Obama Signs Executive Order to Bolster Gun Registry

03/31/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/obama-signs-executive-order-to-bolster.html

 Activist Post
President Obama has not just been speaking in front of cameras with victims of gun violence staged behind him, he’s also been busy bypassing Congress by signing executive orders and other actions on gun control.

In January, Obama issued 23 executive gun control proposals that were mostly organizational and procedural in nature. But now he has officially signed his first definitive executive order to take gun control into his own hands, according to The Hill.

The Hill reports:

The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts.

Obama’s Department of Justice says their aim is to strengthen the “quality and quantity of records contained within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”

Last week the DOJ announced that it is pouring $20 million into beefing up the national gun registry.
“As part of President Obama’s comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence, the Administration is committed to enhancing and strengthening the national criminal record system in support of stronger firearm background checks,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “The Department of Justice intends to take immediate and effective action to work with states to fill gaps in information currently available to the NICS system.”

The DOJ describes the new program as follows:

Funding will be provided under National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP), and a new, one-time initiative called, Improving the Completeness of Firearm Background Checks through Enhanced State Data Sharing. This new initiative creates a competitive grant program designed to incentivize states, territories and tribes to share information with NICS by closing information gaps that inhibit complete and accurate background checks.

Obama’s administrative action also included plans for more research into “trigger locks and firearm safe standards to determine if they need to be improved” – aka smart guns, and $1 million to promote gun control through a propaganda campaign.

The Hill writes:

Separately, the administration has given $1 million to the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to create, produce and distribute a nationwide multimedia ad campaign on safe gun ownership and storage. The campaign is heading into the research phase and is expected to air by the early fall, according to a NCPC spokeswoman.

Isn’t this something the NRA does for free, funded by memberships? These multimedia ads will most likely be some ghastly “see something, say something” campaign to help viewers identify “irresponsible” gun owners.

Finally, this executive order will subsidize the surveillance-industrial complex through a “Cooperative Purchasing” program to provide schools with discounted rates for “surveillance cameras, emergency communication systems, security design and support, and employee background check systems.”

Federally-funded Big Brother surveillance for schools by executive order. It seems the gun control frenzy is bearing more tyrannical fruit than could have been dreamed up by Orwell himself.

In summary, Obama has signed an executive order to expand and improve the gun database with $20 million in funding, appropriated money for a anti-gun propaganda blitz, and wants all schools tracked, traced, and databased.

If the motivation for an executive order like this was anything but gun control, Americans would probably be mortified. But instead, the numbed masses will likely cheer that he is finally doing something to avenge senseless murder. Problem-Reaction-Solution accomplished.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

I’m quite sure that the stupid liberals are celebrating Obumba’s strict adherence to violating the Constitution they no longer have a use for, but those of us who know what his real agenda is will never accept this putrid infringement on our rights. The black market is now open for business, and I predict their great success. As a matter of fact, I will help them with every dollar I can spare. Ammo will be their next target, if the supply they destroyed ever returns, and they will want to know about every round we buy. Good luck suckers, we will buy from the black market.

 

10 13 11 flagbar


What Will Follow the Death of the Petrodollar?

03/30/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/what-will-follow-death-of-petrodollar.html

 Dave Hodges

Activist Post

When the present gun control dance concludes, America could soon be doing a waltz with a different partner, and that partner’s name is World War III.

The winds of change are blowing across our once great land of opportunity. America is merely a shell of what it once was. We do not need economic prognosticators or fortune tellers to predict what lies ahead. Ray Charles could see what lies ahead. The globalists are making their move.

At the present moment, the bankers are gobbling up as many hard assets inside the United States as possible. There is a race against the clock, because the economic bomb planted by Wall Street in 2008 is set to go off and the currency is on the verge of collapsing. Consequently, a desperate America will be forced into wars of conquest to preserve what little bit is left of its economic destiny.

The Petrodollar Replaced the Gold Standard

The United States has debt, crushing debt, which makes the former Weimar Republic look solvent by comparison. Unfortunately, the United States abandoned the gold standard a long time ago. What then keeps our economy from degenerating into a trading and bartering society resulting from a collapsed dollar?The United States’ good economic fortune is due solely to the fact that world must use the dollar, the Petrodollar if you will, in order to make their nation’s individual oil purchases; this provides the only source of backing for the U.S. dollar that the Federal Reserve requires in order to somewhat sustain our back-breaking debt that the banker-occupied United States government has passed along to the American taxpayer in the form of bailouts.Despite the economic pain associated with the enormous debt caused by the Wall Street contrived Ponzi schemes associated with the now infamous derivatives, America’s economy has proven to be very resilient. However, if the artificial global dollar demand, made possible by the Petrodollar system, were ever to crumble, our days of economic dominance would abruptly end and the resulting economic chaos would be followed by the need to impose martial law on a starving public. Again, tens of millions of Americans will die in this scenario. Further desperate and out of money, WWIII looms in the futur

The following clip explains why we attacked Iraq and Libya and how this fits into to today’s Petrodollar crisis. The invasion of Syria is underway. Iran is nex

Challenging the Petrodollar and the Roots For WWIII

Unfortunately for every man, woman and child in America, that day of economic reckoning is quickly approaching. China has commenced buying Iranian oil in gold. India has followed suit, as have the Russians. The days of the Petrodollar are numbered and, therefore, so is the only source of backing of our dollar. Have you and your family prepared for the collapse of the dollar and ultimately the collapse of society?

Like most Americans who have awakened from their slumber, I came to realize that the Federal Reserve Board is responsible for most of the evil perpetrated in the world and I personally loathe the organization. It is hard not to cheer the fact that the days of Federal Reserve Board dominance may be coming to an abrupt end. Yet, I would advise against popping the corks on the champagne bottles because, like it or not, America’s economic fortunes are tied to the health of the dollar and our precious dollar has come down with a terminal economic case of the Asian flu. If the Federal Reserve crashes and burns, so will everything that you have ever worked for. If the Federal Reserve collapses over this impending crisis, the resulting economic holocaust will make the United States unrecognizable within a very short time and your personal fortunes will sink right along with these notorious robber barons who are feverishly involved in stealing as many home mortgages as possible through schemes like the robosigners of MERS.

