwhelming scientific forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and visual documentation, is nevertheless rejected by official conspiracy theorists. On the grounds that it presumes impossibly high logistical hurdles for the perpetrators, the official conspiracy theorists argue that a plan of such magnitude would have been impossible to carry out. How was security breached? How were necessary cables and other equipment moved into the buildings unseen, and how did a demolition team gain access to structural members? To investigators and degreed professionals who have studied the evidence, these questions are elementary. What follows is a simple, yet compelling, visual and scientific narrative, which explains how the controlled destruction of World Trade Center Towers 1,2, and 7 was accomplished.
Daily Paul – How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition
As public awareness grows about the truth about 9/11, it serves to point out that many features of the towers' destruction fit perfectly with standard patterns of demolition. Evidence which at first seems puzzling is in fact consistent with known demolition techniques.
WTC 7 differed from Towers One and Two in that WTC7 was a traditional "bottom-up" implosion. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, exhibited the more unfamiliar pattern of a "banana peel" demolition, which starts at the middle or the top of a building and progresses downward. The below demolition in China shows the pattern of streamers of arcing debris that we see coming from the Twin Towers, as the cutting of supports begins high above ground level and works its way down.
For more, read the article in its entirety here.
April 16th, 2014 by olddog
All of a sudden the government lays claims to your savings. They can't prove you owe them a dime, but you're deprived due process. The legal bills become overwhelming, and so you let your money be stolen. You simply have no choice.
Sound outlandish? It's not. Not in the "Land of the Free" at least.
For example, the US government began intercepting Mary Grice's tax refunds without any warning this tax season. Grice was unaware of the situation until she got a letter stating that her refund had gone to satisfy old debt to the government. Very old debt…In fact, debt she didn't even know about.
That debt stems back to 1960, when Grice was 4, around the time her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, her mother Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them. But, according to Social Security, something went awry.
Social Security now claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family – though it is not sure whom – in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after the daughter. She is not the only one.
Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers will receive letters like the one Grice got. Because of some unknown debt they never even knew about, that might not have anything to do with them, the government is confiscating their money. They won't have their day in court, in most cases, because they don't have the money to fight.
Already in 2014, the US Treasury Department has "intercepted" $1.9 billion in tax refunds, $75 million of which has been delinquent for more than ten years. The effort to collect old debts was ratcheted up in the last three years, the result of a sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam. Social Security, the Treasury Department and Congress have all denied seeking the change. Why now?
“We have an obligation to current and future Social Security beneficiaries to attempt to recoup money that people received when it was not due," says Social Security spokeswoman Dorothy Clark.
Since the effort to collect old debts began in 2011, the Treasury Department has collected $424 million in debts that were over 10 years old. The Social Security Administration has found 400,000 taxpayers who collectively owe $714 million on debts over 10 years old. The agency expects to have begun proceedings against all of those people by the summer.
“It was a shock,” said Grice, 58. “What incenses me is the way they went about this. They gave me no notice, they can’t prove that I received any overpayment, and they use intimidation tactics, threatening to report this to the credit bureaus.”
Grice filed a suit against the Social Security Administration alleging they violated her right to due process by holding her responsible for the $2,996 debt supposedly incurred under her father's Social Security number. On its website, The Federal Trade Commission states “family members typically are not obligated to pay the debts of a deceased relative from their own assets.”
But Social Security sees it differently. If a child indirectly receives funds from public money paid to the parent, the children's money is fair game.
“The craziest part of this whole thing is the way the government seizes a child’s money to satisfy a debt that child never even knew about,” says Robert Vogel, Grice’s attorney. “They’ll say that somebody got paid for that child’s benefit, but the child had no control over the money and there’s no way to know if the parent ever used the money for the benefit of that kid…Can the government really bring back to life a case that was long dead? Can it really be right to seize a child’s money to satisfy a parent’s debt?”
Although Grice has a lawyer, most taxpayers whose refunds have been taken say they are unable to contest the confiscations because of the cost.
The Treasury initially held the full amount of Grice’s federal and state refunds, a total of $4,462. Last week, after The Washington Post inquired about Grice’s case, and then the government returned the part of her refund above the $2,996 owed on her father’s account.
But unless the feds can prove that she ever received any of the overpayment, Grice wants all of her money back.
“Look, I love a good fight, especially for principle,” she said. “My mom used to say, ‘This country is carried on the backs of the little people,’ and now I see what she meant. This is really sad.”
Does one need more evidence that the federal government is bankrupt? It's grasping at every last penny it can get by inserting legislation deep inside bills that the House of Representatives doesn't even read. One sentence is all that is needed for your savings to be confiscated. But don't worry, it is all to pay down a trifling US government debt:
Of the hundreds of thousands who have claims by the Treasury or Social(ist) (In)Security against them only 10% win their cases and are absolved of forking over money. There is nothing you can do about bureaucracy once bureaucracy decides to come after you. In the future there will only be more of the same as government agencies seize funds, including the nationalization of IRAs and pensions.
The best way to protect yourself is to get your funds and assets outside of the US preferably not even in your personal name. That is where The TDV Wealth Management Conference comes in. Only here will you learn the ins-and-outs of the new American system, and the options available to you, as an American, at the end of empire. Don't miss out.
Click here to join the discussion at The Dollar Vigilante.
Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.
April 15th, 2014 by olddog
By Mark Owen
There are two Crowns operant in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II.
Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament.
This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre, independent sovereign state know as The City of London, or simply 'The City.'
The City is not a part of England, just as Washington, D.C. is not a part of the USA.
The City is referred to as the wealthiest square mile on earth and is presided over by a Lord Mayor who is appointed annually.
When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple (Templar) Bar where she requests permission to enter this private, sovereign state. She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the Mayor.
Her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniforms.
In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world's trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world's oceans.
The Crown reaped billions in profits while operating under the protection of the British armed forces. This was not British commerce or British wealth, but the Crown's commerce and the Crown's wealth.
As of 1850, author Frederick Morton estimated the Rothschild fortune to be in excess of $10 billion [today, the combined wealth of the banking dynasties is $300 trillion]. Today, the bonded indebtedness of the world is held by the Crown.
The aforementioned Temple Bar is the juristic arm of the Crown and holds an exclusive monopoly on global legal fraud through their Bar Association franchises. The Temple Bar is comprised of four Inns of Court. They are, the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn. The entry point to these closed secret societies is only to be found when one is called to their Bar.
The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple.
The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain dry, while the Middle Temple has license to steal from America.
To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally, Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies). States spelled with a capital letter 'S,' denotes a legal entity of the Crown.
At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown, signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both parties were agents of the Crown. There is no lawful effect when a party signs as both the first and second parties. The Declaration was simply an internal memo circulating among private members of the Crown.
Most Americans believe that they own their own land, but they have merely purchased real estate by contract. Upon fulfillment of the contract, control of the land is transferred by Warranty Deed. The Warranty Deed is only a 'color of title.' Color of Title is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law. The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent.
The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of England. Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the Declaration of Independence was created to pacify the poplulace.
Another ruse used to hoodwink natural persons is by enfranchisement. Those cards in your wallet bearing your name spelled in all capital letters means that you have been enfranchised and have the status of a corporation. A 'juristic personality' has been created, and you have entered into multi-variant agreements that place you in an equity relationship with the Crown.
These invisible contracts include, birth certificates, citizenship records, employment agreements, driver's licenses and bank accounts. It is perhaps helpful to note here that contracts do not now, nor have they ever had to be stated in writing in order to be enforceable by American judges. If it is written down, it is merely a written statement of the contract.
Tax protestors and (the coming) draft resistors trying to renounce the parts of these contracts that they now disagree with will not profit by resorting to tort law (fairness) arguments as justification. Judges will reject these lines of defense as they have no bearing on contract law jurisprudence. Tort law governs grievances where no contract law is in effect.
