Fleckenstein – Gold: and A U. S. Collapse That Will Rival Greece

07/31/2013

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2013/7/31_Fleckenstein_-_Gold_%26_A_U.S._Collapse_That_Will_Rival_Greece.html

 By Eric King

KingWorldNews.com

Today Bill Fleckenstein warned King World News that we may see a “brutal” collapse in the United States that will be similar to the carnage and suffering which has taken place in Greece.  Fleckenstein also discussed gold backwardation as well as the bullish dynamics of the gold market.  Below is what Fleckenstein, who is President of Fleckenstein Capital, had to say in this powerful interview.

Eric King:  “It sounds like there is going to be hell to pay (for the irrational policies of central planners).  Is there something nasty in front of us that may be equivalent to the Great Depression, or is that too much (doom)?”

Fleckenstein:  “We would have had the functional equivalent of a depression after the 2008 crisis.  That’s where we were headed.  The difference was right there in 2008/2009, had they not done what they had done the banking system might literally have collapsed.

I think perhaps a lot of banks are in better shape (today than they were then) … But what we don’t know is, are the derivatives books going to have serious problems when the bond market starts to tank?….

Other markets have had big moves, whether it’s in the currency markets or the stock markets, and derivatives have been a talking point on banks’ books.  But we really haven’t seen bonds in a bear market.  So the banks could get in a lot of trouble because of that.

The crisis will be the government debt and additional interest costs which will add a couple of hundred billion dollars, on top of what’s already there, to the government debt as rates rise … I don’t know that the financial system will come close to collapse again, so the next crisis will be different than 2008.  But could we have something akin to a depression?  Yes.

It would be unlikely to be as bad as the depression of the 1930s because we have so many stabilizers in terms of the people on food stamps, welfare and all of that stuff.  But having said that, it will be plenty brutal.  Ask the Greeks how they are doing.  It will be some variation of that.  It’s going to be brutal.”

Here is a small portion of what Fleckenstein had to say regarding gold:  “The world believes in Goldilocks, and when the world believes in Goldilocks they don’t feel they need gold.  But the dynamics of the gold market are kind of extraordinary in that we’ve had this near-term backwardation for 17 straight business days as you and I speak, and so there is real tightness in the short end of the market.  

There still continues to be plenty of shorts (in gold).  I think a lot of guys got out of the market, so I think the next leg of the bull market could be pretty wild once it actually starts to respond to news in a positive way.”

IMPORTANT – This was one of Bill Fleckenstein’s best audio interviews ever.  The above section was just a small portion of what Fleckenstein had to say as he discussed the coming financial chaos and gold and silver.  The extraordinary audio interview with Bill Fleckenstein is available now and you can listen to it by CLICKING HERE.

 The audio interviews with Eric Sprott, Egon von Greyerz, David Stockman, Gerald Celente, Andrew Maguire,John Mauldin, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Art Cashin, William Kaye, Marc Faber and Dr. Benn Steil are available now.  Also, other outstanding recent KWN interviews include Jim Grant and Felix Zulauf to listen CLICKING HERE.

King World News – Blog http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/KWN_DailyWeb.html

 Clear Your Cookies/Cache To Update Most Recent Articles

 The Price Of Silver Is Setting Up For A Historic Run

July 31, 2013

With gold and silver pulling back ahead of the FOMC activity, today acclaimed money manager Stephen Leeb spoke with King World News about what is really taking place behind the scenes in the gold and silver markets. Leeb believes that the price of silver is setting up for a historic move to the…

Read more…

Fleckenstein – Gold & A U.S. Collapse That Will Rival Greece

July 31, 2013

Today Bill Fleckenstein warned King World News that we may see a “brutal” collapse in the United States that will be similar to the carnage and suffering which has taken place in Greece. Fleckenstein also discussed gold backwardation as well as the bullish dynamics of the gold market. Below is…

Read more…

Gold Market To See Largest Short Squeeze In Modern History

July 30, 2013

Today one of the savviest and well connected hedge fund managers in the world told King World News that the gold market is getting very close to seeing a massive and unprecedented short squeeze that will eclipse anything in seen in modern financial history. Outspoken Hong Kong hedge fund manager…

Read more…


Fleckenstein – Why Stocks May Collapse 25% In Just 3 Days

July 30, 2013

Today Bill Fleckenstein stunned King World News when he warned that the stock market may be setting up to collapse 25% in a 3-day period when turmoil erupts. Below is what Fleckenstein, who is President of Fleckenstein Capital, had to say in this extraordinary and exclusive interview.