The Federal Reserve, the same people who perpetrated the MERS fraud, is also involved in buying up mortgage backed securities to the tune of $40 billion per month, each and every month, in an attempt to garner the lion’s share of the housing industry. The Federal Reserve is preparing to install feudalism following the currency collapse. How would you like to rent your own house from the bankers that are preparing to steal it from you? This is exactly what has been set into motion.

If you didn’t hear, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals made it legal for the banks to steal your deposits. The banks and government of Cyprus (is there a difference?) are preparing to steal depositors’ money which is a beta test for the big prize: personal United States banking accounts. Don’t think for a moment that these events are not contrived by the bankers to get as much as they can, of the public’s assets, in as short of time as possible in this time of crisis. The banksters clearly know what is coming and they are in the process of stealing your assets in order to soften the blow of a collapsing dollar, and their “Golden Parachute” will be awarded to them courtesy of your hard-earned assets.

Surely, there must be something that can be done to avert this coming train wreck? Can’t the United States simply employ economic sanctions and force Iran to its knees? Without the cooperation of Russia, China and India, economic sanctions and an oil embargo will not be effective and, subsequently, the United States cannot force Iranians back to the negotiating table over the oil issue. The situation is somewhat reminiscent with happened in the lead-up to the 2003 Gulf War when Iraq tried its hand at circumventing the Petrodollar system with under-the-table deals with France and Germany in which the Euro would be used to purchase oil. Saddam Hussein underestimated the Federal Reserve Board’s reach and paid for this miscalculation with his life because he did not have the support of powerful military allies. Iran is quite a different matter as they have friends, very dangerous friends who mean America harm.

If the United States seeks to reverse the trend which seeks the abandonment of the Petrodollar system, war seems to be the only option left to the bankers. Logic would seem to dictate that the military option will be employed and, therefore, it should be a simple matter to ratchet up the rhetoric and seize the Iranian oil fields and force capitulation. Subsequently, shouldn’t the United States dust off an old familiar game plan and create a false flag event, similar to the Gulf of Tonkin?

Undoubtedly, this is what the Federal Reserve desires in a last ditch effort to save the Petrodollar system. However, an act of war needs a pretext. Therefore, we can count on the fact that a series of false flag attacks will be utilized by Federal Reserve friends at the CIA in order to justify the coming war with Iran. I predict that we will see previously unimaginable false flag attacks which will be falsely pinned on Iranian-based terrorism. This is when the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order comes into play and Obama will conscript people and resources in a last ditch effort to save the Petrodollar in World War III

The Globalist Plan Unveiled

Interestingly, the globalists have left clues which clearly signal their intentions, as well as a fair amount of their game plan. In order to inflict maximum casualties for the desired emotional reaction from the American people, namely fear and submission, malls and sports stadiums are conspicuously effective targets for imaginary terrorists, especially when one considers that the Simon Property Group, the largest owner of malls in North America, as well as all of the professional sports leagues have just entered into a “See Something, Say Something” partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. When one considers the massive purchase made by DHS of 7.5 million pounds of ammonium nitrate, which was used to blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, it does not take much foresight or skill in dot-connecting to see where this scenario is heading.

For the unaware, the false flag strategy has already become operational as Libyan Ambassador Stevens’ death was merely the first of these false flag attacks which will be used to chart a course for war against Iran and its neighbor, Syria. And why is Syria being destabilized? Because it is the doorway which is needed to attack Russia with medium- and long-range weapons.

Creating the pretext for fighting a war, and then successfully selling the American public on the need to fight the war, is one thing. However, winning the war, is quite another. How serious are the Chinese and Russians at standing up to the imperialistic United States? Considering that both Chinese President Hu and Major General Zhang Zhaozhong have threatened the United States with nuclear war if they invade either Iran or Syria. The prudent opinion says that this is the newest version of the “Axis of Evil’s” line in the sand.

China, India and Russia have pinned their economic futures on the fact that they are divorcing themselves from the debt-ridden dollar and are charting a new economic course with gold as the baseline. They are not going to back down.

Legitimate Threats of War

To put muscle behind the collective defiance to the Petrodollar system, China brags that it can place 100 million men on the battlefield. Russia maintains over 1300 nuclear missiles and India joined the nuclear weapons fraternity a long time ago. As you read these words, you may be wondering if the conflict would escalate into a nuclear confrontation. I have a hard time imagining a situation in which the losing side would not resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a best-case scenario. Ask yourself, if your country was faced with economic and military obliteration at the prospect of losing World War III, what would the losing side gain by keeping their nuclear missiles sitting quietly in their respective bunkers?

The Federal Reserve Is Positioning to Weather the Coming Storm

Is the Federal Reserve-controlled United States government really insane enough to launch such a dangerous and potentially catastrophic war? The better question is, what do they have to lose? In the past, the Fed has created fortunes through OPM, other people’s money. They will employ the same strategy in WWW III, as the Federal Reserve will prosecute this war with your money and risk your adult children to carry out their last-ditch fanatical mission designed to save the Federal Reserve.

Formerly, India was purchasing 12 billion dollars per year for the privilege to purchase oil and we loved India all the way to the bank. Unfortunately, India has joined the revolt against the Petrodollar by starting to buy Iran’s oil with gold. And the situation has even worsened as it appears that China has begun to monetize gold which could spell the end of the fiat currencies in the United States and the EU. The Petrodollar is doomed and so is our way of life unless America can make the Iranians capitulate and stick to the antiquated Petrodollar system.

Must We Sleep With the Federal Reserve?

I never thought I would be on the same side of an issue as I am with the Federal Reserve because the alternatives are not pleasant. On one hand, we can enter a dangerous war which threatens our very existence. On the other hand, we face an economic holocaust of epic proportions. And even if we are lucky enough to survive the coming war with our economy intact, the American people face the prospects of runaway inflationary effects of QE3 which has no monetary or time limits.