These private agreements/contracts that bind us will always overrule the broad general clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English common law). The Bill of Rights is viewed by the Crown as a 'bill of benefits,' conferred on us by them in anticipation of reciprocity (taxes).
Protestors and resistors will also lose their cases by boasting of citizenship status. Citizenship is another equity agreement that we have with the Crown. And this is the very juristic contract that Federal judges will use to incarcerate them. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, " .citizens shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind"
What we view as citizenship, the Crown views as a juristic enrichment instrumentality. It also should be borne in mind that even cursory circulation or commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes effects an attachment of liability for the payment of the Crown's debt to the FED. This is measured by your taxable income.
And to facilitate future asset-stripping, the end of the 14th
amendment includes a state of debt hypothecation of the United States, wherein all enfranchised persons (that's you) can be held personally liable for the Crown's debt.
The Crown views our participation in these contracts of commercial equity as being voluntary and that any gain accrued is taxable, as the gain wouldn't have been possible were in not for the Crown. They view the system of interstate banks as their own property. Any profit or gain experienced by anyone with a bank account (or loan, mortgage or credit card) carries with it – as an operation of law – the identical same full force and effect as if the Crown had created the gain.
Bank accounts fall outside the umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection because a commercial contract is in effect and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with the execution of commercial contracts. The Crown also views bank account records as their own private property, pursuant to the bank contract that each of us signed and that none of us ever read.
The rare individual who actually reads the bank contract will find that they agreed to be bound by Title 26 and under section 7202 agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. This written contract with the Crown also acknowledges that bank notes are taxable instruments of commerce.
When we initially opened a bank account, another juristic personality was created. It is this personality (income and assets) that IRS agents are excising back to the Crown through taxation.
A lot of ink is being spilled currently over Social Security.
Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security Number to an employer seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.
Through the Social Security Number we are accepting future retirement endowment benefits. Social Security is a strange animal. If you die, your spouse gets nothing, but rather, what would have gone to you is divided (forfeited) among other premium payers who haven't died yet.
But the Crown views failure to reciprocate in any of these equity attachments as an act of defilement and will proceed against us with all due prejudice.
For a person to escape the tentacles of the Crown octopus, a thoroughgoing study of American jurisprudence is required. One would have to be deemed a 'stranger to the public trust,' forfeit all enfranchisement benefits and close all bank accounts, among other things.
Citizenship would have to be made null and forfeit and the status of 'denizen' enacted. If there are any persons extant who have passed through this fire, I would certainly appreciate hearing from them.
April 12th, 2014 by olddog
All the attention over the vote by Crimeans to leave the Ukraine makes for a timely review of other separatist factions that are seeking a similar resolution. The list of active separatist movements in Europe is exhaustive.
The immediate impression is that a pervasive discontent, shared by legions of subjects, who want independence and self-determination, will be hard to derail. When European autocratic and aristocrats ruled, the only option was revolution. Today the descendants of the old regimes still wield power under the guise of democratically elected authorities. However, separatist sentiment does not mean the same to every splinter group.
Examine Europe's Latest Secession Movement: Venice, for a telling indicator.
An organization representing a coalition of Venetian nationalist groups, held an unofficial referendum on breaking with Rome. Voters were first asked the main question -"Do you want Veneto to become an independent and sovereign federal republic?" -followed by three sub-questions on membership in the European Union, NATO, and the eurozone . . .
As the referendum's organizers announced the results: 2,102,969 votes in favor of independence—a whopping 89 percent of all ballots cast—to 257,266 votes against. Venetians also said yes to joining NATO, the EU, and the eurozone.
Note the significance of wanting to be part of NATO and the EU.
Next, look at the more widely reported effort, in the land of "Braveheart" William Wallace. Scottish secession remains unlikely, but momentum is with the schismatics provides a more stately viewpoint from the Commonwealth.
After months of comfort for the pro-unionist ‘Better Together’ campaign, the most recent polls point to a tighter race with 40 percent of Scots supporting secession. With six months to go, the momentum appears to be with those seeking an amicable divorce.
Scottish independence would not lead to a republic. Queen Elizabeth II (I of Scotland) would remain head of state, a smart move by the ‘Yes’ campaign to de-radicalize independence and make the electorate feel more comfortable with a vote for change. The debate has therefore become more focused on incrementalism, with plans for an independent Scotland retaining both membership of NATO and the European Union, a common currency with the rest of the UK, and open borders.
A video from the Carnegie Council gives a spin in Which Separatist Movements Will Succeed, which plays down the urgent motivation for "FREEDOM" for an evolutionary approach.
An essay out of Wharton, Is Secession the Answer? The Case of Catalonia, Flanders and Scotland, points out the obvious, while illustrating the problematic.
It may seem paradoxical in an age of global communications, but the revival of regionalism "is a global phenomenon," notes Jacob Funk Kierkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Today’s high-speed technologies, including the Internet, "enable people to start a campaign and get out their message" quickly and repeatedly to like-minded people who might have harbored such desires in private.
Beyond its unique constitutional challenges, Catalonia faces another hurdle: The eurozone has a de facto veto over its independence. "If Catalonia becomes independent, will they [still] be part of the eurozone?" Kierkegaard asks, adding that, if Catalonia votes to secede, the EU response could be that "you will have to issue your own currency, and your banks will have no access to the European Central Bank. You won’t automatically have a seat on the ECB governing council.
In the Spanish situation, by contrast, the establishment would have you believe the militant Basques ETA nationalists harbor violent resolve. The YouTube Thousands March In Spain In Support Of ETA, reports that the EU labels this movement as terrorists. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the Catalan Sovereignty Claim Blocked by Spain Constitutional Court, is but a spillover effort to discredit Catalonia’s claim. "Sovereignty is "not contemplated in our constitution for nationalities and regions that make up the state" and no one can break the principle of the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation," the ruling said.
Such illustrations all exhibit unique local concerns and grievances, while sharing a basic distrust of national authority. What stands out is an anserine eagerness to remain part of the EU and NATO. This factor may be a distinctively European trait, which seems to be lacking in the proper understanding that the surrender of national authority to a body of central banksters, social technocrats and empire military mercenaries is the fundamental cause of popular dissatisfaction.
Pat Buchanan in the article, Is Red State America Seceding?, provides numerous other European examples of discontent, then goes on to cite secession initiatives in the United States. It is striking that our country's unique experience has a shape difference from the blue-blooded patricians’ clashes that mark the history of Europe. Because of this difference, the indigenous cultures on the continent have never developed the same passion for individual liberty, which is inborn in the American revolutionary spirit.
Applying the same principles defended in the View from the Mount essay, Secession Movement Ready to Take Hold, would serve our European cousins well, in breaking up the EU and their NWO oppression.
Governments fall, while a consensual nation state can still survive. With the destruction of an accepted traditionalistic national identity, time-honored heritage becomes the target of dictatorial "do gooders" who facilitate subjugation of independent self-governing states.
Blowing out the candles of federal absolutism is the imperative of our age. Secession is not a dirty word, but is an indispensable solution. Dissolving the union of the suppressed, under the auspices of the subverted elite, is the path to social freedom and human liberty.
Libertarian and author L. Neil Smith argues, "What happened in America in the 1860s was a war of secession, a war of independence, no different in principle from what happened in America in the 1770s and 1780s." Compare most of the secession movements in the 21th century as half measure efforts that are not willing to take on the yoke of the globalist central banking financial system. The lessons presented in the Radical Reactionary article, Representation, Secession and Taxation, should be applied and adopted by the European secession movements.