Read more…

Richard Russell – Gold, Stocks, Bull Markets & “Big Money”

July 30, 2013

On the heels of continued volatility in key global markets, the Godfather of newsletter writers, Richard Russell, asks the all-important question, “How do we know when a bull market is topping out?” Russell included a fascinating gold chart and predicted that gold will break out to the upside….

Read more…


Rick Rule – What To Expect From Gold, Silver & Mining Shares

July 29, 2013

With gold and silver continuing to consolidate, today King World News spoke with Rick Rule, one of the wealthiest people in the financial world, about the state of the gold and silver markets, as well as the mining shares. Rick Rule, who is business partners with billionaire Eric Sprott, also…

Read more…


We Are Staring At Global Collapse & A Gold & Silver Explosion

July 29, 2013

With weakness in stocks, and gold and silver consolidating, today John Embry told King World News that the we are about to witness a global global collapse that will create an explosion higher in gold and silver prices. Below is what Embry had to say in one his most powerful interviews ever.

Read more…

Wild Speculation, The Fed & What This Means For Gold & Silver

July 28, 2013

On the heels of another volatile week of trading in global markets, today one of the top economists in the world sent King World News an exclusive piece warning about speculation going on in a major market, and what this all means for gold and silver. Michael Pento, founder of Pento Portfolio…

Read more…

Is Something Catastrophic About To Occur?

July 27, 2013

On the heels of major movements in key global markets, today 40-year veteran, Robert Fitzwilson, put together another tremendous piece.  Fitzwilson, who is founder of The Portola Group, discusses the fear, confusion, and chaos that rules the investing world today. Below is Fitzwilson’s outstanding…

Read more…

Sprott – We Are Seeing Unprecedented Events In Gold & Silver

July 26, 2013

On the heels of J.P. Morgan announcing its desire to exit the physical commodity business, they also clearly indicated they were staying in the gold and silver business. From J.P. Morgan’s release: “J.P. Morgan has also reaffirmed that it will remain fully committed to its traditional banking…

Read more…

Gold Shortage Creating Massive Problems For Bullion Banks

July 26, 2013

With most key markets around the world trading lower, today Egon von Greyerz warned King World News that there are enormous shortages of physical gold and this has created a situation where the bullion banks are in real trouble here because of the supply problems. Below is what Greyerz, who is…

Read more…


Eric Sprott – Physical Gold Shortage Now Reaching Extremes

July 26, 2013

With the paper price of gold pulling back, today billionaire Eric Sprott told King World News that the shortage of physical gold is now reaching extremes. Sprott also discussed the implications of this, as well as Western central planner desperation. This is the first in a series of interviews…

Read more…

10 13 11 flagbar


Fleckenstein – Gold: and A U. S. Collapse That Will Rival Greece

07/31/2013

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2013/7/31_Fleckenstein_-_Gold_%26_A_U.S._Collapse_That_Will_Rival_Greece.html

 By Eric King

KingWorldNews.com

Today Bill Fleckenstein warned King World News that we may see a “brutal” collapse in the United States that will be similar to the carnage and suffering which has taken place in Greece.  Fleckenstein also discussed gold backwardation as well as the bullish dynamics of the gold market.  Below is what Fleckenstein, who is President of Fleckenstein Capital, had to say in this powerful interview.

Eric King:  “It sounds like there is going to be hell to pay (for the irrational policies of central planners).  Is there something nasty in front of us that may be equivalent to the Great Depression, or is that too much (doom)?”

Fleckenstein:  “We would have had the functional equivalent of a depression after the 2008 crisis.  That’s where we were headed.  The difference was right there in 2008/2009, had they not done what they had done the banking system might literally have collapsed.

I think perhaps a lot of banks are in better shape (today than they were then) … But what we don’t know is, are the derivatives books going to have serious problems when the bond market starts to tank?….

Other markets have had big moves, whether it’s in the currency markets or the stock markets, and derivatives have been a talking point on banks’ books.  But we really haven’t seen bonds in a bear market.  So the banks could get in a lot of trouble because of that.

The crisis will be the government debt and additional interest costs which will add a couple of hundred billion dollars, on top of what’s already there, to the government debt as rates rise … I don’t know that the financial system will come close to collapse again, so the next crisis will be different than 2008.  But could we have something akin to a depression?  Yes.

