Archive for December, 2014
December 31st, 2014 by olddog
By Wendy McElroy
Ignorance of the law is an excuse … if you are a cop. American police no longer need to know what the law says or to enforce it correctly. They can implement a non-existent law with impunity even if it results in the apparent violation of constitutional rights.
This may have been apparent to many as a police practice but now it is officially the law of the land. On December 15, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on Heien v. North Carolina.
Facts of the Case
In 2009, Sergeant Matt Darisse made a clear “mistake of law” in conducting a traffic stop. He pulled over a car driven by Maynor Javier Vazquez and owned by Nicholas Heien who was sleeping in the back. The legal pretext: the car had a broken brake light. But North Carolina law at the time only required there to be “a [singular] stop lamp” working. In short, a single brake light made the vehicle “street legal” and the officer had no lawful reason to make the stop.
Darisse became suspicious when the two men offered somewhat different stories about their destination. Then Heien reportedly consented to a search his car with the words, “I don’t care.” A sandwich bag of cocaine was discovered and the two occupants were charged with drug trafficking.
At trial, Heien made a motion to suppress the evidence due to Fourth Amendment protection which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Heien’s attorney argued that enforcing a non-existent law was unreasonable and so any evidence resulting from the enforcement could not be used in court. Again, at the time, the North Carolina Supreme Court maintained that the state constitution required the suppression of evidence when the Fourth Amendment was violated. Nevertheless, the trial court allowed the evidence.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision saying that “an officer’s mistaken belief that a defendant has committed a traffic violation is not an objectively reasonable justification for a traffic stop”. The Supreme Court of North Carolina determined the purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to ensure that police officers act reasonably. And police officers should be able to make traffic stops based on their reasonable interpretations of law even if that interpretation was in error.
The case was the first one heard in SCOTUS’ current session. Attorney Jeffrey Fisher represented Heien and argued, “The government should be presumed to know the laws … It would undercut public confidence in law enforcement and the common law rule upon which the criminal law is built to say the government doesn’t have to be presumed to know the law when it acted.” Fisher claimed that, if “ignorance of the law is no excuse” for average citizens, then the maxim should apply equally to police officers. To argue otherwise would take all incentive away from the police to familiarize themselves with the law or to abide by it.
What is Reasonable?
Much of the case on both sides hinged on the question of what is a reasonable search. But what is “reasonable” was never defined by SCOTUS. The closest outline of a definition of “reasonable” came from Solicitor General Rachel Kovner who argued for the federal government as an amicus. She stated “You simply ask officers to decide whether – you simply ask courts to decide whether an officer could reasonably think that a person has committed a crime.” In other words, if a court finds either a question of law or fact to result from an officer’s reasonable confusion, then no rights violation has occurred. In providing an example of a reasonable confusion, she offered a the standard of a “foothold … in the statute that affirmatively supports” the officer’s legal interpretation. In short, not the clear language of the statute but a foothold of interpretation.
SCOTUS reversed the Court of Appeals decision by a vote of 8 to 1. The majority found that “the Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, not perfectly, and gives those officials ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law’.” Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion:
Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law. There is no reason…why this same result should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law.
The evidence was deemed admissible under the Fourth Amendment. No standard was established for how much law must be known by a reasonable officer, with the opinions of judges varying.
The ruling has several important consequences, including:
- Probable cause is the standard by which law enforcement can obtain a warrant or make an exception to warrant requirements for conducting a search of person or property when a crime is suspected. As the Simple Justice blog explained, “By exalting‘reasonableness’, the Court ignores the Warrant Clause, as if it only applies to unreasonable searches and seizure, which of course renders it a nullity since unreasonable searches are unconstitutional anyway. If a search need only be reasonable, and the absence of a warrant does nothing to impair that conclusion, then there will never be a reason to obtain a warrant again.”
- Traditionally, courts have held that the “fruits” of an invalidly produced or conducted search may be suppressed. The standards by which evidence can be admitted in criminal procedures seems to have been considerably loosened.
- With no solid definition of a “reasonable” search and seizure, the courts are likely to leave the interpretation to the officer. The power of the police has massively expanded with the SCOTUS ruling setting a national precedent.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was alone in dissenting on the grounds that the decision granted the police far too much discretionary power. She wrote, “One is left to wonder why an innocent citizen should be made to shoulder the burden of being seized whenever the law may be susceptible to an interpretative question … [A]n officer’s mistake of law, no matter how reasonable, cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary to justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.” Interestingly, Sotomayor is the only justice with significant experience in criminal trials.
The law has ceased to be an objective thing and has become an interpretation in the mind of a police officer. Simple Justice concluded, “[P]olice have become, at least in their own minds, the arbiters of law at the end of a gun. [T]hey can craft a half-baked, phony, facile excuse for why they got the law wrong. The new test for ‘reasonableness’ under the Fourth Amendment is how good a spin the prosecution and cops can offer for mistakes. As it turns out, this is the one thing that they’re exceptionally good at.”
[Editor’s Note: Subscribe to TDV Homegrown today for information and solutions for surviving the police state in the US and around the world.]
Questions or comments? Join us at the TDV Blog
Wendy McElroy is a regular contributor to the Dollar Vigilante, and a renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books, the latest of which is“The Art of Being Free”. Follow her work at www.wendymcelroy.com.
December 30th, 2014 by olddog
Take a look at this screen capture of the recent news on police shootings in America:
It was taken yesterday. The ten stories on this list range from December 21st to December 28th, 2014 and provide a snapshot of the average week in the American police state.
All of these stories are from different states as follows from top to bottom:
- East Baltimore, Maryland
2. Jacksonville, Florida (deceased)
3. Texas City, Texas (deceased)
4. (Protest story from prior police shooting)
5. Washington, D.C. (two shootings; one deceased)
6. Berkeley, MO (deceased)
7. Rotterdam, NY
8. Bedford, OH (deceased)
9. Los Angeles, CA
10. Las Vegas, NV
Half of the ten people shot by police in the last week died from their wounds. Others ranged from serious condition to stable, while one story had not been updated since the man was in surgery. One story not on the list was that of Craig Schiffer, a pedestrian who was randomly struck and killed by officers responding to a non-related 9-1-1 call in Islip, New York.
One man was shot and wounded for reportedly “holding something shiny” and not heeding police commands. One man was shot by police 21 times in a dark corridor where police thought he might have a gun in his hand. One person was shot for fitting the description of a burglar and running away from police. In another case, an armed teen was shot by a cop who, curiously, did not have his body or dash cams on for unknown reasons (and five miles from Ferguson, Missouri, too). Another was accused of committing “suicide by cop,” and yet another man was shot because he threw trash at an officer during a routine traffic stop and sped off. After chasing him across three counties, police shot and killed him under what they claim was suspicion he was armed. And they were right, he was armed … with a sword. The guy who was shot in Vegas was the 16th person shot by police in Vegas in 2014 alone.
Again, this is just what is being reported, but at least six people were killed by police this week across the country.
Were all of these shootings truly justified?
While the mainstream media attempts to portray it differently, not nearly as many police officers are shot and/or killed in the line of duty as people might think.
For example, if you look at data from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, only 31 officers were shot in the line of duty in 2013. The fund’s data spans 2004 to 2013, and approximately 55 police officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty each year in America during that time.
That data, however, does not tell the whole story.
First of all, depending on where you look at and what factors you consider (part- or full-time, etc.), there are somewhere between 780,000 and 900,000 or more police in this country in over 18,000 police departments (more by far than any other nation on the planet). Secondly, not all of those fatal wounds were homicide-induced. Some were accidents. According to the FBI, only 27 officers were fatally wounded last year, while another 49 officers’ deaths were accidental in nature. Overall, officer deaths in 2013 were the lowest reported in 54 years in this country.
In fact, “police officer” didn’t even make the top ten list of the deadliest jobs in America.
And yet, in the age of “big data,” apparently none is consistently being kept anywhere on how many citizens are shot by police in this country each year.
According to the Facebook page “Killed by Police” which aims to do just that, at least 1,848 people have been killed by cops since May 1, 2013 when the page was formed (key words “at least”).
Of those, 1,089 were killed just this year alone. Although the year doesn’t end for another two days (and one of those is a holiday known for its alcohol-fueled celebrations), if we go with that figure, that means nearly 21 people are killed by police on average every week in America.
That means cops kill an average of three people every day here.
Again, are all of these deaths truly justifiable? (Oh, and if they aren’t keeping data on the number of people killed by cops, then suffice it to say we truly have no idea at all how many family pets are killed by cops on a regular basis…)
It certainly seems excessive in a country where crime rates have dropped drastically in the last two decades and continue to do so.
Yet, after the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and more, citizens are looking for answers. Protests against police brutality continue in cities across America as our ever-more-militarized law enforcement agencies go on the defensive.
Related Activist Post Article:
5 Reasons Police Body Cameras Are a Terrible Idea
Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple,where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!
December 29th, 2014 by olddog
By Larry Chin
Almost all wars begin with false flag operations.
The coming conflicts in North Korea and Russia are no exception.
Mass public hysteria is being manufactured to justify aggression against Moscow and Pyongyang, in retaliation for acts attributed to the North Korean and Russian governments, but orchestrated and carried out by the CIA and the Pentagon.
The false flagging of North Korea: CIA weaponizes Hollywood
The campaign of aggression against North Korea, from the hacking of Sony and the crescendo of noise over the film, The Interview, bears all the markings of a CIA false flag operation.
The hacking and alleged threats to moviegoers has been blamed entirely on North Korea, without a shred of credible evidence beyond unsubstantiated accusations by the FBI. Pyongyang’s responsibility has not been proven. But it has already been officially endorsed, and publicly embraced as fact.
The idea of “America under attack by North Korea” is a lie.
The actual individuals of the mysterious group responsible for the hacking remain conveniently unidentified. A multitude of possibilities—Sony insiders, hackers-for-hire, generic Internet vandalism—have not been explored in earnest. The more plausible involvement of US spying agencies—the CIA, the NSA, etc. , their overwhelming technological capability and their peerless hacking and surveillance powers—remains studiously ignored.
Who benefits? It is illogical for Pyongyang to have done it. Isolated, impoverished North Korea, which has wanted improved relations with the United States for years (to no avail), gains nothing by cyberattacking the United States with its relatively weak capabilities, and face the certainty of overwhelming cyber and military response. On the other hand, Washington benefits greatly from any action that leads to regime change in North Korea.
But discussion about Pyongyang’s involvement—or lack of—risks missing the larger point.
This project, from the creation of The Interview to the well-orchestrated international incident, has been guided by the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department from the start. It is propaganda. It is a weapon of psychological warfare. It is an especially perverted example of military-intelligence manipulation of popular culture for the purpose of war.
There is nothing funny about any of it.
The Interview was made with the direct and open involvement of CIA and Rand Corporation operatives for the express purpose of destabilizing North Korea. Star and co-director Seth Rogen has admitted that he worked “directly with people who work in the government as consultants, who I’m convinced are in the CIA”. Originally conceived to be a plot taking place in an “unnamed country”, Sony Pictures co-chairman Michael Lynton, who also sits on the board of the Rand Corporation, encouraged the film makers to make the movie overtly about murdering Kim Jong-Un. Bruce Bennett, the Rand Corporation’s North Korean specialist, also had an active role, expressing enthusiasm that the film would assist regime change and spark South Korean action against Pyongyang. Other government figures from the State Department, even operatives connected to Hillary Clinton, read the script.
The infantile, imbecilic, tasteless, reckless idiots involved with The Interview, including the tasteless Rogen and co-director Evan Goldberg, worked with these military-intelligence thugs for months. “Hung out” with them. They do not seem to have had any problem being the political whores for these Langley death merchants. In fact, they had fun doing it. They seem not to give a damn, or even half a damn, that the CIA and the Pentagon have used them, and co-opted the film for an agenda far bigger than the stupid movie itself. All they seem to care about was that they are getting publicity, and more publicity, and got to make a stupid movie. Idiots.
The CIA has now succeeded in setting off a wave of anti-North Korea war hysteria across America. Witness the ignorant squeals and cries from ignorant Americans about how “we can’t let North Korea blackmail us”, “we can’t let Kim take away our free speech”. Listen to the ridiculous debate over whether Sony has the “courage” to release the film to “stand up to the evil North Koreans” who would “blackmail America” and “violate the rights” of idiot filmgoers, who now see it as a “patriotic duty” to see the film.
These mental midgets—their worldviews shaped by the CIA culture ministry with its endorsed pro-war entertainment, violent video games, and gung-ho shoot ‘em ups—are hopelessly brain-curdled, irretrievably lost. Nihilistic and soulless, as well as stupid, most Americans have no problem seeing Kim Jong-Un killed, on screen or in reality. This slice of ugly America is the CIA’s finest post-9/11 army: violent, hate-filled, easily manipulated, eager to obey sheeple who march to whatever drumbeat they set.
And then there are the truly dumb, fools who are oblivious to most of reality, who would say “hey lighten up, it’s only a comedy” and “it’s only a movie”. Naïve, entitled, exceptionalist Americans think the business of the war—the murderous agenda they and their movie are helping the CIA carry out —is all just a game.
The CIA’s business is death, and that there are actual assassination plans in the files of the CIA, targeting heads of state. Kim Jong-Un is undoubtedly on a real assassination list. This is no funny, either.
The real act of war
The provocative, hostile diplomatic stance of the Obama administration speaks for itself. Washington wanted to spark an international incident. It wants regime change in Pyongyang, does not care what North Korea or China think, and does not fear anything North Korea will do about it.
On the other hand, imagine if a film were about the assassination of Benjamin Netanyahu and the toppling of the government in Tel Aviv. Such a film, if it would ever be permitted even in script form, would be stopped cold. If it made it through censors that “magically” never slowed down The Interview (and yes, there is censorship in America, a lot of it) Obama would personally fly to Tel Aviv to apologize. At the very least, Washington would issue statements distancing themselves from the film and its content.
Not so in the case of The Interview. Because American elites actually want the Kim family murdered.
Despite providing no proof of North Korean involvement, President Barack Obama promised a “proportional response”. Promptly, North Korea’s Internet was mysteriously shut down for a day.