As discontent rises and practical solutions evaporate, that dirty historic sentiment begins to bubble to the surface, SECESSION. Russell D. Longcore provides a standard, when secession is a vital and justified option that many would accept.
Secession should be solemnly deliberated by the elected representatives and the state citizens. Secession should be initiated at the moment that any state reaches the point at which it will no longer accept the despotic tyranny and laws coming from the US Federal Government in Washington, DC. Or, secession should be initiated upon a collapse of the Dollar, or the imposition by Washington DC of martial law in the event of social upheaval.
Discontent is not enough to overthrow the tyrants, who have definitively proven, that a European Union based upon top down authoritarianism is a lawful substitute for locally ruled government based upon common ethics and cultural heritage.
The dramatic rise in opposition to the ruling elites is most encouraging in the eternal struggle against despotism. However, the European socialist welfare model has produced generations of soft stock and irresponsible subjects. Surrendering national sovereignty was the monumental failure of the post-war era. Open borders to a confederation of dissimilar ethnic groups, attracts the disparate and incongruent, which builds even more pressure for secession.
As it stands today, the prospects for successful secession movements to attain their independence and autonomy are slim because each are fragmented. The correct and necessary element for separation, must be based upon the dissolution of the European Union and the elimination of the central banking system under the control of the international banksters.
Countries need to exercise their proper authority to coin their own currencies and maintain low taxation levels that fund minimum governmental functions.
While such a goal and objective is justified, the globalist controllers will not allow a serene exit from the monolith that they created. Marginal regional self-rule may eventually be reluctantly recognized, only if the basic leviathan structure remain intact and accepted by disgruntled camps. Notwithstanding, that approach can and will never bring about a restoration of national self-determination.
It is time for secession movements to unite and coalesce around a few fundamental principles, which they all share. The regional concerns are issues for local administration. Taking on the monster of globalist governance is a universal task.
Consequently, the undertaking domestically is to build groundswell defiance that moves past a modest grassroots opposition to incorporate the bulk of the rapidly declining middle class. This genuine moral majority must be willing to marginalize the federal government and restore the rightful authority of individual state jurisdiction.
If timid and docile Europeans are engaging in secession movements in such significant numbers, what is the excuse for industrious and energetic Americans from doing the same? This was the country for the home of the brave. Now is the time to restore that outlook with direct action.
Original article archived here
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. SARTRE is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
You Might Also Like
The Hornets’ Nest of Vaccine Information
5 Warning Signs That Cancer Is Starting in Your Body
4 Hormones All Skinny People Have In Balance
DNA Nanobots Enter Living Organism For First Time – Human Trials Within 5 Years?
#1 WORST food for digestion (are you eating it?)
14 Embarrassing Sex Questions
Testosterone Booster Takes GNC By Storm
A 101 Year Old Marathon Runner Shares His Secret To Limitless Energy
April 11th, 2014 by olddog
In my last article regarding the history and science of color revolutions, I attempted to demonstrate how the science of using mass movements of “swarming adolescents” to destabilize national governments and implement regime change is actually a well-established instrument of imperialist desires. In addition, the previous article also demonstrated the methodology of this type of attack in terms of the means of deployment and necessary components of the color revolution.
Yet, if one were to desire a case study in the art of color revolution and destabilization, then the case of Milosevic’s Serbia could easily be provided.
Indeed, Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post wrote an article in 2000 entitled, “U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition: Political Consultants Helped Yugoslav Opposition Topple Authoritarian Leader,” where he peripherally outlined the tactics used by the United States and NGOs in order to accomplish the desired regime change and the weakening of yet another target nation. This successful destabilization resulted in what Mowat deems in his excellent article “A New Gladio In Action,” “The Serbian Virus,” a domino effect of color revolutions in the Eastern European and Slavic countries. Dobbs wrote,
U.S.-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan "He's Finished," which became the revolution's catchphrase.
Some Americans involved in the anti-Milosevic effort said they were aware of CIA activity at the fringes of the campaign, but had trouble finding out what the agency was up to. Whatever it was, they concluded it was not particularly effective. The lead role was taken by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government's foreign assistance agency, which channeled the funds through commercial contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI).
While NDI worked closely with Serbian opposition parties, IRI focused its attention on Otpor, which served as the revolution's ideological and organizational backbone. In March, IRI paid for two dozen Otpor leaders to attend a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the Hilton Hotel in Budapest a few hundreds yards along the Danube from the NDI-favored Marriott.
During the seminar, the Serbian students received training in such matters as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine the authority of a dictatorial regime. The principal lecturer was retired U.S. Army Col. Robert Helvey, who has made a study of nonviolent resistance methods around the world, including those used in modern-day Burma and the civil rights struggle in the American South.
Those readers familiar with the methods used to deploy a successful color revolution will immediately recognize three aspects of Dobbs’ statement. First, the fact that U.S. organizations funded many of the activists directly and/or paid for supplies needed for guerrilla and overt activism on the ground. Second, that there was the clear existence of a parallel vote counting and reporting apparatus and, third, the involvement of individuals like Col. Robert Helvey.
Jonathan Mowat picks up the topic, particularly that of Helvey’s involvement and summarily documents the rest of the Serbian story in his own article by writing,
Helvey, who served two tours in Vietnam, introduced the Otpor activists to the ideas of American theoretician Gene Sharp, whom he describes as "the Clausewitz of the nonviolence movement," referring to the renowned Prussian military strategist.
Peter Ackerman, the above-mentioned [in his own article] coup expert, analyzed and popularized the methods involved in a 2001 PBS documentary-series and book, "A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict," together with retired US Airforce officer Jack DuVall. Focusing on youth organizing, they report:
After the NATO bombing, which had helped the regime suppress opposition, Otpor's organizing took hold with a quiet vengeance. It was built in some places around clubhouses where young people could go and hang out, exercise, and party on the weekends, or more often it was run out of dining rooms and bedrooms in activists' homes. These were "boys and girls 18 and 19 years old" who had lived "in absolute poverty compared to other teenagers around the world," according to Stanko Lazendic, an Otpor activist in Novi Sad. "Otpor offered these kids a place to gather, a place where they could express their creative ideas." In a word, it showed them how to empower themselves.
In addition, Otpor offered food, shelter, and entertainment to a portion of the population that was suffering from a tragic lack of those things. Otpor, as a heavily-funded organization, was thus able to gain the trust and allegiance – conditional as it may have been – of a substantial number of young Serbians.
Jonathan Mowat continues by writing,
Otpor's leaders knew that they "couldn't use force on someone who . . . had three times more force and weapons than we did," in the words of Lazendic. "We knew what had happened in. Tiananmen, where the army plowed over students with tanks." So violence wouldn't work—and besides, it was the trademark of Milosevic, and Otpor had to stand for something different. Serbia "was a country in which violence was used too many times in daily politics," noted Srdja Popovic, a 27 year-old who called himself Otpor's "ideological commissar." The young activists had to use nonviolent methods "to show how superior, how advanced, how civilized" they were.
This relatively sophisticated knowledge of how to develop nonviolent power was not intuitive. Miljenko Dereta, the director of a private group in Belgrade called Civic Initiatives, got funding from Freedom House in the U.S. to print and distribute 5,000 copies of Gene Sharp's book, "From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation." Otpor got hold of Sharp's main three-volume work, "The Politics of Nonviolent Action," freely adapting sections of it into a Serbian-language notebook they dubbed the "Otpor User Manual." Consciously using this "ideology of nonviolent, individual resistance," in Popovic's words, activists also received direct training from Col. Robert Helvey, a colleague of Sharp, at the Budapest Hilton in March 2000.