It would be unlikely to be as bad as the depression of the 1930s because we have so many stabilizers in terms of the people on food stamps, welfare and all of that stuff.  But having said that, it will be plenty brutal.  Ask the Greeks how they are doing.  It will be some variation of that.  It’s going to be brutal.”

Here is a small portion of what Fleckenstein had to say regarding gold:  “The world believes in Goldilocks, and when the world believes in Goldilocks they don’t feel they need gold.  But the dynamics of the gold market are kind of extraordinary in that we’ve had this near-term backwardation for 17 straight business days as you and I speak, and so there is real tightness in the short end of the market.  

There still continues to be plenty of shorts (in gold).  I think a lot of guys got out of the market, so I think the next leg of the bull market could be pretty wild once it actually starts to respond to news in a positive way.”

IMPORTANT – This was one of Bill Fleckenstein’s best audio interviews ever.  The above section was just a small portion of what Fleckenstein had to say as he discussed the coming financial chaos and gold and silver.  The extraordinary audio interview with Bill Fleckenstein is available now and you can listen to it by CLICKING HERE.

 The audio interviews with Eric Sprott, Egon von Greyerz, David Stockman, Gerald Celente, Andrew Maguire,John Mauldin, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Art Cashin, William Kaye, Marc Faber and Dr. Benn Steil are available now.  Also, other outstanding recent KWN interviews include Jim Grant and Felix Zulauf to listen CLICKING HERE.

King World News – Blog http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/KWN_DailyWeb.html

 Clear Your Cookies/Cache To Update Most Recent Articles

 The Price Of Silver Is Setting Up For A Historic Run

July 31, 2013

With gold and silver pulling back ahead of the FOMC activity, today acclaimed money manager Stephen Leeb spoke with King World News about what is really taking place behind the scenes in the gold and silver markets. Leeb believes that the price of silver is setting up for a historic move to the…

Read more…

Fleckenstein – Gold & A U.S. Collapse That Will Rival Greece

July 31, 2013

Today Bill Fleckenstein warned King World News that we may see a “brutal” collapse in the United States that will be similar to the carnage and suffering which has taken place in Greece. Fleckenstein also discussed gold backwardation as well as the bullish dynamics of the gold market. Below is…

Read more…

Gold Market To See Largest Short Squeeze In Modern History

July 30, 2013

Today one of the savviest and well connected hedge fund managers in the world told King World News that the gold market is getting very close to seeing a massive and unprecedented short squeeze that will eclipse anything in seen in modern financial history. Outspoken Hong Kong hedge fund manager…

Read more…


Fleckenstein – Why Stocks May Collapse 25% In Just 3 Days

July 30, 2013

Today Bill Fleckenstein stunned King World News when he warned that the stock market may be setting up to collapse 25% in a 3-day period when turmoil erupts. Below is what Fleckenstein, who is President of Fleckenstein Capital, had to say in this extraordinary and exclusive interview.

Read more…

Richard Russell – Gold, Stocks, Bull Markets & “Big Money”

July 30, 2013

On the heels of continued volatility in key global markets, the Godfather of newsletter writers, Richard Russell, asks the all-important question, “How do we know when a bull market is topping out?” Russell included a fascinating gold chart and predicted that gold will break out to the upside….

Read more…


Rick Rule – What To Expect From Gold, Silver & Mining Shares

July 29, 2013

With gold and silver continuing to consolidate, today King World News spoke with Rick Rule, one of the wealthiest people in the financial world, about the state of the gold and silver markets, as well as the mining shares. Rick Rule, who is business partners with billionaire Eric Sprott, also…

Read more…


We Are Staring At Global Collapse & A Gold & Silver Explosion

July 29, 2013

With weakness in stocks, and gold and silver consolidating, today John Embry told King World News that the we are about to witness a global global collapse that will create an explosion higher in gold and silver prices. Below is what Embry had to say in one his most powerful interviews ever.

Read more…

Wild Speculation, The Fed & What This Means For Gold & Silver

July 28, 2013

On the heels of another volatile week of trading in global markets, today one of the top economists in the world sent King World News an exclusive piece warning about speculation going on in a major market, and what this all means for gold and silver. Michael Pento, founder of Pento Portfolio…

Read more…

Is Something Catastrophic About To Occur?