Unless one is naïve to believe in this coincidence, all signs point to US spy agencies (CIA, NSA, etc.) or hackers working on behalf of Washington and Langley.
Given the likelihood that North Korea had nothing to do with either the hacking of Sony, the initial pulling of the movie (a big part of the publicity stunt, that was not surprisingly reversed) or the “blackmailing” of moviegoers, the shutting down of North Korea’s Internet was therefore a unilateral, unprovoked act of war. Washington has not officially taken responsibility. For reasons of plausible denial, it never will.
Perhaps it was a dry run. A message. The US got to test how easily it can take down North Korea’s grid. As we witnessed, given overwhelming technological advantage, it was very easy. And when a war against Pyongyang begins in earnest, American forces will know exactly what they will do.
The US is flexing its Asia-Pacific muscles, sending a message not only to Pyongyang, but to China, a big future target. Some of the other muscle-flexing in recent months included the anti-Beijing protests in Hong Kong (assisted by the CIA and the US State Department), ongoing provocations in the South China Sea over disputed oil, and new defense agreements that place new anti-missile systems and missile-guided naval vessels to the region.
The bottom line is that America has once again been mobilized into supporting a new war that could take place soon. The CIA and Sony have successfully weaponized a stupid movie, making it into a cause and a battle cry.
If and when bombs fall on North Korea, blood will be on the hands of the makers of The Interview, every single executive who allowed it to be made, and the hordes who paid to see it.
If America were a decent, sane society, The Interview would be exposed, roundly denounced, boycotted and shunned. Instead it is celebrated.
The CIA should be condemned. Instead, Seth Rogen hangs out with them. America, increasingly dysfunctional, loves them. Obeys them.
The false flagging of Russia
Regarding The Interview, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich issued a statement in sympathy with North Korea, correctly calling the film’s concept aggressive and scandalous, and decried the US retaliatory response as counterproductive and dangerous to international relations.
Of course. Washington has no interest in improved international relations.
The Russians should know.
Like Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin has been vilified, demonized and false-flagged, incessantly. If Kim is today’s object of ridicule, Putin is Evil Incarnate.
Consider the hysterical, desperate provocations by Washington in recent months.
A US-NATO coup, engineered by the CIA, toppled the government of Ukraine, planting a pro-US neo-Nazi criminal apparatus on Russia’s doorstep. The CIA and its worldwide network of propagandists pinned the blame on Putin and Russia for aggression, and for obstructing “democracy”.
The MH-17 jetliner is downed by Ukrainian operatives, with the support of the CIA, Mi-6, etc. etc. This false flag operation was blamed on Russia— “Putin’s Missile”. The US and NATO are still trying to pin these murders on Putin.
The war against the Islamic State—a massive CIA false flag operation—seeks to topple with the the Assad government as well as to militarily counter Russia. The ongoing Anglo-American conquest of regional oil and gas supplies, and energy transport routes is also aimed at checkmating Russia and China across the region.
The US and NATO have attacked the Russian federation with sanctions. The US and Saudi Arabia have collapsed oil prices, to further destroy the Russian economy. Full-scale military escalations are being planned. The US Congress is pushing new legislation tantamount to an open declaration of war against Russia.
What next? Perhaps it is time for the CIA to produce a Seth Rogen-James Franco movie about assassinating Putin. Another “parody”. Or how about a movie about killing Assad, or anyone else the United States wants to make into a Public Enemy? Don’t think Langley isn’t working on it.
The return of the Bushes (who were never gone)
In the midst of all escalating war hysteria comes news that Jeb Bush is “actively exploring” running for president in 2016. The long predicted return of the Bush family, the kings of terrorism, the emperors of the false flag operation, back to the White House appears imminent.
The CIA will have its favorite family back in the Oval Office, with true CIA scion to manage the apocalyptic wars are likely to be launched in earnest in the next two years: Russia/Ukraine, North Korea, the Middle East.
Jeb Bush will “finish the job”.
The 2016 presidential “contest” will be a charade. It is likely to put forth two corrupt establishment political “friends” posing as adversaries, when in fact, they are longtime comrades and conspirators. On one side, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. On the other side, Jeb Bush, with George H.W., George W. and all of the Bush cronies crawling back out of the rotten woodwork. The fact is that the Clintons and Bushes, and their intertwined networks, have run the country since the 1980s, their respective camps taking turns in power, with Obama as transitional figurehead (his administration has always been run by neoliberal elites connected to the Clintonistas, including Hillary Clinton herself).
The collective history of the Bushes stretches back to the very founding of the American intelligence state. It is the very history of modern war criminality. The resume is George H.W. Bush—the CIA operative and CIA Director—is long and bloody, and littered with cocaine dust. The entire Bush family ran the Iran-Contra/CIA drug apparatus, with the Clintons among the Bush network’s full partners in the massive drug/weapons/banking frauds of that era, the effects of which still resonate today. And we need not remind that the Bush clan and 9/11 are responsible for the world of terror and false flag foreign policy and deception that we suffer today.
While it remains too early to know which way the Establishment will go with their selection (and it depends on how world war shakes out between now and 2016), it is highly likely that Jeb
Bush would be the pick.
Hillary Clinton has already been scandalized—“Benghazi-ed”. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, has ideal Establishment/CIA pedigree. He has waited years for the stupid American public to forget the horrors that his family—Georges H.W. and W.— brought humanity. And now Americans , with their ultra-short memories, have indeed forgotten, if they had ever understood it in the first place.
And the American public does not know who Jeb Bush is, beyond the last name. Jeb Bush, whom Barbara Bush always said was the “smart one”, has been involved in Bush narco-criminal business since Iran-Contra. His criminal activities in Florida, his connection with anti-Castro Cuban terrorists and other connections are there, for those who bother to investigate them. His Latin American connections—including his ability to speak fluent Spanish, a Latin wife and a half-Latin son (George P. Bush, the next up and coming political Bush)—conveniently appeals to the fastest-growing demographic, as well as those in the southern hemisphere drug trade. Recent Obama overtures towards the Latino demographic—immigration, Cuba—appear to be a Democratic Party move to counter Jeb Bush’s known strengths in the same demographic.
Today, in the collective American mind, Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin are “the bad guys”. But the mass murdering war criminal Bushes are saints. “Nice guys”.
A Jeb Bush presidency will be a pure war presidency, one that promises terror, more unspeakable than we are experiencing now, lording it over a world engulfed in holocaust.
This is not a movie.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
December 28th, 2014 by olddog
By LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
The next two years will be the most dangerous in the history of the United States. It may lead to the end of American history.
The Republican establishment is powerless to oppose Obama in any significant way because they are being held hostage. Obama’s lies have become Republican lies, which they have embraced and made their own.
Although the challenges facing the country present clear dangers, America will not be brought down by unsustainable debt, social chaos, a moribund economy or weakness in the face of foreign threats, all of which have been planned and instigated by our own government, but by the irreparable damage to the Constitution and representative government perpetrated by the very people, who have sworn an oath to uphold them.
Most prospective government officials, whether Democrat or Republican, now pursue office, not to support the Constitution and serve the American people, but to obtain power, and to use that power to accrue professional and financial benefits for themselves and their major donors. All the traditional means for citizens to seek the redress of grievances have now been blocked by a self-absorbed permanent political elite unaccountable to the American people.
From the perspective of the ruling class, elections are formalities, nothing more than occasions to redistribute power among select Democrat and Republican elites. For the financiers, it does not matter who wins as long as they can continue to influence policy through their lobbies and political contributions.
Ordinary Americans are little more than indentured voters to a power-hungry and greedy bipartisan dictatorship.
Case in point is the darling of the Republican establishment and pre-anointed 2016 Presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who, if elected, intends to govern like Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush only recently left his position with Tenet Healthcare Corp., a company that has actively supported and benefited from Obamacare. Last year Bush earned both cash and stock worth about $300,000 from Tenet and sold $1.1 million of Tenet stock in 2013.
For our ruling elite, patriotism is just a campaign slogan or a tool to extract ever more sacrifices from ordinary Americans in order to satisfy their ever-increasing thirst for power and money, all at the expense of the Middle Class.
On July 26, 2014, Anna Bernasek, reporting for the New York Times, wrote that according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation, the inflation-adjusted net worth of the median U.S. household in 2013 was only $56,335 – a decline of a whopping 36% from the median household net worth of $87,992 in 2003.
The deathblow to patriotism was struck in 2008 when, pressured by a biased, left-leaning media, a spineless Republican leadership joined the Democrats in refusing to vet Obama in violation of the Constitution or even common sense. Out of fear or complicity, a conspiracy of silence has descended upon the public discourse regarding all questions related to Obama’s background and fitness for office. Despite the enormous historical and Constitutional implications, the politicians and the media, not only have remained silent, but have actively suppressed legitimate inquiry
The self-interest of politicians and journalists has trumped patriotism. Rather than risk the truth, they have chosen to risk national survival because disclosing the truth about Obama would expose the rampant corruption of our political and media elite, reveal their acquiescence in Obama’s violations of Constitution, uncover their willful ignorance of his alleged felonies and confirm their participation in the greatest election fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history.
It was the acceptance by the political-media establishment of the Big Lie that led to the fundamental transformation of America according to the dictates of the radical left and militant Islam. We have a government that has, at least figuratively, enlisted in the ranks of our enemies and is bearing arms against us.
Over the next two years, Obama will peel back his own onion to reveal its extremist core, realizing the worst excesses of the 1960s, like Bill Ayers in a black face.
Barack Obama may have presided over the death of patriotism, but he had many willing accomplices, all eager to sell out their country for thirty pieces of silver.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “ Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at email@example.com
December 27th, 2014 by olddog
In an interview with “Democracy Now,” Michael Ratner, p
If President Obama won’t do it, someone else will. Thankfully, a human rights group in Berlin, The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, has begun the process of indicting members of the Bush Administration by filing criminal complaints against the architects of the Admin’s torture program.
Calls for an immediate investigation by the German human rights group was started after outrage ensued on the case of a German citizen, Khalid El-Masri, who had been captured by CIA agents in 2004 because of a mistaken identity mix-up and was tortured at a secret prison in Afghanistan.
Wolfgang Kaleck, the general secretary of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, said:
“By investigating members of the Bush administration, Germany can help to ensure that those responsible for abduction, abuse and illegal detention do not go unpunished.”
resident emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and chairman of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, said that he believes Cheney, among others, have no defense for torturous actions and should be indicted:
“I strongly disagree that Bush, Cheney, et al., would have a defense. This wasn’t like these memos just appeared independently from the Justice Department. These memos were facilitated by the very people — Cheney, etc. — who we believe should be indicted. This was part of a conspiracy so they could get away with torture. But that’s not the subject here now.”
“Secondly, whatever we think of those memos, they’re of uselessness in Europe. Europe doesn’t accept this, quote, ‘golden shield’ of a legal defense. Either it’s torture or it’s not. Either you did it or you didn’t. And that’s one of the reasons, among others, why we’re going to Europe and why we went to Europe to bring these cases through the European Center.”
Ratner then hit the nail on the head regarding America’s dangerous exceptionalism path down the road:
“But, of course, you know, Cheney just showed us exactly why you have to — have to prosecute torture. Because if you don’t prosecute it, the next guy down the line is going to torture again. And that’s what Cheney said: ‘I would do it again.’”
Khalid El-Masri was on vacation in Skopje, in Macedonia, when he was pulled off of a bus by government agents, sodomized with a drug, and taken to the secret base that was identified only as Cobalt in the CIA torture report. After four months, and after the United States learned of the mistaken identity, they left him there and continued to torture him. They held him further because the U.S. realized they had been torturing the wrong man. Afterwards, they released him, dropping him off somewhere to resume his life.
El-Masri in his own words, in the same interview with “Democracy Now:”
[translated] I was the only one in this prison in Kabul who was actually treated slightly better than the other inmates. But it was known among the prisoners that other prisoners were constantly tortured with blasts of loud music, exposed to constant onslaughts of loud music. And they were—for up to five days, they were just sort of left hanging from the ceiling, completely naked in ice-cold conditions. The man from Tanzania, whom I mentioned before, had his arm broken in three places. He had injuries, trauma to the head, and his teeth had been damaged. They also locked him up in a suitcase for long periods of time, foul-smelling suitcase that made him vomit all the time. Other people experienced forms of torture whereby their heads were being pushed down and held under water.
He finished the interview with some pretty damning words that should make George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld shudder:
“And let me just say, Germany — whatever happened before, between the NSA spying on Germany and the fact that their citizen has now been revealed to have been kept in a torture place, when it was known that he was innocent, I’m pretty sure that Germany is going to take this very seriously.“
December 26th, 2014 by olddog
Posted by arnierosner
Written By Anna von Reitz
The answer to this as in so many other questions is that The Constitution is only “the Supreme Law of the Land” from the perspective of the “federal government”—– the entity under contract to provide nineteen enumerated services to the Several States.
It is in no way “supreme” to the States or the People themselves, which is proven by the fact that the People may push the States to convene as a Constitutional Convention and radically alter and rewrite the entire contract.
So— from our perspective, The Constitution is merely a commercial contract for services that at this point has been seriously defaulted upon by those trusted to provide services under its auspices.
From THEIR perspective it is the “Supreme Law of the Land” because it is what creates and limits their structure and power and because they operate entirely in the jurisdiction of the Sea— hence, “Supreme” and “Law of the Land”.
If you read the sections of The Constitution that deal with the judicial functions it becomes clear that the judicial power in this country as a whole is NOT vested in the US Supreme Court. It is vested in the One People’s Court that existed prior to the Revolution for over 200 years— that actual Court on the Land, not the Court on the Sea.
There are numerous articles available on the internet that explain the history of the colonial justice system and the functioning of this court system, too. It didn’t change or disappear with the advent of The Constitution! It only began to disappear with the upheavals created by the Civil War.
It remains for us to revive it along with the rest of the organs of our land and State based government.
Although certainly one of the most astute, Anna von Reitz is not the only source of information on this subject and I recommend all interested parties do your home-work as the internet is an unlimited library. I do warn that the intellectual requirements are such that only those with complete recall will be successful. For those of us without this attribute I suggest fervent prayer because life is going to be very hard for us in the near future under this present form of tyranny.