Of course, we could have developed alternative energy sources for which the world would have been beating a path to our door, but that would not have suited the oil-dominated Federal Reserve. There is one other possibility, debt repudiation. Over 90% of the debt of modern sovereign nations is derived from the failed banking scams in which the globalists have coerced national governments to assume their debts inside of their national budgets. Therefore, short of capitulation to the globalists, the simple answer seems to be to repudiate the debt owed to these gangsters consisting of all mortgages, all credit card debts and all student loans.

All debts must be written off and let the Wall Street cards fall where they may.
However, since most of this debt is owed to the Federal Reserve-dominated Wall Street bankers, debt repudiation will not occur without a full-scale civil war, because the bankers are not going to willingly sacrifice their main cash cow. If the bankers are willing to start a world war, don’t think for a second that they will not initiate a civil war to preserve their bottom line. Therefore, I can only see one answer if we are to avoid this impending disaster, and it is the only sane answer for the quandary in which we find ourselves. Do you know what that one answer consists of? I will get to that one thing in Part Two.

Conclusion

Meanwhile, the chess pieces are being placed on the game board in preparation for WWIII. If we, as a country submit to the will of the bankers, tens of millions of us will die. Many think we can change course by changing our elected officials. I wish that were true and I continue to pay lip service to this end. However, I believe, as do many of you do, that this is a fool’s errand. The American people need to draw a line in the sand because the stakes have never been higher. More on our options in Part Two.

Dave is an award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, a college basketball coach, a mental health counselor, a political activist and writer who has published dozens of editorials and articles in several publications such asFreedoms PhoenixNews With Views and The Arizona Republic.

The Common Sense Show features a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose of The Common Sense Show is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual and national sovereignty.

10 13 11 flagbar


Resistance Is Dangerous But Submission Is Often Fatal

03/29/2013

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w319.html

 by William Norman Grigg

Resisting arrest is not a crime. It is a common-law right, the exercise of which is treated as if it were a crime.

The act of resistance was transmuted into a criminal offense chiefly through judicial activism, rather than legislation. Courts that seek to criminalize resistance have generally made the pragmatic argument that resistance is more dangerous than submission. We’ve long since reached the point where the reverse is often the case.

Until 1942, when the Interstate Commission on Crime published the Uniform Arrest Act, every state recognized and protected the right to resist. Under the still-controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, John Bad Elk vs. US, a citizen faced with the prospect of unlawful arrest – that is, an armed abduction – has a legally protected right to use any appropriate means, including lethal force, to defend himself.

The Bad Elk ruling came in 1900. Thirteen years later, the New Mexico State Supreme Court, in Territory v. Lynch, tried out a line of sophistry that would become part of the standard refrain in judicial rulings six decades later:

“The law … calls upon the citizen to exercise patience, if illegally arrested, because he knows he will be brought before a magistrate, and will, if improperly arrested, suffer only a temporary deprivation of his liberty.”

In other words: If a cop seeks to abduct you without legal justification, you should submit in the serene confidence that your deprivation of liberty will be temporary and trivial. I have referred to this as the “Rapist Doctrine,” since rapists and police officers are the only assailants whose victims are encouraged to submit.

One hundred years after the New Mexico State Supreme Court published that ruling, the case of New Mexico resident Stephen Slevin demonstrates that this assurance is a cynical lie.

In 2005, Slevin – who was battling depression and driving a car lent to him by a friend – was stopped for driving under the influence. He was put into a special cell reserved for people suspected of being suicidal. After three days, he was transferred to solitary confinement – – where he remained for two years.

Although some may regard the traffic stop to be considered justified, and the initial arrest to be defensible, what happened to Slevin offers a stark and compelling demonstration of what can happen to anyone who finds himself immured in one of the Regime’s penal facilities. What was done to him is indistinguishable from the kind of criminal abuse associated in the public mind with prison facilities in Cuba and North Korea. More importantly, it is entirely typical of what happens in jails and prisons here in the putative Land of the Free.

Prolonged solitary confinement is a form of torture. In Slevin’s case, isolation was compounded with aggressive neglect as he literally rotted in his cell.

Despite repeated pleas for medical attention, Slevin developed skin fungus and bedsores. Deprived of dental care, Slevin was eventually forced to extract a tooth by himself. His toenails grew so long that they curled under his feet, his hair and beard grew to be long and unkempt, and he lost fifty pounds.

As his body decayed, Slevin’s mind degenerated. Already depressed at the time of his imprisonment, Slevin fell prey to hallucinations.

“I have not slept in days,”Slevin wrote to a nurse a couple of weeks into his solitary confinement. “I’m in a deep depression.” He also mentioned a lack of appetite, and that he was being afflicted with “weird and bizarre” dreams.

“I’m afraid to close my eyes,” he wrote in a plaintive letter to the jail’s “nurse practitioner,” an official with a bachelor’s degree in psychology and no medical credentials or experience. The “nurse” responded by prescribing a dose of sedatives.

The habeas corpus guarantee requires that anyone arrested by the police be quickly brought before a judge and either formally charged or released. Slevin, who was sent to solitary after failing to post $40,000 in bail, was never given a judicial hearing. If it weren’t for the intervention of his sister, who became concerned after Slevin stopped replying to her letters, Slevin would have died in jail without ever being charged with a crime.

Once he was released, Slevin filed a lawsuit against Dona Ana County. After a five-year legal struggle, Slevin was awarded $22 million by a federal court– one million dollars for every month he had been unlawfully incarcerated.

The county, which refused to discipline anybody responsible for Slevin’s imprisonment and torture, and refuses to answer questions about the crime committed against that man, protested that the civil judgment was excessive, and eventually agreed to a $15.5 million tax-funded civil settlement. This may still seem like an extravagant amount until it’s understood that the 59-year-old victim suffers from terminal lung cancer.

“The law cannot restore an arm, an eye, or a life; it can and does restore freedom,” wrote Ralph D. Smith of the University of New Mexico School of Law in a 1967 law school journal essay. His point was that “self-help” by citizens confronted with the prospect of unlawful arrest is impermissible, because they are dealing with people – that is, police officers – who have legal sanction to kill them if they resist.