July 27, 2013

On the heels of major movements in key global markets, today 40-year veteran, Robert Fitzwilson, put together another tremendous piece.  Fitzwilson, who is founder of The Portola Group, discusses the fear, confusion, and chaos that rules the investing world today. Below is Fitzwilson’s outstanding…

Read more…

Sprott – We Are Seeing Unprecedented Events In Gold & Silver

July 26, 2013

On the heels of J.P. Morgan announcing its desire to exit the physical commodity business, they also clearly indicated they were staying in the gold and silver business. From J.P. Morgan’s release: “J.P. Morgan has also reaffirmed that it will remain fully committed to its traditional banking…

Read more…

Gold Shortage Creating Massive Problems For Bullion Banks

July 26, 2013

With most key markets around the world trading lower, today Egon von Greyerz warned King World News that there are enormous shortages of physical gold and this has created a situation where the bullion banks are in real trouble here because of the supply problems. Below is what Greyerz, who is…

Read more…


Eric Sprott – Physical Gold Shortage Now Reaching Extremes

July 26, 2013

With the paper price of gold pulling back, today billionaire Eric Sprott told King World News that the shortage of physical gold is now reaching extremes. Sprott also discussed the implications of this, as well as Western central planner desperation. This is the first in a series of interviews…

Read more…

10 13 11 flagbar


Rockefeller and Ruckelshaus New Economy Rising

07/29/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/rockefeller-and-ruckelshaus-new-economy.html

 Julie Beal

Activist Post

Putting a price tag on the services provided by nature, and human beings, was first proposed by ecological economists some 40 years ago, as a way to protect biodiversity, and to give a truer figure for the GDP of a nation. This is done by monitoring all resources (natural capital), and the well-being of the people, and the services they provide ‘for free’, such as caring for elderly relatives. The GDP would then reflect the ‘true wealth’ of the country – essential knowledge for globalist investors.

The idea fleshed out and evolved amidst a hyped-up media panic about the future of the earth –funded by those in power, and with much to gain from using the excuse of ‘environmentalism’. Now, a global market for ecosystem service credits is being steadily established, which would one day affect us all profoundly. The global commons is being sold off! Some peoples are already being charged ‘user fees’ for using the services that nature provides, such as water, whilst fortunes for many of the power elite have been secured with the purchase of carbon credits, with many more ecosystem ‘credits’ to come. These credits, and the community currencies also being promoted by the elite, signify the endlessly ‘renewable’ stock of assets supplied by natural, and human/social, capital. As our current system collapses, a New Economy is rising.

The key turning point was the launch of Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in 1992; however, there were decades of events pre-dating this launch[1].  Suffice it to say, understanding that future prosperity lay in controlling natural resources, key global elites had established conservation and preservation initiatives throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, such as the founding of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (‘the Fauna’) in 1903, under the patronage of the Royal Crown, and the creation of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, by Charles Rothschild in 1912. (Source)

The concept of ecology was increasingly popularised throughout the start of the century, with a notable change in the public mindset by the 1960s. James S. Bowman, (The Environmental Movement: An Assessment of Ecological Politics, 1976) attributed this to a succession of significant events, such as the threat of nuclear fallout from a distance, the vision of earth from above, and campaigns such as the Sierra Club’s plea to save the Grand Canyon from being dammed and flooded. Edward Bernays would have approved of the media fanfare for Earth Day in 1970.
Changing the public mindset readied the world for the political pantomime that began in earnest in the 1980s, when ‘Environmentalism’ became the property of the rich. Replacing the flower-power generation, and their profligate hedonism, the new environmentalists were politicians and profiteers, claiming to care as much as the hippies before them, but in a ‘rational’, mainstream, way. One of the first key moves was the formation of the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 1982, with a $15 million donation from the MacArthur Foundation. Another key event was the Fourth World Wilderness Congress in Colorado, U.S.A. in 1988, when onto the stage stepped Mr Rockefeller, and Mr Ruckelshaus. They were introduced by James Gustav Speth (co-founder of the WRI), as, respectively, ‘Mr Development’ and ‘Mr Environment’.

Extended version herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdgiehz9dU

The Congress, which was also attended by Baron Edmund de Rothschild, and the U.S. Treasury Secretary James Baker, was opened by Maurice Strong, with the remark, “We are having a great convergence today – not a Harmonic Convergence – but a global convergence.” As George Hunt identified, the meeting marked the creation of a new political ideology to end all politics: the communitarian synthesis, the final solution, which accords us all the responsibility to protect the earth, and to value the well-being of others. To do as we’re told. Also unveiled at the Congress was “the ‘World Wilderness Inventory’, prepared by the Sierra Club at the behest of the Fourth World Wilderness Congress. ‘Only areas of at least 400 square kilometers (1 million acres) were inventoried, because the constraints of this particular study did not allow identification of smaller wilderness areas, though they, too, are of interest.'”