December 25th, 2014 by olddog
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
Below is part of a newsletter I receive daily from Simon Black and it got me thinking about family, which most American’s closely associate with Christmas and I thought it appropriate for this holiday notice.
The direct product of pitiful leadership.
We trust in our leaders to maintain the peace. To preserve the purchasing power of our savings. To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Yet instead, they achieve record levels of debt, thrusting obligations upon unborn generations so that they can wage wars, drop bombs, buy drones, and spy on their citizens.
And they just expect us to take it.
“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” is a lie. We aren’t born with obligations to some politician who expects us to sacrifice for the ‘greater good’ (as defined in his sole discretion).
Our obligation is to family first. It’s to the small circle of people that we grip hands with to stare down an uncertain future.
Family is the most important thing there is, and it’s why we all do what we do.
If you plant a tomato seed in the ground, it grows and matures, eventually producing dozens of tomatoes itself.
Each one of those tomatoes has dozens of seeds inside… the idea being that hopefully at least one of those dozens of seeds inside dozens of tomatoes will make it into the dirt, germinate, and continue the line again.
Family is the most natural thing in the universe. And it’s literally why (and how) we’re all here.
We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy. ” ~ Chris Hedges
To that OLDDOG adds
Fear of the future destroys families which is the real backbone of America, so let us not be afraid, but resolve to reconstruct our government.
God helps those who help themselves!
December 24th, 2014 by olddog
By Staff News & Analysis
Investigators Said to Seek No Penalty for C.I.A.’s Computer Search … A panel investigating the Central Intelligence Agency’s search of a computer network used by staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who were looking into the C.I.A.’s use of torture will recommend against punishing anyone involved in the episode, according to current and former government officials. Its decision not to recommend anyone for disciplinary action is likely to anger members of the Intelligence Committee, who have accused the C.I.A. of trampling on the independence of Congress and interfering with its investigation of agency wrongdoing. The computer searches occurred late last year while the committee was finishing an excoriating report on the agency’s detention and interrogation program. – New York Times
Dominant Social Theme: Government officials should have more legal leeway than the average person because they make more important decisions.
Free-Market Analysis: The US is splitting apart: Some 60 years of expanding authoritarianism has created political and economic facilities that are now beginning to face off against each other.
There are dozens of intel agencies, hundreds of military specializations, vast bureaucracies at local, state and federal levels – all supported by a worldwide dollar economy that virtually forces other nations to hold dollars in order to buy oil.
Increasingly, as the struggle for resources grows more pronounced, each of these entities will involve themselves in growing “turf wars.” It is not, of course, just a Western problem. Europe has similar woes and its fringe parties are becoming more extreme.
What is going on in the US is both significant and rapid. We can see that the CIA is now in a confrontational position regarding Congress, according to the New York Times. In fact, CIA officials who wiretapped Senators will not be punished.
This is just one of several newsworthy items reported over the weekend. Another was the aggregate shooting of three policemen over the weekend, two in New York and one in Tarpon Springs Florida.
While these are terrible tragedies from a purely human perspective, there is good evidence that such incidents are increasingly being used as fodder for power struggles. The New York Times reported on tensions between the Mayor and police in the aftermath of the New York Shooting:
For de Blasio, Attack Comes Amid Tension Over Police … Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke in sober terms at a news conference on Saturday at Woodhull Hospital after two police officers were shot and killed in Brooklyn … It is the sequence that every mayor dreads: the ominous report, the scramble to the hospital and the confirmation that, yes, an attack against the police has proved fatal.
But for Mayor Bill de Blasio, the tragedy on Saturday — when two police officers were shot and killed in an ambush in Brooklyn, according to the authorities — arrived at a particularly trying moment, amid an already fractious relationship with the police.
Police union leaders and officers could be seen turning their backs to the mayor and the police commissioner, William J. Bratton, as they walked past, in a video taken at the hospital where the two held a news conference on Saturday.
A written message from Edward Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, addressed the mayor directly. “Mayor de Blasio,” it read in part, “the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands.”
The anger seems unusually fierce between the mayor and the police. Meanwhile, the tension between police and local communities, especially communities of color, seems to be growing. AP reported the following yesterday:
New Jersey‘s state police union has issued an email alert to the group’s 33,000 members warning them to take extra caution after two NYPD officers were murdered.
New Jersey State PBA Executive Vice President Marc Kovar said in the email Sunday morning that all members and officers should take extra caution and change up routines in the coming weeks.
He cites heightened hostility from nationwide protests that he says has led to a “fever pitch of anti-police sentiment.”
Our interpretation involves dominant social themes and what we call “directed history.” To be blunt: In our view, the West is being leveled by historical forces as well as elite determination to expand global governance.
For over a decade the BRICS have been celebrated as a group of increasingly powerful countries capable of creating a kind of capitalism that can compete with if not win out over Western capitalism. In fact, recently, China surpassed the US in various measures of industrialization and output.
The US dollar is gradually being replaced in Asia and, of course, Russia, too, as tensions rise between the US and Russia over Ukraine and other military and industrial issues.
Various measures such as NAFTA and CAFTA have drained US industrial might while an increasingly intrusive regulatory and tax regime has further splintered US industrialism and entrepreneurialism.
The US now seeks to collect taxes from its citizens all over the world and to penalize banks that don’t cooperate with its new policies. Is it unfair to conclude that US political and banking elites are actually working against the best interest of the US as a successful country? Is that too harsh?
We have believed for a long time that US political, economic and military problems are in some sense manufactured and then exacerbated. The mainstream media, for instance, inflames problems by reporting on them copiously and repetitively.
And the system itself, corrupt as it is, is yet borne up on tidal waves of money. The Pentagon has never even made an effort to discover the US$2 trillion Donald Rumsfeld admitted to losing before 9/11. Meanwhile, US intel continues to multiply with some 16 separate spy agencies, many of them focused on the citizenry itself.
The FBI and Homeland Security have issued advisories declaring certain “constitutionalist” views to be questionable and even suspicious. The upshot of all of this is an alienated citizenry and increasing governmental paranoia. Here’s more from The New York Times:
The computer search raised questions about the separation of powers and caused one of the most public rifts in years between the nation’s intelligence agencies and the Senate oversight panel, which conducts most of its business in secret. It led to an unusually heated and public rebuke by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is the committee’s chairwoman.
Three C.I.A. technology officers and two lawyers had faced possible punishment. In their defense, some pointed to documents — including notes of a phone call with Mr. Brennan — that they said indicated that the director supported their actions, according to interviews with a half dozen current and former government officials and others briefed on the case.
… The panel’s specific conclusions are still being finalized, and it could be weeks before they present a report to the C.I.A. But officials said that the five agency employees had been informed that the panel would recommend that they not be disciplined. …
“What did he know? When did he know it? What did he order?” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, said in an interview last week. “They haven’t answered those basic questions.”
There have been other times in US history when the nation and its institutions seemed to be divided against themselves. Most notably, of course, the Civil War comes to mind. But today’s adversarial situations are complicated, in our view, by the Internet.
As a result, those who have in mind socioeconomic destabilization of the US can create the necessary elements but they cannot control the outcomes.
As events unfold, the potential is for more chaos not less. Lately, we’ve been writing about various ways that people ought to position themselves and their loved ones given Western societies’ evolving difficulties.
Second passports, purchases of precious metals, overseas business and residential locations are all suggestions that people are acting on as Western economic progress continues to sputter while social stresses build. (See other article this issue for more on High Alert’s planned expat community in Colombia.)
People – especially those with means – increasingly anticipate urban unrest and diminishing domestic economies; but what has not been clear until recently is the possibility that the US’s many elaborate sociopolitical and economic power centers may take to quarreling with each other.
The result will surely be even more chaos and polarization, where people gradually give up the concept of fair outcomes under the law and expect increased levels of authoritarianism.
As governance begins to fail, there will arise cries for yet more authoritarianism and this will surely further the expansion of a kind of police state, not just in the US but throughout the West.
The failure of governmental legislative and enforcement agencies will likely feed on itself and the outcomes cannot be seen as positive.
December 23rd, 2014 by olddog
Posted by arnierosner
Written By Anna von Reitz
At first base you learned that what you have been thinking of as “your government” is in fact a private, foreign, for-profit governmental services corporation called the UNITED STATES. This entity is owned and operated by the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, which is an agency of the UN. The UNITED STATES, INC. has fifty “STATE” franchises doing business as the “STATE OF OHIO” and the “STATE OF WISCONSIN” and so on, just as Burger King or Sears or Dairy Queen have local franchises.
An earlier private, for profit governmental services corporation known as the United States of America, Incorporated, functioned from 1868 to 1933 when it entered into bankruptcy reorganization and remained in Chapter 11 from 1933 to July 1, 2013. It had fifty “federal state” franchises operating as the “State of Ohio” and “State of Georgia” and so on, too—-all part of the “Federal Reserve System”. The Federal Reserve was organized under the auspices of a foreign nation calling itself the United States of America (Minor) composed of what are more normally thought of as the “federal territories and possessions”—-Guam, Puerto Rico, American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, et alia.
So at the same time during most of your life there have been two “federal governments”—that is, “federal” governmental services corporations— operating side by side in collusion to defraud you. When FDR bankrupted the United States of America, Inc. he and his “Governors”— the federal State franchise owners—pledged the “good faith and credit” of “their states and the citizenry thereof” as “sureties” backing the debts of the bankrupt corporation during its reorganization.
The UNITED STATES, INC. took up where the United States of America, Inc. left off, and simply passed through all its charges for services directly to the presumed sureties—- us. The problem is that we never consented under conditions of full disclosure to be “federal” states nor “federal” citizens. It was merely self-interested “policy” of these corporations and their creditors to “presume” that we were all “voluntary sureties” and to plunder our estates and “indebt” us for their spending.
They never told us all the lies and processes they employed to justify and accomplish this identity theft and fiduciary trust fraud used to usurp our natural position as beneficiaries of our own estates and to instead name their corporations as both the comptrollers and beneficiaries of our labor, our lives, our relationships, our businesses, our homes, and our land.
Now, you are going to learn and thoroughly understand that part of it.
Let’s use the name of the present “Secretary of the Treasury”—- “jacob joseph lew” as the name in our example, in hopes that he may get the point.
First, let’s look at Secretary Lew’s birth state: New York.
This is the original “State of New York” one of the original Thirteen (E)states that joined together as the united States of America. Notice that “united” is just an adjective describing a union or association or as they put it, a “perpetual confederation” of these landed “(E)states” The actual name of this country is the “States of America”. The actual and still very much in effect document binding the states together is The Articles of Confederation (1781).
Any idea that any “Constitution” dissolved or replaced the Articles of Confederation is a self-serving lie perpetuated by those who would defraud and enslave you. The “Constitution” —-the real Constitution— is an equity contract and public trust indenture that neither describes the states in terms of their geography nor binds them together in any way except as mutual subscribers to the governmental services to be provided by the “contract government”.
The 1824 Edition of the Webster’s Dictionary clearly states that the word “federal” was a synonym for “contract”, a usage and convention used repeatedly in relation to other documents of the time. It will help you to de-program if every time you see the words “federal government” you instead insert “contract government”—-for that is what it is. It is and has always been a foreign, maritime entity under contract to provide nineteen enumerated governmental services to the subscribing American states. The Constitution, like all Constitutions, is a debt agreement stipulating the services under contract, the limits of the authorities granted, and the payment terms.
This commercial contract is NOT what created your country and formed the Union of States. It merely helped to “perfect” the Union by providing common defense, common currency, and common administration of certain mutually agreed upon services. It also set common limits on the “federal government” in its administration of these mutual services to be provided to the subscribing states.
When we talk about a “state”, even a geographically defined “state” we must be aware that we are talking about a fictional entity. It doesn’t really exist, except via social agreement and convention. In truth there are no state borders established by God, no painted line etched by Heaven to separate New York from New Jersey, and when you go to Court and are accused or judged by anything calling itself the “State of New York” or “STATE OF NEW JERSEY” it is not the land and water of these states that levels the charges or claims to be injured or rises up to accuse you.
All such “States” are fictional in nature, including the original States of the Union bound together by The Articles of Confederation.
Little baby “jacob joseph lew” is born on the land of the American organic, geographically defined New York State. He is given his individual name— his “given name” which is “jacob joseph” by his parents and he inherits his family surname “lew” from his father. Properly, his name as a living baby must be either denoted in all small letters as shown here, or he must be described, as in “Joseph-Jacob of the House Lew”. These are the only proper and lawful ways to name a living freeborn child, and it has been that way since the days of ancient Rome. He is born as a civilian on the jurisdiction of the land, and as a natural –born American, he has complete civil authority. Even as a baby little jacob joseph lew possessed more civil authority on the land of New York State than the entire federal government, but he was blissfully unaware of that fact.
So we’ve already learned some important arcane information here: how to properly and lawfully name a living baby, how to name a land-based geographically defined “state”—-it’s “New York State”— versus a legal fiction political state—the “State of New York” created by social agreement and convention. Little jacob-joseph:lew was thus born on the land of New York State, and, at the same time, inthe State of New York.
We’ve already determined that he was born on the land as a civilian and with complete civil authority on the land, but what does this additional status of being born in the “State of New York” confer? We walk on the land and we swim in the water. This second, political status falls under maritime jurisdiction. Jacob-joseph is still a civilian, so the “State of New York” operates in civil maritime.
To denote this fundamental difference in jurisdiction between the land and the sea, jacob joseph lew’s name on the land is “restyled” as “Jacob Joseph Lew”.
So you now have one baby, two names, and two completely separate jurisdictions— jurisdictions that are as absolutely and endemically separate from each other as the land and the sea.
Civil maritime is the jurisdiction in which merchant mariners and commercial “vessels” trade and sail the seas, so perhaps it is not awfully surprising that Federal Title 7 considers “Jacob Joseph Lew” a “vessel” and the Internal Revenue Code describes him as a warrant officer in the Merchant Marine Service when he exercises his “office” as a “withholding agent” working for an offshore Puerto Rican trust operated under the name “JACOB JOSEPH LEW”.
This third version, “JACOB JOSEPH LEW” appears shortly after “Jacob Joseph Lew” is “registered” by agents under contract to the Federal Reserve System as a vessel belonging to the United States of America, Incorporated.