“Life and liberty, though equally precious, cannot be viewed on the same plane where self-help is concerned,” Smith continues. “Liberty can be secured by a resort to law, life cannot.” A good case can be made for the proposition that Slevin’s illegal incarceration was terminal. Furthermore, unjust deprivation of liberty for any length of time is a grave and ineffaceable injury.

“If one is unlawfully arrested today, his period of confinement is likely to be brief,” wrote Smith, offering a glib assurance of the kind that comes easily to those who are paid well to defend the indefensible. “In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries” – that is, the period in which British courts handed down rulings explicitly recognizing the common law right to resist arrest – “bail was usually unattainable. Today, it is freely granted for most offenses.

Requirements of a prompt hearing and arraignment before a magistrate also serve to protect today’s citizen from a lengthy unjustified detention.”

None of that was true in the case of Stephen Slevin, who suffered the theft of two years that were stolen from a life that was further abbreviated by the unpunished abuse of those who illegally imprisoned him.

During the less-enlightened times in which courts recognized that citizens had the right to avoid illegal arrest and detention, Smith continues, an improperly detained individual could be confined for months, and then “re-incarcerated until he had paid certain fees demanded by the jailer, the clerk of the assize, clerks of the peace, and the like.” What he describes is exactly the same arrangement that prevails today in a probation and parole system that encourages probation and parole officers to find excuses to “violate” their charges as often as possible in order to recycle them through the mechanism.

“Seventeenth and eighteenth century prison conditions might well induce resistance to arrest, if only to keep out of jail,” observes Smith. The same was true not only in the case of Stephen Slevin, but also that of California resident Daniel Chong, who was held, handcuffed, in isolation and darkness, for five days without being charged with a crime in April of last year.

Chong was deprived of food, water, and bathroom facilities. When he was finally released, Chong – who had begun to suffer from hallucinations – asked his captors to kill him. He was hospitalized with severe dehydration and renal failure. The officials responsible for this crime have never been punished, nor have they so much as apologized to Chong.

The late Nick Christie likewise had every reason to put up resistance when he was taken into “protective” custody by Lee County, Florida sheriff’s deputies in 2009. Christie, a resident of Cleveland, had gone to visit a brother in Florida. His wife was concerned that the 62-year-old man, who had been diagnosed with psychological problems, had left his medications behind. She made the familiar and reliably fatal mistake of calling the police for “help.”

Christie, who was detained on a spurious “trespassing” charge, was shackled for nearly two full days in a restraint chair. His captors hooded the victim and repeatedly attacked him with military-grade pepper spray. Christie begged for the jailers to remove the “spit mask” from his face, complaining that he couldn’t breathe. When medical personnel were finally permitted to see Christie, they were overwhelmed by the pepper spray. When they attempted to treat him, the corrosive chemical residue was so potent it ate through their latex medical gloves.

This innocent man, who suffered from respiratory and heart disease, was tortured to death. His death was ruled a homicide. The State Attorney’s office refused to indict the officials who kidnapped and fatally tortured Christie, insisting that there was no evidence of “criminal wrong doing.” (That prosecutor, Assistant State Attorney Dean R. Plattner, had a long history of indifference regarding criminal violence by police officers.)

Writing more than four decades ago, as efforts to repudiate the right to resist arrest were gaining momentum, Arthur Smith insisted: “Because of the evolution in criminal procedures, jail conditions, and the increased danger from resistance, an individual is less likely to be provoked at what he considers an unlawful arrest in 1967 than he would have been in 1767.”

By 2013, it should be obvious to all honest and observant people that the only material difference between the medieval system Smith described and the one that confronts us now is the fact that British subjects had a legally recognized right to resist unlawful arrest.

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

Copyright © 2013 William Norman Grigg

The Best of William Norman Grigg

10 13 11 flagbar


BRICS Plan for New IMF: Trojan Horse for Western Agenda?

03/27/2013

http://www.thedailybell.com/28884/BRICS-Plan-for-New-IMF-Trojan-Horse-for-Western-Agenda

By Staff Report

BRICS Nations Plan New Bank to Bypass World Bank,IMF … The biggest emerging markets are uniting to tackle under-development and currency volatility with plans to set up institutions that encroach on the roles of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The leaders of the so-called BRICS nations − Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa − are set to approve the establishment of a new development bank during an annual summit that starts today in the eastern South African city of Durban, officials from all five nations say. They will also discuss pooling foreign-currency reserves to ward off balance of payments or currency crises. – Bloomberg

Dominant Social Theme: BRICS face off with the West. A New Age is in the offing.

Free-Market Analysis: Now comes word that the BRIC nations are going to form their own reserve currency via an IMF style facility. This is being interpreted universally as an attack on Western interests.

After all, David RockefellerJohn Maynard Keynes and a few other august individuals virtually created the modern money system after World War II when the world lay prostrate at the feet of Western powers.

Now we must come to understand that the fall of the West expands apace. The shift of power to developing countries is well underway. The apathy, moral degeneration and lassitude of Western civilization is bringing about its decline.

This is a widely shared view. Here’s something from the Examiner, for instance, on the news of a BRIC IMF:

It is said that nations like China and Russia play chess, while those in the West play checkers in the realms of politics and economic policy. In this, China and Russia are much more patient in their strategic moves, and are willing to sacrifice in the short term to accomplish their desired longer term goals. And like their moves made in September to provide an alternative to the 40 year domination of the petro-dollar, this newly formed development bank is the next step in offering the world a way to borrow money and capital, without leveraging their countries to the draconian demands of the IMF, and the forced austerity measures being introduced by central banks such as theECB.

You see? Ancient cultures like Russia and China are reasserting the primacy of their wisdom. The West is doomed. It was always an upstart culture and somehow over the past century this culture of naifs managed to take over the world. But now reality is returning. The West is diminishing as it should.