Helvey emphasized how to break the people's habits of subservience to authority, and also how to subvert: the regime's "pillars of support," including the police and armed forces. Crucially, he warned them against "contaminants to a nonviolent struggle," especially violent action, which would deter ordinary people from joining the movement: and alienate the international community, from which material and financial assistance could be drawn. As Popovic put it: "Stay nonviolent and you will get the support of the third party."
That support, largely denied to the Serbian opposition before, now began to flow. Otpor and other dissident groups received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, affiliated with the U.S. government, and Otpor leaders sat down with Daniel Server, the program director for the Balkans at the U.S. Institute for Peace, whose story of having been tear-gassed during an anti-Vietnam War demonstration gave him special credibility in their eyes. The International Republican Institute, also financed by the U.S. government, channeled funding to the opposition and met with Otpor leaders several times. The U.S. Agency for International Development, the wellspring for most of this financing, was also the source of money that went for materials like t-shirts and stickers.
Yet the color revolution did not end with Serbia. With the small nation now under control and a successful destabilization having taken place, a large portion of the Slavic world and Eastern European bloc was now in the crosshairs of the Anglo-Americans. This spread of the color revolution, organized and directed by the West from the word “go,” was the reason behind Mowat’s designation of the chain of events as the “Serbian Virus.” Very soon after Serbia was successfully overthrown, the color revolution motive move on to at least three more countries in Eastern Europe.
Mowat describes this situation as follows:
In the aftermath of the Serbian revolution, the National Endowment for Democracy, Albert Einstein Institution, and related outfits helped establish several Otpor-modeled youth groups in Eastern Europe, notably Zubr in Belarus in January 2001; Kmara in Georgia, in April 2003; and Pora in Ukraine in June 2004. Efforts to overthrow Belarus President Alexsander Luschenko failed in 2001, while the US overthrow of Georgian President Eduard Schevardnadze was successfully accomplished in 2003, using Kmara as part of its operation.
Commenting on that expansion, Albert Einstein staffer Chris Miller, in his report on a 2001 trip to Serbia found on the group's website, reports:
Since the ousting of Milosevic, several members of Otpor have met with members of the Belarusian group Zubr (Bison). In following developments in Belarus since early this year, It is clear that Zubr was developed or at least conceptualized, using Otpor as a model. Also, [Albert Einstein’s report] From Dictatorship to Democracy is available in English on the Zubr website at www.zubr-belarus.com. Of course, success will not be achieved in Belarus or anywhere else, simply by mimicking the actions taken in Serbia. However the successful Serbian nonviolent struggle was highly influenced and aided by the availability of knowledge and information on strategic nonviolent struggle and both successful and unsuccessful past cases, which is transferable.
Otpor focused on building their human resources, especially among youth. An Otpor training manual to "train future trainers" was developed, which contained excerpts from The Politics of Nonviolent Action, provided to Otpor by Robert Helvey during his workshop in Budapest for Serbs in early 2000. It may be applicable for other countries.
And with funding provided by Freedom House and the US government, Otpor established the Center for Nonviolent Resistance, in Budapest, to train these groups.
This harkens back to an article written in 2004 for The Guardian by Ian Traynor, entitled “US Campaign Behind The Turmoil In Kiev,” also cited by Mowat. Indeed, Traynor discussed this very movement in his article when he wrote,
In the centre of Belgrade, there is a dingy office staffed by computer-literate youngsters who call themselves the Centre for Non-violent Resistance. If you want to know how to beat a regime that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations, the young Belgrade activists are for hire.
They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy, single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Kmara. In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time.
Stickers, spray paint and websites are the young activists' weapons. Irony and street comedy mocking the regime have been hugely successful in puncturing public fear and enraging the powerful.
Going back to “A New Gladio In Action,” Mowat adds to the description of how color revolutions are orchestrated on the ground inside the target nation as well as across national borders. Indeed, the color revolution in Georgia was just such an operation, involving the coordination of organizations and training sessions that spanned from Georgia itself into Serbia. In Serbia’s own color revolution, the people power putsch was organized from Hungary. Similarly, we saw the shipping in of high numbers of death squad fighters who posed as “protesters” early on during the destabilization of Syria (although their true nature became clear very soon after) through a complex network of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Libya, and Jordan.
Jonathan Mowat describes the cross border operations as follows:
Last year, before becoming president in Georgia, the US-educated Mr Saakashvili traveled from Tbilisi to Belgrade to be coached in the techniques of mass defiance. In Belarus, the US embassy organized the dispatch of young opposition leaders to the Baltic, where they met up with Serbs traveling from Belgrade. In Serbia's case, given the hostile environment in Belgrade, the Americans organized the overthrow from neighboring Hungary—Budapest and Szeged.
[Quoting Traynor] In recent weeks, several Serbs traveled to the Ukraine. Indeed, one of the leaders from Belgrade, Aleksandar Maric, was turned away at the border.The Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican party's International Republican Institute, the US State Department and USAID are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros' Open Society Institute.
Mowat also quotes an article published in the Associated Press by Dusan Stojanovic, on November 2, 2004, entitled "Serbia's export: Peaceful Revolution." The article elaborates on the “for hire” nature of the revolutionary organizations created with the help of Western intelligence and the U.S. State Department. The article states,
"We knew there would be work for us after Milosevic," said Danijela Nenadic, a program coordinator of the Belgrade-based Center for Nonviolent Resistance. The nongovernmental group emerged from Otpor, the pro-democracy movement that helped sweep Milosevic from power by organizing massive and colorful protests that drew crowds who never previously had the courage to oppose the former Yugoslav president. In Ukraine and Belarus, tens of thousands of people have been staging daily protests—carbon copies of the anti-Milosevic rallies—with "training" provided by the Serbian group.
The group says it has "well-trained" followers in Ukraine and Belarus. In Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, anti-government activists "saw what we did in Serbia and they contacted us for professional training," group member Sinisa Sikman said. Last year, Otpor's clenched fist was flying high on white flags again—this time in Georgia , when protesters stormed the parliament in an action that led to the toppling of Shevardnadze.
Last month, Ukrainian border authorities denied entry to Alexandar Maric, a member of Otpor and an adviser with the U.S.-based democracy watchdog Freedom House. A Ukrainian student group called Pora was following the strategies of Otpor.
Mowat also adds that
James Woolsey's Freedom House "expressed concern" over Maric's deportation, in an October 14, 2004, press release which reported that he was traveling to Ukraine as part of "an initiative run by Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute to promote civic participation and oversight during the 2004 presidential and 2006 parliamentary elections in Ukraine." In a related statement, it added that it hoped the deportation was not a sign of the Ukrainian government's "unwillingness to allow the free flow of information and learning across borders that is an integral and accepted part of programs to encourage democratic progress in diverse societies around the world."
In the doublespeak world of destabilization organizations such as USAID, NDI, IRI, and Freedom House, “free flow of information and learning” amounts to nothing more than the free flow of agents of unrest and the learning of propaganda well-funded and specifically designed to bring about the change in domestic national society that is desired by the world Oligarchy.
 See also,
Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
 Dobbs, Michael. “U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition; Political Consultants Helped Yugoslav Opposition Topple Authoritarian Leader.” The Washington Post. December 11, 2000.http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-565855.html Accessed on July 4, 2013.
 See also,
Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
 See also,
Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 254-256.
Recently by Brandon Turbeville:
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
April 9th, 2014 by olddog
An interesting and informative response to my earlier e-mail about the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. I think all will be interested in this follow up from a very trusted friend. PLEASE, pay special attention to #11.
GOD Bless Mairi
What "We the People" must PRESENT, as in EXPOSE through PUBLICATION, in every form possible, are the absolute FACTS about the IBA, a.k.a. "International Bar Association," the ABA, a.k.a. "American Bar Association," the IBA, a.k.a. "Illinois Bar Association," all ABA "District Bar Associations," the CBA, a.k.a. "Colorado Bar Association," etc., etc., etc., and the Names of ANY B.A.R. members, whether a Congressman, Government Counselor, Advisor, General Counsel, US Attorney General, State Attorney General, District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney, City Attorney, County Attorney, Justice, Judge, or any Attorney-At-LAW, found to be practicing their nefarious craft in "Public Service."