Say, what? Yes, those nice people at the New York Bureau of Vital Statistics aren’t working for the New York State. They are working for the State of New York. And the “State of New York” is a “federal state franchise” of the United States of America, Incorporated, which was owned and operated by the Federal Reserve System under the auspices of a foreign nation calling itself “the United States of America (Minor)”—–though they very rarely bother to include the word (Minor). This “other United States” is composed of a consortium of “American” “States” more often thought of as federal territories and possessions, including Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, American Virgin Islands and “Other Insular States”. It’s a private corporation organized under the auspices of a foreign country operating “state” franchises in our midst.
All your life you have never used your real name or enjoyed your birthright or your God-given freedom, because these interlopers came to your Mother under conditions of non-disclosure and self-interested deceit by committing fiduciary trust fraud, they pushed your Mother to unknowingly donate you as chattel “entrusted” to their corporation— their “state” franchise” doing business as the “State of New York”, which allowed them to claim that you were “voluntarily” renouncing your birthright status as a civilian on the land of the New York State, and agreeing instead to be “enfranchised” and made “subject” to the “territorial jurisdiction” of the United States of America (Minor).
In one stroke, your misled and purposefully entrapped Mother gave this foreign, for-profit, private “State” franchise of the bankrupt United States of America, Incorporated (and their owners, the Federal Reserve Banks) legal title to you. Mrs. Lew was never told anything about the nature of the paperwork she was signing, but the “State of New York” became the trustee of little jacob joseph lew. And their very first act was to abuse the right of usufruct— the right of trustees to use the name of the beneficiary, so long as no harm is done to the beneficiary or their reputation.
You be the judge of the ultimate harm they have done to you and millions of others.
They immediately “redefined” jacob-joseph (and you) as a “US citizen” subject to the whims of the “United States Congress” acting as the government of the United States of America (Minor), a foreign, maritime, legislative democracy. This removed him— literally kidnapped him—from his natural jurisdiction on the land of New York State where he was born free and entitled to all his Natural and Unalienable rights—-and “subjected” him—as in “subject to a king” to the laws and jurisdiction of this foreign nation and its “territorial jurisdiction” and also made him a “surety” for the debts of the same “United States Congress” and the bankrupt “United States of America, Incorporated”. They enslaved him and you and millions of others.
Instead of acting as his Trustee, the “State of New York” acted as a predator and changed the baby’s name to “Jacob Joseph Lew”. This is the way he was taught to refer to himself and the way he was taught to sign his name and that allowed the legal presumption that he was knowingly and willingly and voluntarily operating in their foreign civil maritime “territorial jurisdiction” as a “vessel in commerce” belonging to the “State of New York” —a franchise of the bankrupt United States of America, Incorporated, organized under the auspices of the United States of America, (Minor).
This is a sophisticated form of identity theft carried out against unsuspecting women and babes in their cradles by international banking cartels operating governmental services corporations under conditions of gross self-interested fiduciary trust fraud and deceit.
Next, the operators of this fraud scheme issued bonds based on jacob-joseph’s estimated lifetime earnings, next, they had the baby born on the land declared “legally dead” and committed probate fraud against him, then, they acted as creditors against his earthly estate and filed maritime salvage liens against his “vessel” for his estimated “share” of the expenses of the United States of America, Incorporated—-known as the “National Debt”.
All this was done to jacob-joseph and to you and virtually every other child born on the land of the State of America before anyone left grade school. You were systematically entrapped, defrauded, kidnapped, transported to a foreign jurisdiction, suffered identity theft and mischaracterization, and were robbed of your natural rights and immunities by corporations in your employment and by individuals and institutions pretending to “represent” your lawful government and to act as your “trustees”.
This was done without your knowledge or consent on the basis of Third Party contracts (entered by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration and your Mother) and under conditions of semantic and material deceit resulting in tainted, unilateral, undisclosed and grossly inequitable contracts serving to demean and enslave you.
After they killed off the baby born on the land via this legalized identity theft, the perpetrators settled in as parasites to feed off your labor and to “hypothecate” debt against your land, your homes, your businesses and everything else naturally belonging to you. The hired help— governmental services corporations merely under contract to provide stipulated services to the States—stole your identity, your credit cards, and your earthly estate—and proceeded to lord it over you, all without your knowledge or consent.
The facts of the fraud are revealed by “your” Birth Certificate, which is actually your fraudulent Death Certificate. Look at this document closely. It is issued by the Registrar, an Officer of the Probate Court— proof positive that your earthly estate has been probated. It is issued on bond paper, representing a debt and “promise to pay” bonds that have been issued based on the value of your earthly ESTATE, all numbered and securitized to benefit the United States of America, Incorporated and the very bankers and lawyers and politicians responsible for this deplorable criminality. It is issued to your given name styled in all capital letters, or in our example, to “JACOB JOSEPH LEW”.
This particular incorporated entity is an ESTATE trust created under Washington, DC Municipal Statute, Chapter 2, Vital Statistics, Section 7-201, paragraph 10. It is created under the auspices of the Washington, DC Municipality, a separate, independent, international city-state ruled as a plenary oligarchy by the members of the US CONGRESS, which acts as a Board of Directors for the UNITED STATES, INCORPORATED, which as you learned at First Base, owned and operated by the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, an agency of the UNITED NATIONS CORPORATION.
Right now, because the bankruptcy of the United States of America, Incorporated, finally settled on July 1, 2013, the parasites are setting up shop with new hosts—-the United Nations City State located in New York State. They are booting up a new “FEDERAL RESERVE” under UN auspices and launching a new UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, and attempting to roll over the old ESTATE trusts operated under names styled as in “JACOB JOSEPH LEW” and to “redefine” what is left of “you” as a transmitting utility operated as “JACOB J. LEW”.
If we don’t put a stop to this craziness ourselves every commercial corporation and petty despot on earth will be misusing our names and naming legal fiction entities after us and claiming to have contracts and relationships with “them” and us that don’t exist and accusing us of owing their debts or owing them for services we never ordered, and similar outrages.
We will have not only the New York State and the State of New York (old Federal Reserve version) and the STATE OF NEW YORK (IMF version) and NEW YORK (their latest outrage), but we will have The state of new York, and the State of new York, and the New State of York and the State of New york and the new state of york, and as many permutations of style and spelling and order of words you can imagine —–all of which are created for the sole purpose of semantic deceit, identity theft, and criminal fraud.
It’s time to bluntly accuse these false trustees of the crimes they have committed and continue to commit against the Americans, Australians, Canadians, most Europeans, Japanese, and others who have been victimized by the same or very similar “Systems” of fraud and enslavement perpetuated by these international banking cartels, the Bar Associations, and criminal politicians.
Right now, the push is on to “consolidate sovereign debt” and use it as leverage against all the nations and governments of the world and to give control of this leverage to the handful of evil geniuses running the UNITED NATIONS CORPORATION. The problem is that no such legitimate debts exist, and because of the fraud involved, no valid claims can be addressed to any of the people of any country. This mammoth faux pas and accounting nightmare has been caused by criminally corrupt governments, bankers, and lawyers—-and yes, by people who have been complacent and who have bought into the propaganda and the lies spun by these self-interested con artists for generations.
Now you know how the spiders spin their webs and you know how you wound up “removed” to Puerto Rican jurisdiction, paying debts you don’t owe, and so much more.
Tell your friends. Tell your neighbors. Set up your Grand Juries. Elect your Sheriffs and Judges to execute the Law of the Land against these hyenas. Boycott them and refuse service and refuse to pay any taxes for unwanted services. Serve your Notices to the members of Con- Gress that they do NOT “represent” you and do NOT represent your organic state. Do the same with the so-called Governors. Don’t let anyone or anything “represent” you. Show up and present yourself. Bring suit against the probate court for fraud perpetuated against you. File liens and commercial affidavits against these corporations, judges, clerks, lawyers, bankers, politicians—-the whole kit and caboodle. They aren’t “public officials”. None of them have taken a single proper oath of any public office. They are nothing but private corporate “officers” impersonating lawful public officials—-criminals, in other words. They are all con artists knowingly or unknowingly occupying vacated public offices and abusing the assumed “powers” of those offices for private gain.
Most of all, inform the sheriffs, police, provost marshals, militia members, and members of the military. Educate them so that they have no excuse for condoning, supporting, or enforcing the “acts” and “orders” of these charlatans.
December 22nd, 2014 by olddog
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
The fundamental transformation of the United States is a euphemism for destroying American values and traditions fostered by an unholy alliance of America’s radical left and militant Islam, in essence, to take down the country from within.
This totalitarian marriage of convenience is distinguished by the traits they share – their hatred of Western civilization and a belief that the United States is the embodiment of evil on earth. While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.
Central to the success of the America-haters is “submission,” either to the state or sharia, and a rejection of the belief that individuals “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
That is, the core of Western Judeo-Christian ideology maintains that the individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, can discern the Divine Will and seek “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” unmediated by commissars and mullahs.
In response, America’s domestic enemies promulgate notions that attack the basis of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which emphasizes the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual. They also promote policies that weaken the ability to transmit to the next generation the values and traditions upon which the United States was built.
Anti-American, messianic political movements can only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined, not by personal destiny endowed by the Creator, but by the destiny of the community, endowed by a ruling elite.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a one-size-fits-all, top-down national education system, embraced by Democrats and big government Republicans like Jeb Bush, does just that, turning schools into re-education camps for leftist and Islamic indoctrination – as most universities and colleges already are.
Under Common Core students are asked to rewrite sentences containing subliminal anti-American messages such as “The commands of government officials must be obeyed by all” and “he (the president) makes sure the laws of the country are fair” and “the wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation.”
Presumably, that includes blind obedience to Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, an acceptance of Marxist-style wealth redistribution and a dilution of the Bill of Rights.
Todd Starnes of Fox News reported that a high school in Farmville, North Carolina, promotes Islam and the Prophet Muhammad in a Common Core vocabulary assignment handed out to seniors in an English class.
The worksheet says: “In the following exercises, you will have the opportunity to expand your vocabulary by reading about Muhammad and the Islamic word.”
One sentence reads: “The zenith of any Muslim’s life is a trip to Mecca.” For using the word “erratic,” the lesson included this statement: “The responses to Muhammad’s teachings were at first erratic. Some people responded favorably, while other resisted his claim that â€˜there is no God but Allah and Muhammad his Prophet.”
Another section required students to complete the following sentence:
“There are such vast numbers of people who are anxious to spread the Muslim faith that it would be impossible to give a(n)___ amount.”
This is not the first controversy caused by Common Core. One assignment asked students in California to question the Holocaust. Another lesson teaches a messianic view of Barack Obama, while a third falsely claims white voters rejected Obama due to race. A Common Core lesson taught in Arkansas asked students to remove and replace two amendments from an allegedly “outdated” Bill of Rights.
Courtesy of the Obama Administration, Common Core has become both a means to remove parents and the local community from the educational process and a vehicle for leftist and Islamic indoctrination, designed not to teach children how to think, but what to think.
Consequently, unless such anti-American brainwashing is stopped, future generations may not only lose their liberty, but they may, quite literally, get their heads handed to them.
December 20th, 2014 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
In the past several days, Western bankers have committed two overt acts of war against Russia, namely, the plunging of oil prices and the recent cutting off of all liquidity to Russian banks. This reminds me of the days before World War II in which the United States followed a doctrine called the eight point plan which was designed to provoke Japan into attacking America so Roosevelt could use this as the excuse to get involved in World War II. As Mark Twain once said, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme”.
Ditching the Ruble
Has the American public received any reasonable explanation on how oil prices have plummeted at a time of year when they historically spike in order to price gouge holiday travelers? Of course there isn’t going to be any new revelations on this point. Here is the real story behind dropping oil prices.
Zero Hedge first reported that brokers are now advising their clients that any existing Russian Ruble positions will be terminated without any further notice because of concerns related to the lack of Russian “capital controls”. At least that is the excuse that Western banks are using to run from the Ruble. The truth of the matter is that the West has declared war on Russia and its BRICS partners for undermining the Petrodollar.
No Turning Back
Ditching the Ruble marks a shift in Western banking strategy directed at the Russians. This change was necessitated because the West’s scheme to plunge the price of oil is not having an immediate effect on Russian economic actions. Although American consumers are reveling in their recent good fate with regard to the collapse of oil prices which have resulted in cheaper prices at the pump, there are some very dire consequences attached to American consumer’s good fortune.
The price of a barrel of oil is reaching the point where it will not be cost efficient to even ship the oil because to ship the oil is becoming more costly than the middle men transporting agents can make. This will result in an artificial shortage of available gasoline. In the United States, shortages will soon appear and prices will spike to unimaginable levels. This will undoubtedly collapse our fragile economy.
The strategy of dropping oil prices in order to bring the Russians to their knees, will not work says Walker Todd. In a reported conversation with my colleague, Paul Martin, Todd told Martin that the low oil prices will not make Putin immediately blink because of (1) inflation and (2) Putin has a year’s reserve of oil and cash. In other words, the fuse has been lit for World War III. Does anyone think that Putin will allow his reserves to be depleted?
The Time Parameters for World War III
The Russian financial situation is about to go critical, despite their ability to temporarily whether the storm related to falling oil prices. The WSJ is reporting, the next driver of the Russian crisis is unquestionably going to begin in the Russian banking system because as the WSJ stated “…global banks are curtailing the flow of cash to Russian entities, a response to the ruble’s sharpest selloff since the 1998 financial crisis.” In other words, Western banks are cutting off all financial liquidity to Russia. This will soon paralyze the Russian economy.
Russia’s banks are now isolated from the Western world. This is an act of war! The only question remaining is when will Putin launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike upon the West in order to preserve its economy? Will Putin wait until 25% of his oil reserves are gone? Will he wait until 50% of his oil reserves are spent? Before you answer, keep in mind that Putin will need his oil reserves to fight World War III.
After receiving this news, yesterday, I reached out to my contacts with the information hoping to have these developments debunked. Unfortunately, my sources provided information which seems to collaborate the fact that we headed for war.
I have learned that leaves for critical military personnel have been canceled effective on January 1, 2015. The leaves are not uniformly canceled across the breadth of the military. However, I have learned that military leaves for personnel serving in the nuclear command structure and specific elements of the nuclear submarine fleet are now canceled. The implication should be obvious as to what someone as to what the Pentagon believes is coming.