Do you believe this? It’s all over the Web, of course. There is apparently no doubt that the West’s day has come and gone. Here’s some more from the Bloomberg article:

“The deepest rationale for the BRICS is almost certainly the creation of new Bretton Woods-type institutions that are inclined toward the developing world,” Martyn Davies, chief executive officer of Johannesburg-based Frontier Advisory, which provides research on emerging markets, said in a phone interview. “There’s a shift in power from the traditional to the emerging world. There is a lot of geo-political concern about this shift in the western world.”

The BRICS nations, which have combined foreign-currency reserves of $4.4 trillion and account for 43 percent of the world’s population, are seeking greater sway in global finance to match their rising economic power. They have called for an overhaul of management of the World Bank and IMF, which were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944, and oppose the practice of their respective presidents being drawn from the U.S. and Europe.

“We need to change the way business is conducted in the international financial institutions,” South African International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said in a March 15 speech in Johannesburg. “They need to be reformed.”

The U.S. has failed to ratify a 2010 agreement to give more sway to emerging markets at the IMF, while it secured Jim Yong Kim, an American, as head of the World Bank last year over candidates from Nigeria and Colombia.

Finance ministers and central bank governors from the BRICS nations are meeting in Durban today to discuss the bank and currency fund, with leaders expected to arrive later today.

Goldman Sachs Asset Management Chairman Jim O’Neill coined the BRIC term in 2001 to describe the four emerging powers he estimated would equal the U.S. in joint economic output by 2020. Brazil, Russia, India and China held their first summit four years ago and invited South Africa to join their ranks in December 2010.

Does it strike you suspicious, dear reader, that O’Neill “coined the phrase” BRIC a decade ago. How prescient. How … convenient.

Yes, sorry … this is our brief. We’ve explained over and over that the forces of globalism seek one world, one central bank, one united political entity. And thus, inevitably we place this development within those parameters. We simply don’t believe that the BRICs are really and truly acting in opposition to the West. After all, the IMF is, in fact, a hated institution among developing countries.

Why would they want to create another one? After all, a thesis needs an antithesis to create a necessary synthesis. In this case, the synthesis is likely yet more management of economies on a global scale if developing countries create their own IMF-style facility.

Such a development only legitimizes a managed economy worldwide.

The idea that Russia, China, Brazil and India stand athwart Western globalist ambitions shouting “stop” seems ludicrous in our view. One country – England – formally controlled three of these four countries only a century ago. And the fourth country – Russia – was subject to Marxist regime change via Wall Street funding, according to Edward Griffin‘s great book, The Creature From Jekyll Island.

Do you subscribe to the notion of a renewed Cold War between East and West? Remember … globalists do play a subtle game. As Western power seems to diminish, the East is being raised up. And we are to believe this is inevitable.

Conclusion: Please understand the “game is afoot.”

 10 13 11 flagbar


Obama’s Plans for the Suburbs

03/25/2013

www.NewMediaJournal.us                           
                                10-18-2011 7-10-19 PM                                              Est. 1998

Featured
Obama’s Plans for the Suburbs
Stanley Kurtz
Last Friday’s headlines focused on President Obama’s address at Argonne National Laboratory, where he proposed to spend $2 billion on an energy-security trust fund for renewable fuel research. Obama boldly pledged “to shift our cars entirely…off oil.”

How exactly is he planning to do that? Research will have an effect over time, but “entirely off oil” is either a greatly exaggerated or a very incomplete account of the administration’s energy plans. The New York Times story on Obama’s speech dryly notes that although the president “has vowed to make addressing climate change a priority in his second term…he has provided only scant details on how he intends to act.”

Look closely, however, and it’s possible to spot some troubling plans. The Times, and just about every other major news outlet, neglected to note that on the day of Obama’s Argonne speech, the Department of Energy released a series of coordinated reports called “Transportation Energy Futures” (developed in cooperation with Argonne). This DOE project explores a variety of strategies designed to curb America‘s greenhouse gas emissions up to 80 percent by about 2050.

Arguably the most controversial of those reports covers the “effects of the built environment on transportation.” To put it plainly, the “ built environment” report lays out strategies the federal government can use to force development away from suburbs and into cities, supposedly for the sake of reducing carbon dioxide emissions given off by all those suburban commuters. The Obama administration wants to force so-called smart growth policies on the country: get out of your car, stay out of the suburbs, move into small, tightly-packed urban apartment complexes, and walk or take public transportation instead of driving.

The Department of Energy’s built environment report lays out a scenario much like the one I described in Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities. The report highlights two policy options most likely to increase dense, Manhattan-style urban development, without exceeding the traditional limits of federal authority. Those options are eliminating the home-mortgage interest deduction and conditioning future federal aid of all kinds on local adherence to “smart growth” principles. Of these, I think the second is the most likely to be implemented. The built environment report also says that the most convenient bureaucratic channel through which to manage such federal pressure is the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

The built environment report acknowledges that conditioning federal aid on population density would be political dynamite. And this, of course, is why Obama loudly touted his plans for an energy security trust fund, while downplaying the DOE’s report release. Essentially, the built environment report suggests that federal funding on new schools or roads might be held to population density criteria that would starve projects in suburbs in favor of those in cities. I’ve argued elsewhere that these so-called smart growth policies are about a lot more than greenhouse gases. The global warming issue serves here as a justification for wealth redistribution on a grand scale.

The other major, yet still largely unnoticed, energy story from last Friday was the Bloomberg report on the Obama administration’s plans to order all federal agencies to consider global warming (i.e. carbon dioxide emissions) before approving large projects. I’ve already discussed the potential of this new administrative order to block construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Yet the impact of these new Obama administration guidelines will likely be far wider.

The Bloomberg report notes that once carbon dioxide emissions can be invoked in court, not just oil pipelines but even highway construction can be delayed or blocked (all those suburban commuter fumes). So Obama’s new regulatory guidelines may shortly give environmental groups the power to call a halt to a whole series of suburban development projects.

How can these changes be fought? Publicity helps. Controversial policies like “smart growth” often operate under the public’s radar. Obama wants the energy debate to focus on benign-sounding research plans, while his administration’s interest in placing the massive power of federal funding behind urban densification strategies goes unnoticed.