With only a handful of exceptions out of the 400,000 ABA members, these B.A.R. members, a.k.a. "Citizens & Subjects of the City of London, England, will be found "GUILTY" of a host of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors," including "Treason," and Election's (Voter) Fraud, in each and every township, county, and State, across American, wherein, there is NOT a single Judge, ANYWHERE, that has been properly & CONSTITUTIONALLY SEATED to hear, review, adjudicate, or rule upon any suit of law or equity brought before them. This includes all Federal US Courts, State Supreme Courts, District Courts, County Courts, and down to the lowly Municipal Magistrate.
And the irrefutable & undeniable arguments include, but are NOT limited to the following;
1). As "Public Officials," "Public Servants," "Officials of Trust," "Government Employees," "Trustees," etc., ALL CANDIDATES, whether INCUMBENT, or CHALLENGER, must be VETTED, beginning with the Pre-Primaries, by "WE THE PEOPLE," must be "ELECTED TO SERVE" BY a MAJORITY of "WE THE PEOPLE (THE SOVEREIGN), and NO National Election, or individual VOTE, can be "Abridged," "cut short," or subject to the Unconstitutional Corporate Electoral College!"
A). ALL APPOINTMENTS must be in compliance with ALL State & Federal Constitutional Laws, which mean they must be APPOINTED WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING, AND THE CONSENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE!"
2). ALL "Public Officials," by whatever name, title, or position, must meet the clear & unambiguous requirements of the "Original XIII Amendment," wherein all Titles of Nobility, acceptance of compensation, office, or emoluments, from any King, Prince, or Foreign power, are strictly PROHIBITED, and violators will LOSE THEIR CITIZENSHIP!
3). ALL "Public Officials," by whatever name, title, or position, must take and be given a PROPER OATH OF OFFICE, pursuant USC Title #5, Code #331.
4). ALL "Oaths of Office" must be properly filed with SOS, or County Clerk, and securitized through the application and issuance of a Fidelity, Performance, or Surety Bonds, which specifically state the names of "Insurer," the "Insured," the "Trustee," and the "Beneficiary," along with the monetary amounts available for recourse, or claim.
5). ALL violations of "Oaths of Office" are acts of "Perjury," which create an "Invasion of Legal Right(s)," a.k.a. "Injury/Injuries" and are indictable, and prosecutable, as "Criminal Acts" against the Sovereign.
6). There are NO Judicial Immunities allowable under ANY State or Federal Constitution, wherein ALL violations of an "Oath of Office" comprise "FRAUD Upon the Court," and are "Criminal in Nature!"
7). There are NO Statutes of Limitations where FRAUD is the Crime!
8). "We the People," however defined, or described, CANNOT be "Incorporated," and "Corporations" are NOT "Persons!" "Corporations" are "artificial," while "persons," and/or "people" are Living, Breathing, Flesh & Blood BE'ings!
9). "Persons having signed Allegiance to a Corporation, whether "For Profit," or "Non-Profit," are defined under CONTRACT (UCC) LAW as "Corporate Property & Possessions," and as such, they are legally "Slaves," and Slavery with in ALL US & State Boundaries, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! All "Corporations imposing Slavery as policy" within State or Federal boundaries, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
10). ANY attempt to Enslave "We the People" as "Corporate Property or Possessions," is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and all "Contracts" alluding such, is NULLIFIED upon the document's issuance, and such "Contracts" are not enforceable, nor are "the People" obligated to obey them, pursuant "Marbury V. Madison."
11). Under "Rules and Orders" of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, "The Chief Justice in answer to the motion of the Attorney General, made yesterday, informs him and the bar, that this court consider the practice of the courts of king's bench, and of chancery, in England, as affording outlines for the practice of this court; and that they will, from time to time, make such alterations therein as circumstances may render necessary."——VII.—1791, AUGUST 8, JOHN JAY, Chief Justice.
12). Who could have guessed, or who would have known, that the Plunder & Derogation of our Nation by a Foreign Power had begun on AUGUST 8, 1791?
Just some thoughts to consider!
My Life, My Fortune, My Sacred honor, So help Me God
This tragedy is only exceeded by the school teachers who failed to teach it to their students, and is why today our citizens are so politically ignorant, and our country is on the verge of extinction. Let’s face facts; if the teachers are hired to educate our children, does it not make sense they should be qualified by knowing the real history of the union, so they could teach it? I discovered this years ago with only a GED. Let me explain why this is so important.
04 09 14 A State of National Emergency
Posted by Keith Broaders
Most people have the mistaken impression the Constitution limits the power of government at all times. The truth of the matter is during a state of war or national emergency, the President and Congress can do virtually anything they wish if they feel that it is necessary for the safety and security of the nation.
During periods of war or national emergency the Constitution is suspended in favor of a martial law. On March 8 all of the state legislatures voted to declare a state of national emergency and gave the President the authority to assume dictatorial powers during Great Depression, The states voted to suspend the Constitution and on March 9 ,1933 President Roosevelt announced the nation's financial crisis necessitated the temporary suspension of the Constitution.
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Trading with the Enemies Act which gave him the authority to assume unconstitutional powers during the time of war. In 1933 President Roosevelt convinced Congress that during a national emergency he would need to assume powers that were not granted to him in the Constitution.
Congress and the President are not required to follow the Constitution during the time of war or national emergency and the national emergency declared in 1933 has never been lifted. The President since the suspension of the Constitution has been a military dictator and Congress has allowed him to ignore his duties and responsibilities as defined in the Constitution.
The only way we can restore the Constitution is for Congress to declare the end of the state of national emergency. Each of the states must pass legislation revoking the consent that they gave to the President in 1933.
Send a copy of this to your State Representatives, and ask them why in the hell they don’t take OBUMAS power away, and give it back to the congress. You can also tell them they should have done it years ago if they had any guts to face the Bankers. Also ask them to prove our gold holdings with a real audit. Maybe you will understand there is no gold, and that’s why there is no real CONGRESS. America was born dead, and the article above this one proves it as we have never had a Constitutional Judiciary, and it got progressively worse as time went on, and the Bankers kept manipulating the government to protect their power over money. Money power has always been our real government. We have never had one single Constitutionally elected office holder. Our Constitution is what the bankers say it is. ONLY A NATIONALLY EDUCATED CITIZENS REVOLT CAN FREE US, AS THE WHOLE WORLD ONLY RECOGNIZES THE WINNERS OF A WAR AS LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTS. You either fight for your freedom or you accept slavery. England was never defeated, they changed tactics to save money, because they were going broke.
April 8th, 2014 by olddog
The Huffington Post describes Matt Walsh this way: “Matt Walsh is a 27-year-old blogger, talk radio host, husband, and father of twins.” In fact, Matt Walsh has his own talk radio program called The Matt Walsh Show, live, 3 – 6 P. M. (EST) on 630 WLAP.
Dear President Obama,
You strike me as the sort of man who spends a lot of time staring at his own reflection. I wonder, what do you see when you gaze so admiringly at yourself? What image do you find in that mirror of yours? Let me guess: a graceful Greek god with a golden crown, draped in luxurious robes, perched on a giant, magnificent throne atop a mountain in the sky? You see a throng of angels singing your praises and masses of subservient peasants prostrated before you, trembling with fear and awe? You see a man who is more than a man, and a president who transcends the presidency; you see a historic figure of immortal importance?