Schlumberger International is the largest oilfield corporation in the world employing 126,000 people in 85 countries. Recently, the son of Texas talk show host, Vinnie Pope, stated that Schlumberger has canceled all travel anywhere in the world. This travel ban began immediately after Thanksgiving. Clearly, Schlumberger is anticipating that something big is ready to happen. One could assume that whatever is coming is related to oil since this is the business of Schlumberger. It is interesting to note as an aside that four years ago on my talk show, researcher Dianne Hunter reported the interconnections between Schlumberger to the Nature Conservancy and ultimately to the Queen of England. These connections are worthy of further investigation which will be forthcoming
Clearly, something big is anticipated by people/corporations who are in position to know. I am hopeful that this article will shake the bushes a little bit in order to get a better grasp of the particular nature of what’s coming. One thing is for sure, Putin’s tolerance level for these sanctions will soon be exceeded.
December 19th, 2014 by olddog
WASHINGTON, D.C —The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a lower court ruling that declared it unsafe for California public school students to wear American flag t-shirts to school. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Dariano v. Morgan Hill, in which several students were ordered by school officials to cover up their American flag t-shirts on May 5, 2010, allegedly because officials feared that other students celebrating the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo would be offended, Rutherford Institute attorneys note that the school should have focused on controlling unruly students and not on stifling patriotic speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Rutherford Institute’s petition for certiorari in Dariano v. Morgan Hill is available at www.rutherford.org.
“There are all kinds of labels being put on so-called ‘unacceptable’ speech today, from calling it politically incorrect and hate speech to offensive and dangerous speech, but the real message being conveyed is that Americans don’t have a right to express themselves if what they are saying is unpopular or in any way controversial,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “Whether it’s through the use of so-called ‘free speech zones,’ the requirement of speech permits, or the policing of online forums, what we’re seeing is the caging of free speech and the asphyxiation of the First Amendment.”
On May 5, 2010, three Live Oak High School students wore patriotic t-shirts, shorts and shoes to school bearing various images of the U.S. flag. During a mid-morning “brunch break,” the students were approached by Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, who told the students they could not wear their pro-U.S.A. shirts and gave them the option of either removing their shirts or turning them inside out. The students refused, believing the options to be disrespectful to the flag. Rodriguez allegedly lectured the group about Cinco de Mayo, indicating that he had received complaints from some Hispanic students about the stars and stripes apparel, and again ordered that the clothing be covered up to prevent offending the Hispanic students on “their” day. Principal Nick Boden also met with the parents and students and affirmed Rodriguez’s order, allegedly because he did not want to offend students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo.
Arguing that the decision by school officials constituted viewpoint discrimination against pro-U.S.A. expression, Rutherford Institute attorneys filed suit on behalf of the students and their parents seeking a declaration that the action violated the First Amendment and injunctive relief against a vague school district policy allowing prior restraints on speech to be imposed upon students. The lawsuit asserted that school officials violated the students’ rights to Free Speech under the First Amendment, and their Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In November 2011, the district court ruled in favor of school officials, citing a concern for school safety. That ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2014. Although the appeals court acknowledged that other students were permitted to wear Mexican flag colors and symbols, it ruled that school officials could forbid the American flag apparel out of concerns that it would cause disruption, even though no disruption had occurred. Three of the nine judges on the Ninth Circuit agreed with The Rutherford Institute that school officials violated long-standing Supreme Court precedent forbidding suppression of protected expression on the basis of a “heckler’s veto,” which occurs when the government restricts an individual’s right to free speech in order to maintain order.
Affiliate attorney William J. Becker is assisting The Rutherford Institute in its defense of the students.
SO, it’s alright for the wet backs to offend American students, but it’s not alright for the American Students to offend the wet backs. And they call this LAW? The Judges should be required to eat the T-Shirts!
Supreme Court, you can K.M.A!
December 18th, 2014 by olddog
by Martin Armstrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY9C6pzxKc
If you are like me and cannot stand RAP
turn the volume down and watch!
There is a new music video that is going viral entitled This is What Happens When You Call The Cops. It is a shocking video putting together numerous clips of Police Brutality that is very disturbing to say the least. It has captured the stark transformation of the police into a militaristic force far removed from the old days.
The days of Norman Rockwell are gone and this is what I fear is unfolding as the Domestic War Cycle turns up. We are more likely than not going to see widespread violence targeted against the police after 2015.75. Once the economy turns down, the frustration against government will rise up like the 1960s. This time, it will not just be a black issue. The militarization of the police has no boundary of race, creed, or gender.
This video captures the resentment that is bubbling beneath the surface, Anyone who thinks this is just a race issue better open their eyes. The abuse has no limits. The civil asset forfeiture laws are unleashing criminal activity sanctioned by the courts against the people no different from Rome when its armies sacked their own cities to get paid. Indeed, perhaps the greatest lesson of history is that we never learn anything from it. Amazing.
Yes, I’m old enough to remember when I thought all cops were heroes. Today I answer the door with a 45ACP cocked and UN locked in my hand. How-ever I have noticed many older officers are taking early retirement because of the younger cop’s attitudes. When the people you depend on for your safety turn out to be wannabe killers, it’s time to stand up and fight back in any way you can. Don’t believe this? Try and start a conversation with a young cop in a restaurant next time you see one taking a lunch break. But never! Assume they are all bad, as human nature is such that they will go to extremes before turning on their own. In every group there are always differences in opinion and loyalty. As for me, it has been hard to accept their infiltration by neo conservative extremist political philosophy, and it shows how far back this tragedy was planned. Never forget that some of the most intelligent minds on earth have been designing this scenario for years, and the cops are the first victims. Below is an article especially damaging to the police image in these trying times, and no restitution seems possible when you are broke and cannot defend yourself from the complicit Courts.
Bathing Man Grabbed By Testicles and Beaten SWAT Lied to Get Raid
Chad Chadwick, a Texas man with a clean record, is still trying to live down the multiple nightmares unleashed upon him by a SWAT team three years ago. Because none of those nightmares ended with the lurid and violent raid.
What would precipitate a raid for someone who had never broken the law? A tip, of course. Apparently, a friend reported him to the Missouri City police concerning his emotional well-being. When someone’s down and out – who you gonna call? None other than SWAT – who eagerly went down to business.
They decided they needed some semblance of justification to SWAT this guy. So they unequivocally fabricated a complete lie to a judge in order to get approval.
They said he had taken some hostages…
They knew this was untrue – they came up with it. My Fox Houston also claims that SWAT was aware of his owning a single shotgun, with which he had never threatened anyone.
So on the night of September 27th, 2011 they arrived while Chadwick was napping in the bathtub.
(How do they always know when you’re in the shower?)
This is the series of events:
- SWAT kicks in door, launches stun grenade into bathroom
- Storms into bathroom
- Naked Chad’s hands are up so they shoot him with a 40 millimeter non-lethal round
- Launch second stun grenade
- Lights are out, four or five guys behind a shield pin Chad against the wall and “beat the crap out of” him
- Officers shoot him in the back of the head with a Taser, point blank range
- Grabbed him by one hand and grabbed him by testicles and slammed his face to the floor
- Beat him some more
They claimed he had “drew down with a shampoo bottle and a body wash bottle.”
Series of events that followed:
- Taken to Ft. Bend County Jail with fractured nose, bruised ribs and permanent hearing loss
- Held in isolation for two entire days
- Apparently not taken to hospital
Oh, this is still not over….
- District Attorney John Healy began a series of concocted criminal charges – that stem from the raid!
- Two felony counts of assaulting a police officer (!)
Misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest (this is the everyman’s charge) – they called over a dozen officers to testify that he resisted arrest.
A grand jury didn’t go for first counts and the misdemeanor charges were finally dropped.
And finally – just one month ago a jury found him not guilty of interfering with police…they proceeded to hug the poor guy!
Chadwick attributes the loss of his kids, his hearing as well as being financially bankrupted as a result of the raid and ensuing litigation where he was repeatedly forced to defend himself from charges of a raid that was based on a lie.
When asked if taxpayers had been bankrupted for these events, Healy said he “wasn’t keeping tally.” Healy stands by all of his prosecutions.
Any repercussions to the force assembled from multiple cities? Any consequences for lying to a judge? Any retribution for almost killing an unarmed, naked man in his bathtub and then locking him up in isolation? For destroying his whole life?
No, because they aggressively litigate in return and the victim must then put all energy into defense. All focus goes to what happened to the victim after the fact, not on why these people are all still on the force and receiving paychecks.
These cops are out of control. They are ruining good people’s lives. I am a good man. I have done everything I can to show that, as a father, as a citizen, as a worker.
Readers: we wish this was a satire but it’s entirely too real and too common. Please share this with friends, especially the kind who hero-ize SWAT thinking they only go after criminals. In all honesty it could be them sharing a story like this someday.
Watch the short video at this link:
December 17th, 2014 by olddog
By Ellen Brown
Buried on page 83 of the 89-page Report on Financial Regulatory Reform issued by the U.S. Administration on June 17 is a recommendation that the new Financial Stability Board strengthen and institutionalize its mandate to promote global financial stability. Financial stability is a worthy goal, but the devil is in the details. The new global Big Brother is based in the Bank for International Settlements, a controversial institution that raises red flags among the wary . . . .
“Big Brother” is the term used by George Orwell in his classic novel 1984 for the totalitarian state that would lock into place in the year of his title. Why he chose that particular year is unclear, but one theory is that he was echoing Jack London’s The Iron Heel, which chronicled the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States. In London’s book, the oligarchy’s fictional wonder-city, fueled by oppressed workers, was to be completed by 1984. Orwell also echoed London’s imagery when he described the future under Big Brother as “a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” In Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money, and the Methods Behind the New World Order (1999), Dr. Dennis Cuddy asked:
“Could the ‘boot’ be the new eighteen-story Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which was completed in Basel, Switzerland, in 1977 in the shape of a boot, and became known as the‘Tower of Basel’?”
The boot-like shape of the building is strange enough to be thought-provoking (see photo), but more disturbing is the description by Dr. Carroll Quigley of the pivotal role assigned to the BIS in consolidating financial power into a few private hands. Professor Quigley, who was Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, claimed to be an insider and evidently knew his subject. He wrote in Tragedy and Hope (1966):
“[T]he 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.”
That helps explain the alarm bells that went off among BIS-watchers when the Bank was linked to the new Financial Stability Board (FSB) President Obama signed onto in April. When the G20 leaders met in London on April 2, 2009, they agreed to expand the powers of the old Financial Stability Forum (FSF) into this new Board. The FSF was set up in 1999 to serve in a merely advisory capacity by the G7 (a group of finance ministers formed from the seven major industrialized nations). The chair of the FSF was the General Manager of the BIS. The new FSB has been expanded to include all G20 members (19 nations plus the EU). The G20, formally called the “Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors,” was, like the G7, originally set up as a forum merely for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the international financial system. But its new Financial Stability Board has real teeth, imposing “obligations” and “commitments” on its members.
The Shadowy Financial Stability Board
The Report on Financial Regulatory Reform issued by the Obama Administration on June 17 includes a recommendation that the FSB “strengthen” and “institutionalize” its mandate. What is the FSB’s mandate, what are its expanded powers, and who is in charge? An article in The London Guardian addresses those issues in question and answer format:
“Who runs the regulator? The Financial Stability Forum is chaired by Mario Draghi, governor of the Bank of Italy. The secretariat is based at the Bank for International Settlements’ headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.”
Draghi was director general of the Italian treasury from 1991 to 2001, where he was responsible for widespread privatization (sell-off of government holdings to private investors). From January 2002 to January 2006, however, he was a partner at Goldman Sachs on Wall Street, another controversial player. As already noted, “basing” the FSB at the BIS is not a comforting sign, considering the dark and controversial history of the BIS. Dr. Cuddy, writing in 1999, quoted media sources describing the BIS and its behind-the-scenes leaders as “this economic cabal . . . this secretive group . . . the financial barons who control the world’s supply of money” (Washington Post, June 28, 1998); “some of the world’s most powerful and least visible men . . . officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen” (New York Times, August 5, 1995); men who can “move huge amounts of money into and out of markets in a nanosecond” and “topple politicians with the click of a mouse” (ABC’s “Nightline,” July 1, 1998).
“What will the new regulator do? The regulator will monitor potential risks to the economy . . . It will cooperate with the IMF, the Washington-based body that monitors countries’ financial health, lending funds if needed. . . .”
The IMF is an international banking organization that is also controversial. Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist for the World Bank, charges it with ensnaring Third World countries in a debt trap from which they cannot escape. Debtors unable to pay are bound by “conditionality’s” that include a forced sell-off of national assets to private investors in order to service their loans.
“What will the regulator oversee? All ‘systemically important’ financial institutions, instruments and markets.”
The term “systemically important” is not defined. Will it include such systemically important institutions as national treasuries, and such systemically important markets as gold, oil and food?
“How will it work? The body will establish a supervisory college to monitor each of the largest international financial services firms. . . . It will act as a clearing house for information-sharing and contingency planning for the benefit of its members.”
In some contexts, information-sharing is called illegal collusion. Would the information-sharing here include such things as secret agreements among central banks to buy or sell particular currencies, with the concomitant power to support or collapse targeted local economies? Consider the short-selling of the Mexican peso by collusive action in 1995, the short-selling of Southeast Asian currencies in 1998, and the collusion among central banks to support the U.S. dollar in July of last year – good for the dollar and the big players with inside information perhaps, but not so good for the small investors who reasonably bet on “market forces,” bought gold or foreign currencies, and lost their shirts.
“What will the new regulator do about debt and loans? To prevent another debt bubble, the new body will recommend financial companies maintain provisions against credit losses and may impose constraints on borrowing.”