The other way to block Obama’s plans is to have Congress cut funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative. In particular, future funding for the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program ought to be eliminated. Although the cost of these planning grants is small, their potential impact is large, especially if the administration follows through with the built environment report’s option of conditioning a wide range of federal aid on local adherence to so-called smart-growth planning. (I described these troubling “sustainability” grants in “ Obama’s Plan for Ohio.”)

Budget-cutting House Republicans were able to halt funding of Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants in fiscal year 2012. Blocking that funding again with a targeted public campaign wouldn’t entirely end the program. There are still plenty of fully-funded planning grants out there. Even so, a successful public battle over future funding for these “Sustainable Communities” planning grants might discourage the administration from carrying through on the sort of anti-suburban proposals contained in the built environment report.

It may already be too late to prevent the administration’s new directive on carbon-dioxide pollution standards from sparking a series of court challenges to suburban highway construction, and perhaps other forms of suburban development as well. But it’s not too late to prevent the most powerful blow of all — the aggressive use of conditional federal funding to Manhattanize America.

TEA Party take note. You might want to encourage your representatives in Congress to block future funding for Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants. A public battle on that issue just might discourage the administration from pulling the trigger on its most draconian anti-suburban plans.

This article was originally published NationalReview.com.

The Labor Nominee’s Other Lies
Quin Hillyer
TThomas Perez is a multiple prevaricator.

When the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (henceforth DoJ) last week issued a report blistering DoJ’s Civil Rights Division, much attention focused on the IG’s recognition that division chief Perez, under oath, had “not reflect[ed] the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees” in the now-infamous 2009 decision to dismiss voter-intimidation cases against several New Black Panthers in Philadelphia.

While this aspect of Perez’s dishonesty deserves all the attention it can garner (also deserving attention is the extreme dubiousness of the IG’s assertion that Perez’s lies about political-appointee interference were not “intentional”), it is far from the only example, from that very same testimony, of Perez pushing stories that were flagrantly false.

Perez came awfully close to perjury, and some might argue that he committed it, when discussing the far more important, broader issue that was the main focus of the IG report. (It boggles belief, by the way, that the IG never even discussed this untruth, considering that it so directly involved the larger substance of his report.) That broader issue was the question, fairly definitively answered in the affirmative by the IG, of whether the Civil Rights Division is a hotbed of hostility against the very idea of race-neutral enforcement of civil rights and voting rights laws.

When testifying under oath on May 14, 2010, before the US Commission on Civil Rights, Perez in effect denied that any such hostility existed. “We don’t have people of that ilk” in the Division, he said. The question, he said, is “moot.” Again and again, under questioning by Commissioner Todd Gaziano, Perez said that if such an attitude existed, he would put a stop to it, and he indicated that such a practice was completely alien to his experience with and knowledge of his division’s practices.

This was no small matter. It encompassed almost the entirety of Gaziano’s initial questioning of Perez, taking up a significant portion of the hearing.

CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE
The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more…

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a tax deductible donation today .

Editorials
The Obamacare ‘Sting’
Frank Salvato
In the Academy Award winning movie “The Sting,” the characters played by Paul Newman and Robert Redford set-up a fake betting parlor and racetrack broadcast to “reel in the whale.” The “sting,” or the con game, was set-up from the very start to play out exactly as planned; the winner was predetermined. The Affordable Care Act, laughable as that law’s title may be — is not unlike “The Sting,” in that the outcome emanating from the passage of this law was predetermined, but it may not be what you think. Most people who understand Obamacare to be an affront to the Constitution and a gear stopper, economically, hold the position that the real catalyst behind this horrible piece of legislation was the creation of a single-payer healthcare system. To avoid this the popular hypothesis held that those opposed to the outrageous provisions set forth in Obamacare would either: a) win the General Election in a landslide and repeal the whole of the law or, b) in the aftermath of a lame electoral attempt, dismantle the law piece-by-piece in an effort to defund and render impotent the law piecemeal. As it stands we have opted for “B.”

Analysis

Business Leaders Can Save the Nation
Paul R. Hollrah
It’s no secret that Washington is awash with lobbyists. But what few Americans fail to realize is that the Washington law firms and lobbyists are not there to help their clients solve problems.

In Search of Winning II
Tony Rubolotta
Establishment Republicans focus on winning voting blocs because that is how liberals have defined the electoral contest. Liberals have divided voters into blocs, convincing each that by winning elections government will give them some special consideration they otherwise could not gain.

Intellectuals & Race
Walter E. Williams
After reading Dr. Thomas Sowell’s latest book, “Intellectuals and Race,” one cannot emerge with much respect for the reasoning powers of intellectuals, particularly academics, on matters of race.

The ‘PC’ Dumbing Down of US Schools
Jane S. Shaw
US colleges and universities are drowning in a sea of “political correctness,” and many of higher education’s “best and brightest” don’t recognize the danger.

A Funny Catholic Girl
Complains About Obama
Chris T. Smith
Regardless of what you think about Sarah Palin, she is definitely spot-on about those Obamacare “death panels” (also known as “The Independent Payment Advisory Board”). Before you know it, the federal government will probably help set up “Planned Childhood” or something like that.

Before the Progressives
Staged ‘Occupy Wall Street’
Lee Carey
In the year before the 2012 general election, the American Progressive Movement choreographed a series of street theater productions which fueled a media-driven counterpunch to the TEA Party. The production was entitled “Occupy Wall Street.”

It’s the Students, Stupid
Will Fitzhugh
The billionaires’ club, with their long retinue of pundits, researchers, and other hangers-on, are giving their attention, some of the time, to education. But they are not paying attention to the academic work of students, or to their responsibility for their own education.

A Real Term Limit
Thomas Sowell
The main thing wrong with the term limits movement is the “s” at the end of the word “limit.” What are advocates of term limits trying to accomplish?

Another Bad Democrat Idea
Col. Bob Pappas, USMC (ret)
One wonders how it is possible to have people in elected positions whose apparent sole objective is to play political games.

A Springtime Gift of Truth
AJ DiCintio
Like far too many ostensibly tough-minded journalists of the past hundred years, I.F. Stone could not or would not admit the truth about Stalinist communism, despite its being the horrifying elephant in every room, including salons where to this day leftists spout their arrogant nonsense.