Yeah, that’s what I thought, and I can’t blame you, Mr. President. By all accounts, you’ve always been an arrogant, haughty narcissist and that was before you became president. Your supporters and your enemies may argue over whether you descended from heaven on the back of a Pegasus, or were birthed from the bowels of Hell to bring about a Biblical apocalypse, but they both agree on one thing: you are a figure of great significance and immense power. You are either the anti-Christ or the Second Coming, with no room for anything in-between. Surely, this talk might cause even a humble man to slip into a state of vanity and pride, so I can only imagine what it must do to a man such as yourself, already so aloof and so conceited.
That’s why I’m writing this letter. My impression of you is quite different, and it has only been solidified by your performance during this shutdown/Obamacare debate. I find you to be a very small man, Mr. President. Far from larger than life, you are petty, frivolous, pathetic; sneering and pompous but also trifling and narrow. I don’t mean to dismiss or underestimate the damage you have done to this nation it has certainly been profound and lasting but I want you to know that your legacy will not be one of grandeur and brilliance; it will be the legacy of a shameless, desperate bully. Both your opponents and your proponents hoist you up as a world leader with a grand vision, whether benevolent or malevolent. I, on the other hand, believe you have the vision of a temperamental two year old. You simply want to feel like you’re in control; you want to “win,” you want everybody in the room to pay attention to you, and you’ll stomp your feet and whine until you get your way. You govern like a coddled toddler; it’s inappropriate to pejoratively refer to you as a “dictator,” but only because it lends you a certain unwarranted credibility. I think you wish to be a dictator, but instead you’re just a bumbling bureaucrat; easily replaced and even more easily forgotten. You have the ethics of Genghis Khan, but the leadership skills of Michael Scott. This is why we are forced to witness the spectacle of, for instance, our president brazenly threatening to invade another nation for no reason, only to clumsily abandon the idea after being publicly spanked by Putin.
Your legacy, Mr. President, will be defined by small, shameful things, as your presidency has been primarily a succession of small, shameful things. The platitudes you spouted during your campaign the theatrics, the pomp, the hype have all faded. Replaced by the scheming partisan machinations that have come to define your tenure.
Every president has a moment that encapsulates their time in office; your moment, Mr. President, happened this week. Sure, future generations will look at you with mockery and scorn because of bigger scandals Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservatives, Obamacare, the birth control mandate and your attacks on religious liberty, spying on journalists, arming terrorists overseas, Fast and Furious, the green energy scams, the bailouts, your support for infanticide, the billions you’ve given to the abortion industry, your cowardice in refusing to address the Gosnell murders, your reckless exploitation of the Zimmerman trial, the out of control deficit spending, your refusal to enforce immigration laws, the massive expansion of the Welfare State, the lies, the broken promises, etc but I think, in an understated way, what you’ve done this week is a better microcosm of your entire reign.
I’m not just referring to the fact that you are peddling the lie that “Republicans” have “shutdown the government, ”when in fact, they have attempted to pass several bills that would fund the government. Mr. President, you tell these fables to the trained seals in the media and your voting base, but you know darn well that any American with a capacity for critical thought will roundly reject this absurd narrative. YOU have chosen to “shut down” the government because you have made Obamacare the ultimate priority. You have said, “Obamacare or nothing,” and then accused Republicans of being the “hostage takers.” They are holding the government hostage by trying to fund it? What a silly idea. But then, you are a silly, ridiculous president. Speaking of which, this takes us right to your defining moment: barricading memorials and monuments in a ploy to win an argument.
Comparatively insignificant when stacked up against your war crimes and constitutional infringements, but it is nonetheless an apt illustration. The Lincoln Memorial is just a giant statue. There isn’t any reason why people shouldn’t be able to look at a statue during a government shutdown. In past shutdowns, the memorials were open, with only the information centers closing down. The Lincoln Memorial has never been completely closed off from the public until now. You have decided to spend money to block and guard open-air monuments, when it would be cheaper, require less staff, and be less onerous to simply leave them be. Is this some sort of bizarre punitive measure against the American taxpayer?
Infamously, you even attempted to stop WW2 veterans from visiting the WW2 memorial. That memorial is mostly privately funded, and is open 24 hours a day. You SPENT MONEY to physically guard the monument from a group of elderly war veterans. This is truly unprecedented. We have had horrible presidents in the past, but none quite so shallow, cheap and contemptible. You tried to close down Mt. Vernon, which is privately funded, but had to settle for closing its parking lot even though the parking lot requires no immediate on-going maintenance or surveillance from any federal workers. Did you have to shut down the Normandy cemetery and memorial? Are we saving money that way? I doubt it.
It’s the same game you played during the sequester, and it comes as no surprise to those of us who pay attention (which means it came as a surprise to a large number of people). Rather than leading like a statesman, you hide in the shadows; scheming, conniving, exploiting. You emerge only to make hyper-partisan speeches, with rhetoric best left to Democratic talking heads on afternoon cable news shows. Far from being a “new kind of politician” (as you were advertised), you are the most political politician this country has ever seen. You are political to your core, in your essence, at an atomic level, and so you are unable to offer any direction or clarity when the nation needs it most. Sometimes, Mr. President, the affairs of this nation require a man, not a politician, and it is during those times that you are especially useless. You don’t have any interest in fixing our present crisis because you’re too busy finding ways to keep a busload of 90 year old war veterans from looking at a memorial.
Closing down parks, monuments and memorials just to score political points is hardly your most insidious deed, but it’s certainly one of your pettiest. That’s why it stands, ironically, as a monument of its own. If we ever build a statue of you, Mr. President, you won’t be triumphantly holding a flaming torch like Lady Liberty, or standing authoritatively with a look of determination, like the MLK memorial. No, it will be a statue of you pulling the wings off of a fly, or spitting in someone’s orange juice. It will show you in your essence, as monuments are meant to do. It will show you as a petulant, skulking, juvenile bully. It will show you as you are.
And we’ll make sure it’s always open, especially during a government shut down.
In God We Trust
April 6th, 2014 by olddog
Posted by Matthew Peavy / March 31, 2014
Justice Sonia Sotomayer – dismantles the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights has been revoked!
While you were focused on the missing Airliner, there was a little case being heard in front of the Supreme Court called U.S. v. Castleman. The case was a landmark win for the gun control left wing, but what no one realized, is that our Constitution no longer affords us “rights.”
No longer rights that are inviolate
The case was decided March 28, 2014. The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights is no longer made up of “Declaratory and Restrictive Clauses.” They are judicially now perceived as “privileges.” A “privilege” can be revoked for the slightest of legislative causes, but a “Right” is “Forever Inviolate” … We the People no longer have that.
U.S. vs Castleman
The case was about domestic violence, a cause we can all get behind. But, in the end, the Supreme Court has taken away not just domestic violence abuser’s right to bear arms, but all of the people, and in turn has made all of the Bill of Rights void, and made it a Bill of Privileges that can be revoked.
The Preamble states:
“The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further Declaratory and Restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
While the Constitutional Conventions desired further declaratory and restrictive clauses, the Supreme Court has now taken our rights without anyone noticing and replaced them with privileges. It’s time to wake up America, first this year the NDAA gives Obama the power to arrest anyone without reason and detain them indefinitely. Now we have our Constitution shredded, and still we just move on like nothing has happened.
There is a movement in the country that is gaining momentum called the Constitutional Emergency. It may be our best hope at restoring the America we all loved. Patriots are needed and sacrifices will be made — – if you loved the way things used to be and the way the founders intended, check them out and pray that we that make the journey succeed.
– See more at: http://misguidedchildren.com/politics/2014/03/the-bill-of-rights-has-been-revoked/17959?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-bill-of-rights-has-been-revoked#sthash.S1LEb2lf.dpuf
“The limits of tyrants is prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” Frederic Douglas, 1857
Someone please tell this stupid bitch that,
"No earthly government has jurisdiction over our God Given Rights!"