What sort of constraints? The Basel Accords imposed by the BIS have not generally worked out well. The first Basel Accord, issued in 1998, was blamed for inducing a depression in Japan from which that country has yet to recover; and the Second Basel Accord and its associated mark-to-market rule have been blamed for bringing on the current credit crisis, from which the U.S. and the world have yet to recover. These charges have been explored at length elsewhere. The suspicious might see these failures as intentional. The warnings come to mind of Congressman Louis MacFadden, head of the House Banking and Currency Committee during the Great Depression: “It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all.” David Rockefeller, a key player in international finance, echoed this thinking in 1994, when he said at a UN dinner, “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
The Amorphous 12 International Standards and Codes
Most troubling, perhaps, is this vague parenthetical reference in a press release issued by the BIS, titled “Financial Stability Forum Re-established as the Financial Stability Board”:
“As obligations of membership, member countries and territories commit to . . . implement international financial standards (including the 12 key International Standards and Codes) . . . .”
This is not just friendly advice from an advisory board. It is a commitment to comply, so you would expect some detailed discussion concerning what those standards entail. However, a search of the major media reveals virtually nothing. The 12 key International Standards and Codes are left undefined and un-discussed. The FSB website lists them, but it is vague. The Standards and Codes cover broad areas that are apparently subject to modification as the overseeing committees see fit. They include:
- Money and financial policy transparency
- Fiscal policy transparency
- Data dissemination
- Corporate governance
- Payment and settlement
- Market integrity
- Banking supervision
- Securities regulation
- Insurance supervision
Take “fiscal policy transparency” as an example. The “Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency” was adopted by the IMF Interim Committee in 1998. The “synoptic description” says:
“The code contains transparency requirements to provide assurances to the public and to capital markets that a sufficiently complete picture of the structure and finances of government is available so as to allow the soundness of fiscal policy to be reliably assessed.”
We learn that members are required to provide a “picture of the structure and finances of government” that is complete enough for an assessment of its “soundness” — but an assessment by whom, and what if a government fails the test? Is an unelected private committee based in the BIS allowed to evaluate the “structure and function” of particular national governments and, if they are determined to have fiscal policies that are not “sound,” to impose “conditionality’s” and “austerity measures” of the sort that the IMF is notorious for imposing on Third World countries? The wary might wonder if that is how the mighty United States is to be brought under the heel of Big Brother at last.
For three centuries, private international banking interests have brought governments in line by blocking them from issuing their own currencies and requiring them to borrow banker-issued “banknotes” instead. “Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency,” Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791, “and I care not who makes its laws.” The real rebellion of the American colonists in 1776, according to Benjamin Franklin, was against a foreign master who forbade the colonists from issuing their own money and required that taxes be paid in gold. The colonists, not having gold, had to borrow gold-backed banknotes from the British bankers. The catch was that the notes were created on the “fractional reserve” system, allowing the bankers to issue up to ten times as many notes as they actually had gold, essentially creating them out of thin air just as the colonists were doing. The result was not only to lock the colonists into debt to foreign bankers but to propel the nation into a crippling depression. The colonists finally rebelled and reverted to issuing their own currency. Funding a revolution against a major world power with money they printed themselves, they succeeded in defeating their oppressors and winning their independence.
Political colonialism is now a thing of the past, but under the new FSB guidelines, nations can still be held in feudalistic subservience to foreign masters. Consider this scenario: XYZ country, which has been getting along very well financially, discloses that its national currency is being printed by the government directly. The FSB determines that this practice represents an impermissible “merging of the public and private sectors” and is an unsound banking practice forbidden under the “12 Key International Standards and Codes.” Banker-created national currency is declared to be the standard “good practice” all governments must follow. XYZ is compelled to abandon the “anachronistic” notion that creating its own national currency is a proper “function of government.” It must now borrow from the international bankers, trapping it in the bankers’ compound-interest debt web.
Consider another scenario: Like in the American colonies, the new FSB rules precipitate a global depression the likes of which have never before been seen. XYZ country wakes up to the fact that all of this is unnecessary – that it could be creating its own money, freeing itself from the debt trap, rather than borrowing from bankers who create money on computer screens and charge interest for the privilege of borrowing it. But this realization comes too late: the boot descends and XYZ is crushed into line. National sovereignty has been abdicated to a private committee, with no say by the voters.
Was Orwell Just 25 Years Too Early?
Suspicious observers might say that this is how you pull off a private global dictatorship: (1) create a global crisis; (2) appoint an “advisory body” to retain and maintain “stability”; and then (3) “formalize” the advisory body as global regulator. By the time the people wake up to what has happened, it’s too late. Marilyn Barnewall, who was dubbed by Forbes Magazine the “dean of American private banking,” writes in an April 2009 article titled “What Happened to American Sovereignty at G-20?”:
“It seems the world’s bankers have executed a bloodless coup and now represent all of the people in the world. . . . President Obama agreed at the G20 meeting in London to create an international board with authority to intervene in U.S. corporations by dictating executive compensation and approving or disapproving business management decisions. Under the new Financial Stability Board, the United States has only one vote. In other words, the group will be largely controlled by European central bankers. My guess is, they will represent themselves, not you and not me and certainly not America.”
A bloodless coup . . . Again one is reminded of the admissions of David Rockefeller, who wrote in his Memoirs(Random House 2002):
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
The Commitments Mandated by the Financial Stability Board
Constitute a Commercial Treaty Requiring a 2/3 Vote of the Senate.
Adoption of the FSB was never voted on by the public, either individually or through their legislators. The G20 Summit has been called “a New Bretton Woods,” referring to agreements entered into in 1944 establishing new rules for international trade. But Bretton Woods was put in place by Congressional Executive Agreement, requiring a majority vote of the legislature; and it more properly should have been done by treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate, since it was an international agreement binding on the nation. The same should be mandated before imposing the will of the BIS-based Financial Stability Board on the U.S., its banks and its businesses. Here is a quick review of the law:
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties only with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. The Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure. However, historically the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone. A congressional-executive agreement can cover only those matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President; while a sole-executive agreement can cover only those matters within the President’s authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President. A sole-executive agreement can be negotiated and entered into only through the President’s authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty. Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties). If an international commercial accord contains binding “treaty” commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.
Even with a two-thirds Senate vote, before Congress gives its approval it should draft legislation ensuring that the checks and balances imposed by our Constitution are built into the agreement. This could be done by implementing a legislative counterpart to the FSB with full oversight and corrective powers. The legislatures of the member nations could be required to elect a representative body to provide oversight and take corrective measures as needed, with that body’s representatives answerable to their national electorates.
Orwell’s 1984 made the news again in April 2009, when Queen Elizabeth chose the book as her ceremonial gift for visiting President Felipe Calderon of Mexico. Calderon, who crushed riots with boot-like severity after he was accused of vote-rigging to steal the election from his populist opponent, was said to be an admirer of Orwell’s work. The event provoked suspicions that 1984 had been covertly chosen by a modern-day financial oligarchy as the inspirational model for implementing Big Brother globally. The book ends with the protagonist Winston tortured and brainwashed into accepting the party line. We need to act quickly and decisively to ensure that its historical counterpart has a happier ending.
Posted on GlobalResearch.Ca June 23, 2009.
December 16th, 2014 by olddog
READ JUST HALF OF THESE ARTICLES AND THEN TELL ME THE COPS ARE DOING A FINE JOB
Cops Arrest Man who Exposed them Beating Man on Video While Promoting Cop
Acting on a Bogus Tip, Cops Raid Innocent Family, Execute Grandfather as He Lay Face Down
WATCH: Ohio cop threatens sobbing girlfriend with jail after police gun down man in Walmart
SWAT Team Admits On Website That It Was Formed To Fight Civil Rights Protesters
Buffalo Cop Suspended Without Pay for Beating Caught on Camera
Photo Evidence, Police Lies Point to Police Cover-up in Death of Miami Artist Killed by Cop Car
Rumain Brisbon Is Just the Latest to Be Shot Dead by a Cop Over a Phantom Gun
California Deputy Tases and Beats Man with Flashlight While Holding his Head Down with Foot
Undercover Cops Attempt to Incite Looting, Pull Gun On #ICan’tBreathe Protesters
Charges against detective show justice’ slow track for law-enforcement defendants
Cop Gets Schooled After Harassing Man for Playing Song, “Fuck tha Police”
NYC Cops Are Blithely Firing A Potentially Deafening Sound Cannon At Peaceful Protesters
Michigan Cop Kills Dog in Wrong Address Warrantless Home Entry
Media Ignores Tens of Thousands of People Marching Against Police Brutality
VIDEO: Man Speeds To Hospital For Asthma Attack, Police Stop Him And Won’t Let Him Go — He Dies
Texas to Set Precedent for Another Shakedown by Cops?
The rape culture that everyone ignores
Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population
The United States is trying to prevent citizens from leaving the country
End of America A movie you must see to believe
Ignorance Is No Excuse for Wrongdoing,
Unless You’re a Cop
By John W. Whitehead
“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Terry v. Ohio (1968)
With Orwellian irony, the U.S. Supreme Court chose December 15, National Bill of Rights Day to deliver its crushing blow to the Fourth Amendment. Although the courts have historically held that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law, in its 8-1 ruling in Heien v. State of North Carolina, the Supreme Court gave police in America one more ready excuse to routinely violate the laws of the land, this time under the guise of ignorance.
The Heien case, which started with an improper traffic stop based on a police officer’s ignorance of the law and ended with an unlawful search, seizure and arrest, was supposed to ensure that ignorance of the law did not become a ready excuse for government officials to routinely violate the law.
It failed to do so.
In failing to enforce the Constitution, the Court gave police the go-ahead to justify a laundry list of misconduct, from police shootings of unarmed citizens to SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, and the tasering of vulnerable individuals with paltry excuses such as “they looked suspicious” and “she wouldn’t obey our orders.”
When police handcuffed, strip-searched and arrested a disabled man for no reason other than he sounded incoherent, it was chalked up as a mistake. Gordon Goines, a 37-year-old disabled man suffering from a Lou Gehrigs-type disease, was “diagnosed” by police and an unlicensed mental health screener as having “mental health issues,” apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait, and subsequently handcuffed, strip searched, and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will and with no access to family and friends. This was done despite the fact that police had no probable cause to believe that Goines had committed any crime, was a danger to himself or others, nor did they have any other legitimate lawful reason to seize, arrest or detain him. When Goines was finally released, police made no attempt to rectify their “mistake.”
“I didn’t know it was against the law” was the excuse police used to justify their repeated tasering of Malaika Brooks. Eight-months pregnant and on her way to drop her son off at school, Brooks was repeatedly tasered by Seattle police during a routine traffic stop simply because she refused to sign a speeding ticket. The cops who tasered the pregnant woman insisted they weren’t aware that repeated electro-shocks qualified as constitutionally excessive and unreasonable force. The Supreme Court gave the cops a “get out of jail” card.
“I thought he was reaching for a gun.” That was the excuse given when a police officer repeatedly shot 70-year-old Bobby Canipe during a traffic stop. The cop saw the man reaching for his cane and, believing the cane to be a rifle and fearing for his life, opened fire. Police excused the shooting as “unfortunate” but “appropriate.”
“He was resisting arrest.” That was the rationale behind Eric Garner’s death. Garner, placed in a chokehold by police for allegedly resisting their attempts to arrest him for selling loose cigarettes, screamed “I can’t breathe” repeatedly, until he breathed his last breath. A grand jury ruled there was no “reasonable cause” to charge the arresting officer with Garner’s death.
And then you have the Heien case, which, while far less traumatic than Eric Garner’s chokehold death, was no less egregious in its defiance of the rule of law.
In April 2009, a police officer stopped Nicholas Heien’s car, allegedly over a faulty brake light, and during the course of the stop and subsequent search, found a sandwich bag’s worth of cocaine. In North Carolina, where the traffic stop took place, it’s not actually illegal to have only one working brake light. However, Heien—the owner of the vehicle—didn’t know that and allowed the search, which turned up drugs, and resulted in Heien’s arrest. When the legitimacy of the traffic stop was challenged in court, the arresting officer claimed ignorance and the courts deemed it a “reasonable mistake.”
I’m not sure which is worse: law enforcement officials who know nothing about the laws they have sworn to uphold, support and defend, or a constitutionally illiterate citizenry so clueless about their rights that they don’t even know when those rights are being violated.
This much I do know, however: going forward, it will be that much easier for police officers to write off misconduct as a “reasonable” mistake.
Understanding this, Justice Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” Sotomayor continues:
Giving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands this authority. One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so.
There’s no need to wonder, because there is no way to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters, not as long as the courts continue to excuse ignorance and sanction abuses on the part of the police.
Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.
Indeed, as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the police and other government agents have, with the general blessing of the courts, already been given the authority to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance.
Just consider the Court’s pro-police state rulings in recent years:
In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the Court declared that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Navarette v. California, the Court declared that police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.
In Maryland v. King, a divided Court determined police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States allows police to stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike. And in an effort to make life easier for “overworked” jail officials, the Court ruled in Florence v. Burlington that police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.”
In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King, the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, a majority of the high court agreed that it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.
And now we’ve got Heien v. North Carolina, which gives the police a green light to keep doing more of the same without fear of recrimination. Clearly, the present justices of the Supreme Court have forgotten that the Constitution, as Justice Douglas long ago recognized, “is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”
Given the turbulence of our age—with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, profit-driven prisons, asset forfeiture schemes, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—it’s not difficult to predict that this latest Supreme Court ruling will open the door to even greater police abuses.
We’ve got two choices: we can give up now and resign ourselves to a world in which police shootings, chokeholds, taserings, raids, thefts, and strip searches are written off as justifiable, reasonable or appropriate OR we can push back—nonviolently—against the police state and against all of the agencies, entities and individuals who march in lockstep with the police state.
As for those still deluded enough to believe they’re living the American dream—where the government represents the people, where the people are equal in the eyes of the law, where the courts are arbiters of justice, where the police are keepers of the peace, and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it’s time to wake up.
We no longer have a representative government, a rule of law, or justice. Liberty has fallen to legalism. Freedom has fallen to fascism. Justice has become jaded, jaundiced and just plain unjust.
The dream has turned into a nightmare.
WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!