All Roads Lead to Cyprus
Daniel Greenfield
Cyprus is Europe’s original failure. It was the first part of modern Europe to be invaded and colonized by Muslims, while its native Christian population was ethnically cleansed. Cyprus is to Islam what Czechoslovakia was to Nazism; the canary in the coal mine

The Battle Over Foreign Policy
Robert McReynolds
In the current issue of Foreign Policy Magazine a very vivid description was painted of the first four years of the Obama administration’s quest for a solution in Afghanistan.

Dumb & Dangerous:
America’s Fast Pass for Saudi Arabia
Michelle Malkin
It’s business as usual in the post-9/11 world. Your federal government is back to pandering to wealthy travelers from Saudi Arabia.

Kerry Commits US to UN Arms
Trade Treaty Gun Grab
Investor’s Business Daily
As the world body meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.

The Cyprus Great Bank Robbery

James Hall
When does banksters’ extortion become outright theft? The latest example and escalation by the placing a levy fee on bank deposits in the tax haven of Cyprus illustrates the bold step of seizing private liquid saving accounts, under the guise of a government tax.

The Media Imperialists
Samuel Westrop
When the New York Times finally decided in January to report the anti-Semitic comments made by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Morsi, almost two weeks after MEMRI broke the story, the report prompted further coverage in newspapers across the world, and even forced a statement from the White House in condemnation of the remarks. But why did it take so long?
Warning: Obama’s Green
Money Scheme Exposed II

Sharon Sebastian
America is waging war on two main fronts. The ongoing terrorist threat is obvious. Less apparent, but equally as dangerous, is the loss of freedoms through a well-organized, United Nations’ sponsored coup on America’s sovereignty.

The New Media Journal & BasicsProject.org exist solely on contributions from readers like you.


Please give generously lest an
honest media outlet be silenced.

 NewMediaJournal.us Copyright © 2013

A Division of BasicsProject.org

10 13 11 flagbar


Will President Obama order drone strike on White House?

03/22/2013

http://www.pakalertpress.com

 Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

Infowars

President Barack Obama is now the global head of Al-Qaeda – bankrolling, arming and equipping terrorists around the world in order to achieve his administration’s geopolitical objectives – while simultaneously invoking the threat of terrorists domestically to destroy the bill of rights.

3-22-2013 11-55-41 AM

Since it has now been established that those merely suspected of engaging in terrorism, including US citizens, are subject to targeted drone strikes, under the terms of his own prosecution of the fake war on terror, Obama must immediately order a drone strike on the White House because the facts documented below incontrovertibly demonstrate that it represents the headquarters of Al-Qaeda operations worldwide.

The fact that Al-Qaeda was created by western intelligence and has always been controlled by these interests demonstrates that the Al-Qaeda threat is one of the greatest ongoing hoaxes in world history.

The administration has sent nearly half a billion dollars ($365 million plus another $60 million) and is now using US Special Forces to train militants in Syria who have pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda and who continue to carry out grisly beheadingsterrorist bombings targeting innocent civilians and chemical weapons attacks against women and children.

These same militants, backed not only by the US but by every major NATO power, have repeatedly voiced their hatred for and intention to destroy America, as they ransack Christian churchesburn US flags, chant anti-American slogans and sing the praises of Osama Bin Laden while glorifying the 9/11 attacks.

As the New York Times reported, these very same terrorists killed U.S. troops in Iraq and yet western backing for the insurgency against Bashar Al-Assad has enabled violent extremists to seize power in Syria.

As multiple reports now confirm, Jabhat al-Nusra, the main Al-Qaeda group in Syria, is now commanding rebels and is engaged in “the heaviest frontline fighting” in Syria. As the London Guardian reported, rebels in Syria are admittedly being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists, who meet with them “every day” and train them how to make bombs.

The top 29 Syrian opposition groups have all sworn allegiance to Jabhat al-Nusra. Sheik Moaz al Khatib, head of the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, has also publicly affirmed his support for the terrorist group.

These same terrorists have also vowed to attack the United States once they are finished in Syria, while proclaiming their desire to see the Al-Qaeda flag flying over the White House.

In addition, while Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” have been characterized as terrorists by their own government, US citizens who openly take up arms to join with terrorists in Libya and Syria are allowed to fly around the world with total impunity.

In supporting Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria as part of the effort to impose regime change, the Obama administration is following the same disastrous policy it pursued in Libya, backing the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which also killed U.S. troops in Iraq, to overthrow Gaddafi.

That led to a country ruled by thugs who have rounded up, tortured and executed thousands of black Libyans. It also led to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, which was carried out by some of the very same LIFG terrorists the United States had backed just a year previously.

After the overthrow of Gaddafi, NATO powers aided in airlifting LIFG militants into Syria to continue the fight to impose Sharia law across the region.

Given all this, it’s abundantly clear that the Obama administration has easily outstripped other targets of drone strikes in its zeal to support terrorism around the world.

American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike simply for producing propaganda videos and communicating with accused terrorists. His 16-year-old son was similarly slaughtered for merely sharing his father’s surname. Other American citizens like John Walker Lindh were imprisoned and tortured in Guantanamo Bay for fighting with the Taliban.

And yet, as Afghan President Hamid Karzai made clear last week, the Obama administration is now colluding with the Taliban while the group carries out suicide bombings in the “service of America.”

By backing terrorists in Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria, Barack Obama has carved out a role as the global head of Al-Qaeda. Wherever on the map his administration wants to dominate geopolitically, Al-Qaeda terrorists flood in to do the dirty work – and it’s all paid for with your tax dollars.

By ordering a drone strike on the White House, Obama would be targeting the primary source now responsible for most of the world’s global terrorism – his own administration.

In closing, it’s important to note that President Barack Obama himself is nothing more than a global crime syndicate mercenary front man for criminal interests that have seized control of the national security apparatus. This article is intended to call Obama and his controllers out as the real progenitors of Al-Qaeda and the synthetic war on terror.