The framers did not give us our rights; they informed us that GOD had given them to all people everywhere and we must protect them!
Deny GOD, and you deny your rights! What man gives, man can take back.
What GOD gives is forever!!!
April 4th, 2014 by olddog
Numerous cultures have had holidays dedicated to the celebration of pulling the wool over the eyes of others, from the ancient Romans, to early Muslims, to medieval Christians, to Americans and Europeans today. As April begins, we once again turn a mischievous eye to the concept of the fool and, as always, each person seeks to be the prankster and never the victim.
Unfortunately, even the most vigilant of Americans can sometimes be led astray by a clever ruse, and I believe this is taking place today in the Liberty Movement’s perception of the rising “tensions” between Russia and the West.
In my article Ukraine Crisis: Just Another Globalist-Engineered Powder Keg, I outlined the history of false paradigms and engineered conflicts between numerous nations, including how these conflicts are exploited by global money interests to consolidate and centralize social and political power. The birth of communist Russia, in particular, was directly funded by Western banks and supported with arms and military aid from the U.S. government itself. These sorts of startling facts are not taught in schools and universities exactly because the continued dominance of the money elite relies on continued misrepresentations of legitimate history.
Many in the Liberty Movement have studied and are well aware of the central banking cabal and its stranglehold on the U.S. and Europe. But strangely, some people refuse to acknowledge the substantial possibility that global bankers are also in control of Russia and are playing both sides of the burgeoning economic war.
As the Ukrainian crisis festers and other dangers in the Pacific and the Mideast grow, an odd consensus among alternative analysts is taking hold — namely the belief that President Vladimir Putin and Russia represent some kind of opposition to globalization and the rule of corporate financiers. Perhaps moments in Putin’s rhetoric and the existence of media outlets like RT have seduced elements of the Liberty Movement into assuming that Russia is a “victim” in the grand schemes of Western oligarchy and that Russia is truly the "white knight", the underdog willing to stand up against the New World Order. I’m sorry to say that nothing could be further from the truth.
Russia is just as much a tool of the global elite today as it was after the Bolshevik Revolution, and Vladimir Putin is just as much a socialist puppet as Barack Obama. Let’s start from the beginning of the rebirth of Russia as a regional federation in the 1990s after the fall of the Warsaw Pact.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader largely credited with the ultimate dismantling of the Soviet Union and the rise of the “new” Russia, has long been a proponent of the “New World Order” (his words) and centralized global government. In an address entitled “Perspectives On Global Change” to the students of Lafayette College in Easton, Penn., Gorbachev argued that such a solution was necessary to safeguard “freedom.”
The opportunities that existed after the end of the Cold War… were not used properly. At that same time, we saw that the entire world situation did not develop positively. We saw deterioration where there should have been positive movement toward a new world order.
But we still are facing the problem of building such a world order. We have crises: we are facing problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, of food shortages. All of these problems are because we do not have a system of global governance.
When asked in 1995 by San Francisco Weekly what Gorbachev meant by the phrase “New World Order,” Jim Garrison, the executive director of the Gorbachev Foundation stated, bluntly that Gorbachev wanted nothing less than global government.
Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government. … It’s inevitable. It will happen and become just as normal to have a relationship with the rest of the world as we now have, say, if you are a Californian and you go to Vermont.
Take note that it has now been almost 20 years since Garrison's assertion and the motions towards a global currency are picking up great speed. Gorbachev saw global government being achieved through international organizations like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But, is this vision of the New World Order limited only to Gorbachev and his inner circle? At the Gorbachev-led State of the World Forum in 1995, Council On Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski had this to say:
We do not have a New World Order. … We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. … In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.
In Zbigniew K. Brzezinski’s book Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era, he elaborates on the ideology behind what brand of government the New World Order would be:
The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty… More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken.
National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept… Marxism represents a further vital and creative state in the maturing of man’s universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief…
Brzezinski seems to be in total agreement with Gorbachev, but why should anyone care what Brzezinski thinks about the future of American sovereignty? Perhaps it’s because he is a close and influential foreign policy adviser to Obama.
So we have now established that political interests on both sides since the 1990s have called for a New World Order and global government taking a decidedly socialist or Marxist form. Some people might applaud this kind of future, or they might despise it; but the fact remains that this plan is indeed being openly promoted and implemented by government officials and elitists in the East and the West. It is undeniable.
From its very inception, the new Russia was designed to become a catalyst for global governance, but global governance by whom? As they say, always follow the money.
Russia is more beholden to international bankers than perhaps any nation on the planet. After the collapse of the Russian economy and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, the country was in dire straits. From 1992 to 1996, the IMF intervened in the Russian economy, offering more than $22 billion in aid (officially). This first loan package was presented as a failure when Russia defaulted on its debts, and loans from the IMF restarted through the late ’90s until this very day.
Many people are aware of the IMF involvement in Russia, but few know about the scandal surrounding where those IMF funds specifically went. In 1999, information was made public on the diversion of IMF cash into the coffers of Russian corporate elites, politicians, and even mobsters. This money was supposed to go toward the rebuilding of Russian infrastructure and economy. Instead, the aristocracy and criminal underworld were receiving a large cut of the funds.
The money was diverted and laundered through the Bank of New York, an institution founded in 1784 by none other than internationalist agent and central bank promoter Alexander Hamilton. The bank changed ownership through merger in 2007 and is now called The Bank Of New York Mellon.
The IMF’s first response to the scandal was to divert blame, stating that it had no control over the cash once it was in the hands of the Central Bank of Russia (CBR). After continued revelations on funds being misused or disappearing altogether, the IMF commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to audit the CBR. The results of that audit have never been made public. However, in 1999 the Russian government admitted that it had hidden more than $50 billion offshore in a subsidiary bank in the Channel Islands. Part of this money came from IMF bailouts. The former chairman of the CBR, Sergey Dubinin, insisted that the IMF was fully aware of who the funds were going to.
Numerous officials from the chief state auditor to the minister of internal security to the prosecutor general of Russia had come forward with information that corroborated evidence that IMF money was being distributed to the wrong people. The chairman of the Duma Committee on Security stated that some of the IMF loans never made it to Russia. Rather, the money was pumped into the secret foreign accounts of Russia’s highest officials.
Despite all of the admissions and evidence, IMF auditors refused to cite any corruption or malfeasance during their investigations. One would think that they would do everything in their power to find out where their funds went and why. The reason for the cover-up is obvious: The IMF knew exactly who the money was going to. The first bailouts of Russia were designed to buy the cooperation of the Russian political and corporate elite and ensure that the future direction of the nation would follow the globalist plan.
Fast-forward to the present. Putin continues the subversive relationship between Russia and the IMF. In 2009, Putin called for the creation of a “super reserve currency” under the control of the IMF and using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket as a foundation.
Why would Putin, a supposedly anti-globalist nationalist leader, want the IMF, a supposedly U.S.-controlled institution, to be the global purveyor and overlord of the world economy? It’s because the IMF is not a U.S.-controlled institution; it is a banker-controlled institution. And Putin is a globalist, not a nationalist.
The recent break of Crimea from Ukraine and secession to Russia was partly instigated by the vast concessions required by the IMF if loans to Ukraine were to move forward. One of these concessions included the handing over of Ukrainian gas pipelines to America’s Chevron. Crimean leaders accused Kiev politicians of selling out Ukraine to the global bankers.
However, it was actually Russia’s finance minister and Putin who first pushed for the IMF bailout of Ukraine. It was, in fact, Putin who wanted Ukraine to “sell out” to Western financiers.