December 15th, 2014 by olddog
PART 1 of 2
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Mr. J.B. Williams recently wrote a commentary for NewsWithViews entitled “House Republicans Place Obama on Official Notice”, in which he focused on the continuing constitutional crisis caused by the residency of Mr. Barack Obama in the White House. (Observe: I did not say “the Presidency” of Mr. Obama, which is a different matter altogether.) Normally, I do not respond to columns by fellow writers for NewsWithViews. But in this instance Mr. Williams has rashly taken it upon himself to include me (and my long-time friend, Devvy Kidd) among those who he asserts—with his usual self-assured verbal vehemence—must be “held accountable for this constitutional crisis”:
Then there are internet experts like Dr. Edwin Vieira and Devvy Kidd who claim that “Obama cannot be impeached because he isn’t really the President;” which I’m sure comes as news to the U.S. Supreme Court and every member of Congress, not to mention millions of Americans. This effort to mislead citizens away from the constitutional remedy prescribe[d] in Article II—Section 4, Impeachment, and towards criminal charges, arrest and hanging for treason, is an overt attempt to confuse and paralyze “the people” allowing Obama to continue his assault on the Constitution.
Although I cannot speak for Devvy Kidd, I personally deplore such an outburst as counterproductive, in that Mr. Williams ought not to alienate those among his natural allies who may not always see precisely eye-to-eye with him.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Williams’ diatribe takes no notice of how, for nearly a decade now in my commentaries for NewsWithViews and in other writings and personal appearances, I have recommended again and again that Americans should finally pay heed to what the Constitution itself—not I, nor Mr. Williams, nor some other “internet expert”—declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. So if I am to be “held accountable” for anything, perhaps I should be upbraided for having overestimated the intelligence or patriotism of the people on whom my admonitions have had no measurable effect.
Mr. Williams’ denunciation of me also rather cavalierly asserts facts not in evidence. For example, precisely what “comes as news to the U.S. Supreme Court and every member of Congress, not to mention millions of Americans”—that Mr. Obama “isn’t really the President”; or that, if he is not “really the President”, he “cannot be impeached” but must be dealt with in some other manner? And how in either case does Mr. Williams intuit what the Supreme Court, Congress, and “millions of Americans” supposedly know (or perhaps do not know) with regard to these questions? Then, on what grounds does Mr. William claim that “Impeachment” actually is the exclusive (or even any) remedy for the very specific crime of impersonating the President of the United States, as to which misbehavior (in general terms) a statute of the United States—18 U.S.C. § 912—exists, along with several other laws relevant to that sort of misconduct—such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1003, 1017, and 1028? (Recall, too, that I have never advocated, in Mr. Williams’ words, “arrest and hanging for treason” as a remedy in this case, because by itself impersonation of the President does not amount constitutionally to “Treason”.) In all of his voluminous writings on this issue, Mr. Williams has never explained how an individual who does not actually hold a public office, because he is ineligible for it in the first instance and at every instant thereafter, can be removed from that office through the process of “Impeachment”—any more than Mr. Williams ever could have explained how water which was never poured into a pitcher could possibly be poured out of it. Finally, is it (as Mr. Williams charges) “an overt attempt to confuse and paralyze ‘the people’ allowing Obama to continue his assault on the Constitution” for me to insist that the constitutionally logical course of action be followed to remedy this situation, rather than some half-baked, self-contradictory approach which will inevitably mislead this country into a veritable rat’s nest of further, perhaps intractable if not insoluble, legal and political problems? Is not this country in a constitutional crisis today precisely because too many people—including not a few who style themselves “constitutionalists” and “patriots”—have been playing too fast and loose with the Constitution for too long already?
Mr. Williams further notes that: “Of course, neither Dr. Vieira nor Kidd have followed their own expert advice and filed a criminal complaint against Obama in order to prove their legal theory.” Well, neither has Mr. Williams “filed a criminal complaint against Obama in order to prove [any] legal theory”. So it seems that we are met here with the pot calling the kettles black. Of more consequence, I myself have not “filed a criminal complaint” for three rather obvious reasons: (i) I am neither a prosecutor nor any other type of “law-enforcement officer”. But, even as he attacks me, Mr. Williams refrains from calumniating a certain Sheriff who for a long time has been conducting, with great public fanfare, an investigation ostensibly aimed at the possibility of bringing criminal charges in this affair—yet who has to date, as far as I know, neither filed any such charges himself nor referred his findings (whatever they may be) to any prosecutor or grand jury. (ii) In the absence of both full disclosure of the actual relevant documents (which Mr. Obama has to date secreted from public view), and the credible and corroborated testimony of some “whistleblowers”, I cannot say with moral, let alone legal, certainty that Mr. Obama is or is not an imposter. I may entertain my own grave suspicions on that score; but unverified speculations alone are insufficient for the purpose of “fil[ing] a criminal complaint” in good faith. True it is that certain experts have voiced their opinions that various documents relevant to Mr. Obama’s supposed eligibility for the office of President are forged, fraudulent, or in some other way falsified. But, not being fully versed in the area of forensic document analysis myself, I should be loathe to accept such claims without some independent verification—especially when not one of these experts or their associates, to my knowledge, has directly or indirectly “filed a[ny] criminal complaint[s]”. And (iii) what point would there be for anyone to “file a criminal complaint” concerning Mr. Obama with some official (real or faux) in the present Department of Justice? If that were a realistic option, one or more real officials in that Department would or should already have taken such action.
What Mr. Williams stubbornly refuses to recognize is that, even if there were some plausible ground to assert that “Impeachment” is a possible remedy in this case, “Impeachment” never was, and would not now be, the preferred remedy. Consider—
(1) As I have explained in other commentaries, when Congress convened to count the electoral votes in the Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, simply one Representative and one Senator could have asserted a statutory right (and duty, for that matter) to challenge each and every electoral vote supposedly cast for Mr. Obama, and to require Congress to inquire into Mr. Obama’s eligibility—for if Mr. Obama had not been eligible for election to the office of President, no electoral vote cast for him could have been valid. Such an inquiry would have solved the problem then and there and once and for all, without any concern for “Impeachment”. Unfortunately, not a single Member of Congress raised such an objection on either occasion.
(2) That, of course, was then; and this is now—and Americans’ dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama has deepened to the point at which, one would hope, even the most politically cowardly Members of Congress can no longer afford to sweep the scandal under the rug. For that reason, after the new Congress convenes in 2015, either the House or the Senate (or both) might conduct investigations into (say) “illegality and corruption in the Executive Branch” which would aim at amassing such evidence as might be available to expose Mr. Obama’s alleged ineligibility for the office of President as well as other misbehavior on the part of himself, his appointees, and the gaggle of partisans and hangers-on in both public office and private station who have assisted them. With all of that evidence on record, Mr. Obama and his adherents would find themselves in an impossible position. On the one hand, the Republicans and sensible Democrats in Congress might combine in sufficient numbers to enact veto-proof legislation providing for some species of “special prosecutor” or “independent counsel” to take that evidence to grand juries and then to trials. On the other hand, if enough Democrats and turncoat Republicans refused to coöperate, so that such legislation could not be enacted before the Presidential elections of 2016, their intransigeance would simply guarantee that a proper Republican would then be elected President, along with a properly and solidly Republican Congress. Thereafter, in 2017 a new Republican Attorney General could prosecute the cases à outrance. If between 2015 and 2017 Mr. Obama and his cronies tried to brazen it out by continuing in their presumably faux offices, they would simply be adding new counts to their indictments. If they chose instead to “resign” the offices they never rightly held, they would not thereby evade punishment, because the statutes of limitations on many of the crimes with which they would be charged would not run out between 2015 and 2017 (or even for many years thereafter). And during the remainder of his faux term, having been unmasked as a merely faux President Mr. Obama could not grant anyone a reprieve or pardon for such offences which would stand up to later scrutiny. In any event, no recourse to “Impeachment” would be necessary. So, contrary to Mr. Williams’ claim, Mr. Obama is not “forcing Congressional Republicans to either Impeach him or stand down as he finishes off the destruction of the U.S. Republic”. Republicans—and patriotic Democrats, too—do have options far less problematic, and far more punishing to Mr. Obama and his minions in their outcomes, than “Impeachment”. Whether they will exercise these options remains the question.
The decisive practical reason for avoiding “Impeachment” is that invocation of “Impeachment” concedes that, in some way or other, Mr. Obama is actually ensconced in the office of President to the degree sufficient to be subject to “Impeachment”. Perhaps not as a truly de jure President, but at least as ade facto one. This concession would support the inference that, because Mr. Obama has postured as some sort of “acting” (albeit faux) President, the ostensibly “official actions” he has taken under color of that masquerade will retain legal validity even after his usurpation is set aside through “Impeachment”. So, although he himself might be ignominiously booted out of the White House, the supposed statutes he has signed, the putative executive orders he has promulgated, the judicial and other appointments he has foisted on the Senate, and so on would nonetheless continue in effect. He personally would be degraded and disgraced; but his “political legacy”—the harm his misbegotten actions have inflicted and will continue to inflict on this country—would fester on. To correct this mess, all of these usurpations would then have to be undone—not, however, on the uncompromising constitutional basis that every one of them was void ab initio, but instead on an item-by-item political determination as to which should be thrown out and which retained. That would enable Mr. Obama’s partisans in Congress, the courts, the big media, and the influential lobbies to fight endless rear-guard battles to salvage as much of the destructive handiwork of his faux Administration as they could. And, worst of all, the perverse principle would be established that the Constitution must yield to any successful usurpation of that ilk which might arise hereafter.
GO TO PART 2 HERE
December 13th, 2014 by olddog
By Anthony L. Fisher
David Hooks, the Georgia man killed in a SWAT raid on his East Dublin home in September, was shot in the head and back while face down on the ground, according to his family’s attorney, Mitchell Shook, who cited EMS and hospital records as evidence.
As reported by WMEZ-TV:
“One was to the side of the head, the other, was in his back, the back of his left shoulder, based on the evidence we see, we believe that David Hooks was face down on the ground when he received those last two shots,” says Shook.
Shook says they have not received the autopsy yet from the GBI.
As noted by Reason‘s Ed Krayewski, the raid was based on a tip from Rodney Garrett, a local meth addict who had just stolen a car from Hooks’ property. According to the warrant, Garrett told police he removed a bag from the stolen vehicle believing it held cash, but instead discovered it was filled with meth. Apparently fearful he just robbed a local drug kingpin, he turned himself in because he “became scared for his safety.”
The theft of one of their vehicles naturally made the Hooks household edgy that night, and David kept a shotgun in the house. Though the warrant did not contain a “no knock” provision, Hooks’ wife, Teresa, says that the Laurens Country sheriff’s deputies and their SWAT compatriots simply busted down their back door and charged in, guns blazing.
In an interview with WMEZ-TV, Hooks recalls the night her husband was killed:
“Between 10:30 and 11, I turned the light off upstairs. I heard a car coming up the driveway really fast, and I looked out the upstairs window. I saw a black vehicle with no lights. I saw 6 to 8 men, coming around the side of my house, and I panicked. I came running downstairs, yelling for David to wake up. He was in the bedroom asleep, and had been for about an hour and a half. When I got downstairs to the bottom of the stairs, he opened the door and he had a gun in his hand, and he said, ‘Who is it?,’ and I said I didn’t know. He stepped back into the bedroom like he was going to grab his pants, but before he could do that, the door was busted down. He came around me, in the hall, into the den, and I was going to come behind him, but before I could step into the den the shots were fired, and it was over.”
According to Shook, the Hooks’ home was searched for more than 44 hours with no drugs or contraband found.
But as the Drug War Chronicle reported:
Investigators also claimed they were familiar with the address from a 2009 investigation in which a suspect claimed he had supplied some meth to Hooks, who resold it. Nothing apparently ever came of that investigation, but the five-year-old un-collaborated tip made it into the search warrant application.
The toxic combination of a “five year-old un-collaborated tip,” a vague accusation from a confessed car thief and meth addict, and a recently robbed man reacting to a violent intrusion on his home created the conditions that led to the 17 shots fired by law enforcement that night.
In a statement that is becoming all too familiar, Shook said he hopes the Laurens County District Attorney will take the case to a grand jury and not solely rely on law enforcement’s take of the deadly raid.
As this report is written, it implies that there were fifteen complete misses. And this is the kind of professional officers of the law we support!
December 12th, 2014 by olddog
By John W. Whitehead
November 10, 2014
Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers’ enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.—Simone Weil, French philosopher and political activist
It’s no coincidence that during the same week in which the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Yates v. United States, a case in which a Florida fisherman is being threatened with 20 years’ jail time for throwing fish that were too small back into the water, Florida police arrested a 90-year-old man twice for violating an ordinance that prohibits feeding the homeless in public.
Both cases fall under the umbrella of over-criminalization, that phenomenon in which everything is rendered illegal and everyone becomes a lawbreaker. As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, this is what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.
John Yates, a commercial fisherman, was written up in 2007 by a state fish and wildlife officer who noticed that among Yates’ haul of red grouper, 72 were apparently under the 20-inch minimum legal minimum. Yates, ordered to bring the fish to shore as evidence of his violation of the federal statute on undersized catches, returned to shore with only 69 grouper in the crate designated for evidence. A crew member later confessed that, on orders from Yates, the crew had thrown the undersized grouper overboard and replaced them with larger fish. Unfortunately, they were three fish short. Sensing a bait-and-switch, prosecutors refused to let Yates off the hook quite so easily. Unfortunately, in prosecuting him for the undersized fish under a law aimed at financial crimes, government officials opened up a can of worms.
Arnold Abbott, 90 years old and the founder of a nonprofit that feeds the homeless, is facing a fine of $1000 and up to four months in jail for violating a city ordinance that makes it a crime to feed the homeless in public. Under the city’s ordinance, clearly aimed at discouraging the feeding of the homeless in public, organizations seeking to do so must provide portable toilets, be 500 feet away from each other, 500 feet from residential properties, and are limited to having only one group carry out such a function per city block. Abbott has been feeding the homeless on a public beach in Ft. Lauderdale every Wednesday evening for the past 23 years. On November 2, 2014, moments after handing out his third meal of the day, police reportedly approached the nonagenarian and ordered him to “‘drop that plate right now,’ as if I were carrying a weapon,” recalls Abbott. Abbott was arrested and fined. Three days later, Abbott was at it again, and arrested again.
That both of these incidents occurred in Florida is no coincidence. Remember, this is the state that arrested Nicole Gainey for letting her 7-year-old son walk to the park alone, even though it was just a few blocks from their house. If convicted, Gainey could have been made to serve up to five years in jail.