And here is the key – just as WMDs were a fraudulent pretext for the Iraq war, the Al-Qaeda cut out threat is 100 per cent manufactured to destroy western free societies and convert the entire planet into a totalitarian world government.

10 13 11 flagbar


Is The Federal Government Supreme?

03/20/2013

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1399-is-the-federal-government-supreme

By Bob Greenslade

This article was written by Bob Greenslade and originally published at Tenth Amendment Center

While observing the proceedings in a federal District Court, I was taken-back by the blatant arrogance of the judge masquerading as a constitutional officer. The case involved a civil dispute between two corporations. After setting a briefing schedule and reading the opposing attorneys the riot act concerning the conduct of his courtroom, the judge did something that illustrates the extent of the usurpation of power being perpetrated by the federal government. When one of attorneys told the judge he was unavailable for a motion hearing because he was scheduled to be in state court for a murder trial that same day, the judge came out of his chair and told the attorney to remind the state judge of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution. He went on to state that since the federal government is supreme and above the States, the judge in murder case would have to change the date of the trial to accommodate the federal proceedings in his courtroom. If this federal judge had not been a constitutional renegade, he would have never asserted that the federal government is supreme and above the States.

The so-called “supremacy” clause is found at Article VI, Clause 1 and states in part:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land – any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Nowhere in this provision does it state the federal government is supreme and above the States. It simply states that the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme.

Alexander Hamilton addressed the extent of this clause in Federalist Essay No. 33:

[I]t is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land – It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution –[Bold not added]

In the New York Convention of 1788 considering ratification of the proposed constitution, Hamilton responded to the criticisms being leveled against this provision:

I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this ¾ that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government. The states, as well as individuals, are bound by these laws: but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent powers, in which they are supreme.

In Hamilton’s words we see the principles of limited government and enumerated powers. This clause does not expand federal power; it restricts federal power because that government only exists within the confines of its limited enumerated powers. When the federal government departs from the Constitution and enacts laws outside the scope of its delegated powers, those laws are not “supreme or binding” because the federal government does not exist outside of its limited enumerated powers.

In order for the federal government to be supreme and above the States, it would first have to have the constitutional power to modify or abolish the powers of the States. No such power was granted to the federal government by the Constitution. In fact, since the States created the federal government, they have the power to abolish or amend the powers of their federal government any time they wish.

The amendment process is found at Article V and provides two methods for proposing amendments. Two-thirds of the States [34] can request a Constitutional Convention or Congress [two-thirds of both Houses] can propose amendments. When a proposed amendment is adopted by Congress and submitted to the States for consideration, the States have the exclusive power to accept or reject the proposal and neither Congress nor a majority of the American people have the constitutional authority to over-ride their decision. In addition, if the States call a Constitutional Convention to amend the powers of the federal government, Congress is constitutionally powerless to stop them.

When a proposed amendment is under consideration by the States, it takes a vote of three-fourths of the States [38] to ratify any proposed change. Neither Congress nor a majority of the American people has a vote in this process. Likewise, neither the federal government nor the whole people can override a three-fourths vote of the States. The 38 smallest States, with a minority of the population, can bind the remaining 12 States with a majority of the population. This proves conclusively that federal government is not supreme and above the States.

There is another way to read this clause. The Constitution is a compact or contract between the several States. If this clause is read in that context, it reads as follows: the contract between the several States, the Constitution, and all laws and treaties passed pursuant to the contract between the States shall be the supreme law of the land. It is the contract between the several States that is supreme, not the federal government. That government is simply the entity designated by the States to execute the limited functions entrusted to it by the terms of the contract.

Unfortunately, the federal government is using the illusion of supremacy to awe the States and the American people into undue obedience to its unconstitutional dictates. One example is the theft of land within the several States. The federal government cannot constitutionally acquire or exercise any legislative jurisdiction over land within one of the United States unless it complies with the consent requirement enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. To get around this lack of authority, the federal government has used the supremacy clause to invoke condemnation or eminent domain power to take control of the land.

It should be remembered that eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty. The term “sovereignty” is interchangeable with the word “supremacy.” Before the federal government could claim a general power of supremacy within the several States, it would first have to establish that the States surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government when they adopted the Constitution.

In Federalist essay No. 32, Alexander Hamilton reiterated the principle that the States, under the Constitution, would retain every pre-existing right [power] that was not exclusively delegated to the federal government:

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. [Emphasis not added]

Hamilton noted that the Constitution would establish a “partial union” between the several States. If the States were being consolidated into one nation they would not be delegating powers, they would be surrendering powers. That would include their sovereignty. In reality, the States did not surrender their sovereignty; they only delegated a portion of their sovereign powers to the federal government for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, since the Constitution established a “partial union”between the several States, and the federal government was granted its powers from the States via the Constitution, the federal government cannot be supreme and above the States.

The failure of the States to control their federal government will have dire consequences if it is allowed to continue asserting supremacy over the States. In the New York Ratifying Convention referenced above, Hamilton warned of the consequences if the States ever lost their powers:

The states can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate.

If the States and the American people do not awaken and assert their supremacy over the federal government, that government will ultimately turn Hamilton’s warning into reality.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Once again we are confronted with De Facto and De Jure. The Federal government is, and has been ruling by De Facto for generations just as the Anti Federalist feared they eventually would. The big question is how did this happen? Let me elucidate as clear as I can, from a position of uneducated observation. No 1. They managed to get control of the Nation’s money through the Federal Reserve. No 2. They managed to get control of electing the States representatives. No3. They started subsidizing the States with the peoples money.  No4. They pretended to have supreme authority until it was accepted as De jure. No 5. They managed to claim we were citizens of the federal Government as well as citizens of the States. No6. They managed to get control of education. No7. They managed to get control of the media. No 8. They managed to get control of monopolistic corporations. No 9. They managed to get control of declaring war without the peoples input through their representatives. No 10. The managed to get the support of other Nations through the United Nations, and the threat of war. They are obviously a rogue group of treasonous, thieves and killers, who should be disbanded, indicted, tried, and put to death. EVERY DAMNED ONE OF THEM!

10 13 11 flagbar