Russia’s central bank is also a member of the Bank of International Settlements, the good-old-boys club of the international banking world. The BIS was founded in 1930 and served as the focal point of globalization until after World War II, when evidence arose that the organization had helped the Nazis by funding the German war machine, laundering money for Gestapo officials and hiding funds looted from Europe by the Third Reich.
Due to the scandal, the BIS took a back seat to the IMF and World Bank; but it still exists today. Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member, elitist insider and mentor to Bill Clinton, had this to say about the BIS in his book Tragedy And Hope:
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.
Putin has been elevated to heroic status in much of the mainstream media over the years. TIME magazine, a long-running globalist publication, recently published a front-page article with this tagline: “America’s weak and waffling. Russia’s rich and resurgent — and its leader doesn’t care what anybody thinks of him.”
This cover was used by TIME in every country in which it is distributed, except the United States.
The Times of Britain named Putin “Man Of The Year” in 2013. In Liberty Movement circles, Putin worship has been growing to disturbing levels. I would say at least half of our movement truly believes Putin and Russia to be a guiding light in the fight against globalization and the New World Order. Unfortunately, many people look for heroes to save them when they should be looking to themselves. Putin’s nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize for his “intervention” in the Syrian crisis is celebrated by many freedom fighters here in America, when, in reality, the Obama Administration’s failure to achieve a war footing in the region had nothing to do with the actions of Russia.
Remember, Russia and the U.S. are nothing but false champions dueling in a fake gladiator match paid for by the IMF. The war against Syria was thwarted because the elites were unable to garner enough public support from the American people to make the action viable. Every engineered war needs a gullible percentage of the population to give it momentum. Why didn’t they get their following from the public? It was because of the tireless efforts of the alternative media.
It was the Liberty Movement that exposed the lies behind the Syrian insurgency; the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya; the CIA’s involvement with al-Qaida in Damascus, etc. It is the Liberty Movement that deserves the credit for disrupting the globalist plan to use Syria as a trigger event for a false confrontation between the U.S. and Russia. Yet many are cheering the elitist puppet Putin while he takes credit for our accomplishments.
The most frightening aspect of the false paradigm between East and West is the potential it creates for the co-option of liberty proponents here in America. If we allow ourselves to be suckered into cheerleading for Russia, or any controlled government for that matter, then we have lost. We will be swallowed up in the tides of war, while supporting false prophets and artificial protagonists. Our mission, the mission for a truly free and sovereign America, will be lost in the confusion and chaos of the global chess game. It is time to accept that the fate of this country and perhaps the future of human freedom rest solely on the shoulders of the resistance here at home. There is no nation out there in the ether of central banking that is going to help us. The sooner we come to terms with the reality that we are on our own, the stronger we will be when the fight begins.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: email@example.com. Alt-Market, where this first appeared, is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.
April 3rd, 2014 by olddog
The above link is to a web page of hundreds of links to informative articles on the State of the world and the processes that control life on earth. Now, no one can claim they don’t know where to look for news about the destruction of America, and other nation states. For those with a desire to learn what happened to our republic, you will have to go a long way to find a better source of essays. I recommend you start with the john Perkins three part video found here. The Corporatocracy and Central and South America. After watching these videos, no one should have to tell you who took down the twin towers and building seven, or why. Saying that, I think its time for people who follow my sites to get some positive information, instead of constant doom and gloom. Mr. Perkins has some positive ideas you need to hear. There is hope left, but it depends on the people to get involved. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!
How the Richest of the Rich Steal
April 2nd, 2014 by olddog
"No earthly government has jurisdiction over your God Given Rights."
NO GOD, NO RIGHT'S, GET IT?
Received by email
February 22, 2014
There is nothing wrong with trying to look your best and trying to make a reasonably good impression on people. It makes good sense up to a point. There is nothing wrong with feeling good or wanting to feel good. The problem comes when looking good and feeling good become a priority over speaking truth and doing right. The problem magnifies as activities to look good, to impress people, and to feel good crowd out everything else in life and begin to shut out the conscience and truth. These are problems inherent in the human race, but they are generally more prominent and most dangerous among those who aspire to political leadership.
Our country has growing economic, social, and national security problems, some of which are nearing nation-destroying dimensions. We are speeding toward the brink of self-destruction because we will not face up to the economic, social, and ethical realities of excess government spending, excess federal government control, excess welfare dependence, excess importation of cheap foreign labor, and failure to acknowledge the aggressive and violent nature of Islam. These are all consequences of moral blindness, the origin of which is spiritual blindness.
In Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s account of the Communist penal system in the Soviet Union, the Gulag Archipelago, he speaks of a group of political prisoners who were complaining: “Why have all these woes come upon us?” After a few moments silence, an older man in the group responded: “Because we have forgotten God.” Exactly! But the train of woes that come from forgetting God most often moves gradually without recognition and without fanfare. Its consequences accumulate and eventually destroy unless reversed.
In our distorted obsession for feeling good and self-aggrandizement, we have substituted our own self-centered and imagined righteousness for the righteousness and divine counsel of God. We have embraced secularism as our guiding principle of life and government. Secularism is a religion that pretends the God who is self-evident in his design of all things does not exist. The result is spiritual and moral blindness that leads to foolish personal decisions and lifestyles, dysfunctional families, debased culture, and corrupt, dangerous, and nation-destroying government policies.
“Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.”—Ronald Reagan
Our country is in dire need of leaders who can put right and truth above appearance and feeling. Glib charisma is not a substitute for principled leadership, and our elections should not be a search for charismatic personalities. We need leaders who have demonstrated superior wisdom, consistent honesty, humility, and persevering courage.
It has been said that courage is the virtue without which no other virtue can survive. Courage is the strong arm of character, which is the determination to put doing right before the mere appearance of righteousness (hypocrisy). Character is dedicated to truth and never subordinates truth to popular or crowd-pleasing emotion. It does not lie or mislead. It puts aside fear for the sake of truth and right. It staunchly resists the temptation to substitute emotional anecdotes for truth or appearance for reality. Character must often exercise the wisdom and courage to say “No.”
Alexander the Great once remarked that:
“The people of Asia (western Turkey) are slaves, because they could not learn to pronounce the word, “No.”
America’s political leaders are going to have to learn to say “No” to feel-good excess and the substitution of emotional anecdotes and emotional platitudes for doing their homework on issues. They are going to have to say “No” to lobbyists who want to substitute their special interest and campaign donations for public and national interest. They are going to have to say “No” to whatever and whomever might weaken the rule of law or the moral fortitude and stamina of American society and culture.
Our Federal and State legislators should especially beware of corrupt political bargains that advance the goals of special interests above the good of American workers, families, taxpayers, and national security. English Puritan Thomas Manton (1620-1677) warned of the terrible numbing of conscience in the stealthy advance of greed:
“There is not a vice which more effectively contracts and deadens the feelings, which more completely makes a man’s affections center in himself, and excludes all others from partaking in them, than the desire for accumulating possessions. When the desire has once gotten hold of the heart, it shuts out all other considerations but such as may promote its views. In its zeal for attainment of its end, it is not delicate in the choice of means. As it closes the heart, so also it clouds the understanding. It cannot discern between right and wrong; it takes evil for good; it calls darkness light, and light darkness. Beware then the beginnings of covetousness for you know not where it will end.”
I am not a West Pointer, but I have always appreciated their motto: “Duty, Honor, Country.” Good soldiers may like to look good and feel good, but they know these things must be of small priority compared to duty, honor, and country. The best soldiers and the best citizens internalize such values so that feeling good is about duty honorably discharged and their country free, just, and secure. Good soldiers endure hardship, pain, suffering, and even death to protect the security, welfare, and freedom of their people. Every elected official in America should also embrace these principles.
“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”—Ronald Reagan