This is also the state that a few years back authorized police raids on barber shops in minority communities, resulting in barbers being handcuffed in front of customers, and their shops searched without warrants. All of this was purportedly done in an effort to make sure that the barbers’ licensing paperwork was up to snuff.
As if criminalizing fishing, charity, parenting decisions, and haircuts wasn’t bad enough, you could also find yourself passing time in a Florida slammer for such inane activities as singing in a public place while wearing a swimsuit, breaking more than three dishes per day, farting in a public place after 6 pm on a Thursday, and skateboarding without a license.
Despite its pristine beaches and balmy temperatures, Florida is no less immune to the problems plaguing the rest of the nation in terms of over-criminalization, incarceration rates, bureaucracy, corruption, and police misconduct. In fact, the Sunshine State has become a poster child for how a seemingly idyllic place can be transformed into a police state with very little effort. As such, it is representative of what is happening in every state across the nation, where a steady diet of bread and circuses has given rise to an oblivious, inactive citizenry content to be ruled over by an inflexible and highly bureaucratic regime.
This transformation of the United States from being a beacon of freedom to a locked down nation illustrates perfectly what songwriter Joni Mitchell was referring to when she wrote:
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
Only in our case, sold on the idea that safety, security and material comforts are preferable to freedom, we’ve allowed the government to pave over the Constitution in order to erect a concentration camp. The problem with these devil’s bargains, however, is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.
We’ve bartered away our right to self-governance, self-defense, privacy, autonomy and that most important right of all—the right to tell the government to “leave me the hell alone.” In exchange for the promise of safe streets, safe schools, blight-free neighborhoods, lower taxes, lower crime rates, and readily accessible technology, health care, water, food and power, we’ve opened the door to militarized police, government surveillance, asset forfeiture, school zero tolerance policies, license plate readers, red light cameras, SWAT team raids, health care mandates, over-criminalization and government corruption.
In the end, such bargains always turn sour.
We asked our lawmakers to be tough on crime, and we’ve been saddled with an abundance of laws that criminalize almost every aspect of our lives. So far, we’re up to 4500 criminal laws and 300,000 criminal regulations that result in average Americans unknowingly engaging in criminal acts at least three times a day. For instance, the family of an 11-year-old girl was issued a $535 fine for violating the Federal Migratory Bird Act after the young girl rescued a baby woodpecker from predatory cats.
We wanted criminals taken off the streets, and we didn’t want to have to pay for their incarceration. What we’ve gotten is a nation that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world, with more than 2.3 million people locked up, many of them doing time for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes, and a private prison industry fueling the drive for more inmates, who are forced to provide corporations with cheap labor. A special report by CNBC breaks down the national numbers:
One out of 100 American adults is behind bars — while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison. This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry.
We wanted law enforcement agencies to have the necessary resources to fight the nation’s wars on terror, crime and drugs. What we got instead were militarized police decked out with M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers, battle tanks and hollow point bullets—gear designed for the battlefield, more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year (many for routine police tasks, resulting in losses of life and property), and profit-driven schemes that add to the government’s largesse such as asset forfeiture, where police seize property from “suspected criminals.”
Justice Department figures indicate that as much as $4.3 billion was seized in asset forfeiture cases in 2012, with the profits split between federal agencies and local police. According to the Washington Post, these funds have been used to buy guns, armored cars, electronic surveillance gear, “luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.” Police seminars advise officers to use their “department wish list when deciding which assets to seize” and, in particular, go after flat screen TVs, cash and nice cars. In Florida, where police are no strangers to asset forfeiture, Florida police have been carrying out “reverse” sting operations, where they pose as drug dealers to lure buyers with promises of cheap cocaine, then bust them, and seize their cash and cars. Over the course of a year, police in one small Florida town seized close to $6 million using these entrapment schemes.
We fell for the government’s promise of safer roads, only to find ourselves caught in a tangle of profit-driven red light cameras, which ticket unsuspecting drivers in the so-called name of road safety while ostensibly fattening the coffers of local and state governments. Despite widespread public opposition, corruption and systemic malfunctions, these cameras—used in 24 states and Washington, DC—are particularly popular with municipalities, which look to them as an easy means of extra cash. One small Florida town, population 8,000, generates a million dollars a year in fines from these cameras. Building on the profit-incentive schemes, the cameras’ manufacturers are also pushing speed cameras and school bus cameras, both of which result in heft fines for violators who speed or try to go around school buses.
This is just a small sampling of the many ways in which the American people continue to get duped, deceived, double-crossed, cheated, lied to, swindled and conned into believing that the government and its army of bureaucrats—the people we appointed to safeguard our freedoms—actually have our best interests at heart.
Yet when all is said and done, who is really to blame when the wool gets pulled over your eyes: you, for believing the con man, or the con man for being true to his nature?
It’s time for a bracing dose of reality, America. Wake up and take a good, hard look around you, and ask yourself if the gussied-up version of America being sold to you—crime free, worry free and devoid of responsibility—is really worth the ticket price: nothing less than your freedoms.
December 11th, 2014 by olddog
By Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret.
December 9, 2014
“Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don’t have brains enough to be honest.” –Benjamin Franklin
This past week we witnessed a most egregiously and corruptly choreographed political treachery – even for Barack Obama – a president who is noted for self-serving, two-faced, treacherous, politically pointed and tactlessly constructed cooked resolves of deception and political maneuvers. Obama excels at such, and once again demonstrated his skills in this regard by his absolutely perfidious treatment and banishment of, Chuck Hegel as Secretary of Defense. It was indeed the ascension of an act of Dishonor over Integrity, altogether a pitiful display of treacherous betrayal.
Chuck Hegel came to political prominence via honorable service to his country, being twice wounded in the Viet Nam conflict. While conversely Barack Obama allied himself with a criminally corrupt Chicago culture to lie, cheat, and bully his way to the presidency, which he holds only by the grace and divine will of the God of the Universe. When God lets such as Obama come into control of a society such as ours, it is nearly always an augury of judgment.
On the scale of wholesome integrity Mr. Hegel scales in the upper levels of uprightness and character while the president’s character emulates that of the bottom feeding creatures of the sea of a predacious nature.
As a matter of fact one would have to go back to the times of Adolph Hitler to discover similar events of treachery and perfidy. As far as I am concerned Mr. Hegel is the absolute victor over Barack Obama in regard to respect and integrity, as Obama epitomizes the lower levels of that scale. In the minds of those who value integrity and wholeness, honor outranks treachery in every regard. Corrupt birds of a feather that flock together seem always to find one another, and Obama and John Kerry, the most recent duo of duplicity, is a perfect example of this. It is fraudulence that is a shared personality trait – something like being mental twins.
OBAMA FUNCTIONS BEST WITH THOSE OF A SIMILAR CHARACTER
John Kerry comes to mind as the perfect cohort for Obama in this regard. To both of these individuals the lie is king and deceit rules the roost. Indeed given their similar propensity for perfidy and guile in the political sense it was inevitable that these two come together. And it is together that they will pave the way to a third world war of epic proportions. We are dear reader, well down the road to the ultimate destruction of this nation.
KING OBAMA AND HIS ENDEAVORS AT EMPEROR-SHIP
In his post election address, in regard to his unilaterally derived amnesty for a hundred million alien law breakers, President Obama exhibited an arrogance that was absolutely breath taking, The man’s pride and selfishness was astounding and defies not only the typical conventional wisdom of the average citizen, but more importantly defies the comprehension of discerning constitutional-thinking scholars. It is going to be a long two years…pray that he fails in his personal, quite evident, goal to be a dictator whom is separated from the whims and dictates of an electorate for which he evidences an absolute disdain.
Now, unless you are a person of absolute faith, a biblical scholar, or have made a study of Biblical prophecy you will not understand what I next write. Obama and company have transposed the White House into a den of sinister intrigue. Legislative persons who make the trek into this present house of repulsion find that they are engulfed by a culture of which they have no understanding they find old huff and puff surrounded by a bevy of similarly minded demonolatry cohorts such as Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, et al. It is altogether clear that Obama is now lockstep with the evil one, they are seemingly of one mind and that Obama channels the thoughts and persuasions of a dark and unworldly dimension. Serial lies fall easily from his lips and his thought process has continually progressed to opinions and sentiments that are oppressive and tyrannical in nature. Gradually the dark spirit that controls his thought process has moved him to a one-world (one ruler) concept. It is not difficult to discern who it is that whispers in his ear.
“How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations! “But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit” (Isaiah 14:12-15).*
*And your human followers will occupy that pit with you.
Clearly Satan has begun his program to carry out a last day’s domination of the entire world, and has found operational headquarters for his master plan in the White House where he controls both thought and deed among an obsequious set of acolytes.
And those are my thoughts for the day, dear readers, prepare for the worst, and beware of the White House Lair and its residents.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin
© 2014 – Jim R. Schwiesow – All Rights Reserved
Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.
His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.
Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.
December 10th, 2014 by olddog
By Ron Ewart
December 10, 2014
“Obama is a tyrant the same way FDR was a tyrant. He has a view of presidential power that states: the government is in control of the country, and the president is in charge of the government. He’s taken an imperial view of the presidency.” David Mamet, American playwright, screenwriter and film director
Every president puts his own mark on the presidency, as a reflection of his beliefs, political ideology and philosophy that are shaped by early childhood, parental and peer influences and education, along with personal, business and academic associations. But the mark each man puts on the presidency is further shaped by their perception of what America stands for in the grand scheme of history, what America means to Americans and what America means to the rest of the world.
America has had its share of weak presidents and strong presidents. History has recorded how each president has performed in reacting to changing events in a largely dynamic world, dogged by relentless, unforeseeable events. Many presidents stand out because of specific events to which they must react, or not react as the case may be. Some presidents stand out for positive reasons where positive relates to the perpetuation of American ideals and principles. Others stand out for negative reasons for being in opposition to those ideals, or a radical distortion of those ideals.
We covered some of the influences on presidents, as well as the average citizen, in our article entitled “The Little Black Box Theory and Obama“, written and published on October 28, 2012. The article can be viewed at this link.
Quoting from the article we wrote:
“Obama’s early life was shaped by his somewhat promiscuous white biological mother; a black biological father that abandoned Obama within two years of his birth; a Muslim stepfather from Indonesia where Obama lived for several years and attended Islam schools; his white grandparents that Obama lived with for quite some time because apparently, his mother didn’t want him any more, or perhaps because she couldn’t handle that he was black; a family friend of his grandparents, one Frank Marshall Davis, a known and active communist; several Muslim and mostly black friends while in college and those Muslims he met when he visited Pakistan in 1981; a radical, Chicago pastor, the very reverend and Black Liberation Theologist, Jeremiah Wright; a slum landlord, one Tony Rezko now in jail; and a domestic terrorist by the name of Bill Ayers who used bombs to punctuate a radical political agenda. Who knows how many other radical influences shaped Obama’s early years and young adult life, due to its fractured and convoluted nature?”
How any person could be construed to be normal, black or white, after enduring such a tragic and wretched past, is beyond comprehension. Obama is obsessed with his own self-righteous indignation, as a direct result of that past.
Obama is a special case when it comes to his performance as president, shaped by his early, tortured, mix-raced childhood, parental and peer influences, education and personal and academic associations. His business associations or leadership positions were and are sorely lacking to assume the difficult office of President of the United States. Anyone with any intellect, including the media, knew about his background and inexperience but went ahead and promoted this anomaly that came from out of nowhere to a position of prominence on the national political scene. It remains to be seen whether he was a product of his own making and just plain lucky, or the fascination because he was black, or whether he was groomed by shadowy, powerful, radical forces that kept appearing and re-appearing out of his ghostly past?
The issue of being black in a largely white world obviously had a direct influence on his belief system and political ideology. (Evidence of that pathology is being played out ad nauseam nationally, over the police shooting or strangling off two very large black people, one in Ferguson, MO and one in Staten Island, NY, acting outside of the law.) Obama’s broken family, a socialist mother and radical religious and communist influences, further shaped his beliefs. All of those influences and lack of experience were directly transferred to his governing style, or lack thereof. He was suddenly thrust into a dynamic world for which he was ill prepared. America has witnessed the results of that inexperience and racial bias play out over the last six years.
History will record that Obama truly was the proverbial fish out of water, to the detriment of America, America’s standing on the world stage and America’s hallowed ideals of individual freedom and liberty. Obama is a prime example of a man that rose to the level of his incompetence.
It certainly wasn’t Obama’s fault. He was who he was, warts and all, for all to see and those who chose not to see. It was those who promoted him for political reasons and those that voted for him because he was black, or for whatever other reason, that can take credit for what they and Obama have wrought.
Since he was elected president in 2008, we have written article after article about Obama, probably at the expense of boring some of our readers. However, with each of those articles we created an image to go along with the article to give a pictorial representation of what the article was about, sometimes effectively and sometimes not. We’ll let the reader decide on that score. Nevertheless, it is hard to find an author who creates an image for each of his or her articles. It takes a considerable amount of time to create those images.
As an experiment, we took over 40 of those images that were put together for our articles and created a video with the title shown below, that represents a kaleidoscope of the Obama presidency. We wanted to demonstrate that he was and is both a liar and a traitor. We then added some unique background music from silent movies and overlaid the background music with Obama sound bites, mostly of him lying. The video should be both informative and entertaining. Share it at your discretion.
“Obama, An Anatomy of a Liar and Traitor!”
After Obama has served out his second term and steps aside, never-ending examinations of his presidency will go on, well into the future. Sadly, with Obama being the first black president in which he divided the country even more than it was, set back race relations for decades and made decisions that irreparably damaged America and its reputation abroad, it could be generations before America ever sees its second black president.
Americans will rue the day, well into future generations, that they allowed a racially disturbed man, bearing an irrational political ideology, to ever become the most powerful man in the world. As all presidents leave their individual mark on the presidency, America will wear the “mark” of Obama for a very long time and America and Americans may never fully recover from that mark. Hopefully, Obama will retain the reputation as being America’s worst president, forever more. It is unlikely that America could survive a president worse than Obama.
If you have the courage, don’t forget to sign our petition “Declaring Open Resistance” against Obama and government tyranny.
Who are the “Exclosers”?
[NOTE: The following article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of the publisher.]
© 2014 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment firstname.lastname@example.org.