Attorney and business mogul,  William D. Ruckelshaus was at the Congress to proclaim concern about the environment, and stress the global nature of the ‘crisis.’ Ruckelshaus was the first (and the fifth) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator and was the man who, controversially, overturned the court ruling on the safety of DDT, leading to it being banned. Several million people are said to have died of malaria as a result. Ruckelshaus is also said by many to have had connections with the Audubon Society and the Environmental Defense Fund.

George Hunt described how Ruckelshaus was, at that time,

the CEO and Chairman of the Board for BFI, Browning-Ferris Industries, one of the largest private environment companies in the world. The hypocrisy is that Ruckelshaus as EPA chief, made the very laws by which his waste company, BFI, is becoming rich. Hypocrisy number two is that Ruckelshaus and Maurice Strong were key investors in American Water Development, a company which tried to circumvent Colorado water laws and gain control of one of the largest underground reservoirs of water in the world….

Representing ‘Mr Development’ at the Congress, Rockefeller launched the concept of business ‘ethics’, paving the way for the green face presented by corporate social responsibility programs today. One of the richest men in the world telling businesses not to put profit first! As if!!! He even had the gall to blame the poorest people in the world for environmental degradation, but the overall idea was to say, ‘We’re all in this together’.

Hunt documented many of the events and issues around Agenda 21, as they were happening; hesaw right through the phony rhetoric of these powerful globalists, and the way our core values, and our natural resources, are being exploited by those with the most vested interest in managing those resources. The conversation about our core values is being controlled by those who do not exhibit these values, and are in positions of great power. It is but an ideological charade: when they want to influence development, such as to create smart cities, and reserve land for biofuel crops, they’ll say ‘it’s got to be sustainable’; and when they want to extract, pollute, grow, develop, and pump us full of pharmaceuticals, GMOs, and vaccines, they’ll say it’s for the sake of our well-being.

Gustav Speth, former head of the Council on Environmental Quality, spearheaded the Global 2000 Report for the Carter Administration, (well worth reading about here) which led to the formation of the World Resources Institute (WRI). Much of this was documented by Stephen Moore, who wrote, in 1985,

Global 2000 was the intellectual rationale for WRI; it was formed to, “provide a global perspective on resource, population, and environmental issues”.

So far, the consensus is that WRI has had surprisingly little influence on policy and academic thought. Harvey Alder, Manager of the Resource Policy Office of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, speculates that WRI may amount to “no more than a defense of Global 2000”. In fact, one of WRI’s major projects is an annual world resources report to improve global resource data collection, which is right in line with a Global 2000 recommendation. With a $4 million budget WRI could wield vast future influence.”

Speth remains a central figure at the WRI, along with Al Gore, and Ruckelshaus, who has also served on the Board of Directors of Monsanto and numerous other firms. The EPA partnered with the WRI in 2008 to advance the ecosystem services marketplace. The WRI is now headed byAndrew Steer, who has worked, “at the World Bank as Director of the Environmental Department, where he oversaw a major expansion of the Bank’s environmental program, and a number of important innovations, including natural capital accounting and the introduction of carbon trading at the World Bank.” Steer was also the chief author of the World Development Report on Environment and Development, presented at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit by World Bank.

After co-founding the WRI, Speth went on to serve “as Administrator of the United Nations Sustainable Development Program (UNDP) from 1993 to 2000. He was the highest-ranking American in the UN system: ‘in effect the No. 2 job at the U.N. next to the secretary general.'” (Source)

At a conference in 1997, he said, “Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand.” (Source)

According to their website, in 1988 the WRI took over, “the North American branch of a London-based nonprofit, the Institute for International Environment and Development (IIED), a major contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In absorbing the Washington office and its staff, WRI became an aid contractor with a portfolio of environmental and development projects around the world.” The institute then went on to work with Maurice Strong to implement Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity, at the UN’s Rio summit, which the WRI claims, “drew heavily on principles that WRI had outlined in an earlier report written in collaboration with the U.N. Environment Program and the World Conservation Union”.

Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, the WRI collaborated with the UN and World Bank to disseminate the policy of a ‘green GNP’, based upon research conducted at WRI by Robert Repetto, whereby monetary values are given to ‘ecosystem services’ to act as a guide to sustainable development. These ideas were also endorsed in a report by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in 1976 (‘The Unfinished Agenda’see chapter 9). The report was edited by Gerald O. Barney, who was also the Director of the Global 2000 Study.

As documented by Vicky Davis, the proposal to link the environment to the economy was advocated by Atari Democrats such as Al Gore, and Tim Wirth, who believed, “market forces can be harnessed to protect the environment and work better than “command and control regulations.” The upsurge in activity by political and commercial interests in environmentalism led the Fresno Bee(1989) to wonder why, “during the past 12 months — environmental politics has gone from virtual international obscurity to center stage”, and to conclude, “… the environment provides an almost perfect arena for East-West cooperation.” (Source)

In the same year, the Atlanta Journal reported, “Global climate is starting to figure into investment decisions.” Twenty-four years later, it is becoming standard practice for transnational corporations to report on their use of natural and human capital to meet their corporate social responsibility requirements. Investors increasingly expect them to prove they can satisfy all three criteria of Agenda 21 – care of the environment, equity, and the economy must all be factored in to the company’s accounts. To do this, companies can convert the goods and the bads they do into their monetary equivalents, such as carbon credits, and Payments for Ecosystem Services.

Natural capital is understood as the “flows of goods and services such as water, medicines and food”, provided by nature and people, and which benefit human well being. Nature and human beings have been re-defined as an endlessly renewable stock of assets. We are all biomass, transforming energy. The Natural Capital Declaration was signed last year by numerous financial institutions, and supported by several global organisations, including UNDP and WWF. Their 2013 ‘roadmap’ helps define what the corporations’ concept of ‘externalities’ includes:

Natural capital is not only relevant from an economic and financial perspective but equally from a cultural and social perspective – based on, for example, the work of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on indigenous community knowledge as a key facilitator of our understanding of natural capital, such as unlocking medicines for pharmaceutical production. However, the Natural Capital Declaration does not intend to quantify human capital depletion/degradation such as that associated with the loss of livelihoods.

Repetto’s work on ecosystem services (green accounting) was pushed forward by the WRI, leading to the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, which was a “global audit of ecosystem services”. This audit confirmed there were trillions of dollars worth of such services to be had, and now forms the backbone of the various green accounting methodologies, such as World Bank’s System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) was adopted as the international standard for statistical analysis of natural capital by the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) at its forty-third session in 2012. The World Bank’s Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) Partnership is helping countries to start doing natural capital accounting, partnered with several UN agencies.

Robert Costanza also co-authored the now seminal piece of research which involved providing the net monetary benefits which nature could provide. Along with several of his colleagues, it seems Costanza may now be having some doubts about pricing nature; in a post entitled ‘Conventional markets are the wrong institutions for managing ecosystem services’, he belatedly criticised the financial behemoth being created, and proposed instead that the commons should still belong to the people, and should be managed by an ‘ecosystem trust’. (Source) However, the process which will privatize the commons is in full swing. There are numerous projects on the go, there is full backing amongst all those with power, and steps are being taken by nations to bring their laws in line with the scheme, guided by GLOBE International. This is a supra-national organisation made up of legislators from around the world, all of them committed to implementing natural capital accounting in their respective countries.

The corporate world is also very actively supporting the ES marketplace, with the TEEB for Business Coalition, the Corporate Eco Forum, and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) playing major roles.

The public face of the ecosystem services marketplace is now being popularised by the media. The values being espoused are noble, but their solutions are not. Even the airlines magnate, Richard Branson, now claims to believe in the Gaia hypothesis. His non-profit foundation, Virgin Unite, claims to be super-green, such as by investing in ‘green energy’; like other billionaires Branson also advocates natural capital accounting, and was involved in setting up the Carbon War Room, making Virgin, it would seem, what passes for a sustainable airline!

Bono and U2 are also aboard the eco-bandwagon – Bono has been hanging out at Davos, and with the likes of Al Gore, whilst the band claimed to have offset the carbon from their 3600 tour (the most un-eco-friendly tour ever). (Source)

Methinks that, “…intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us” (H. G. Wells)

Thousands of rousing speeches since have united folk across the globe, not just for a common cause, but for a common solution. Just like the people who have debated the theory of anthropogenic climate change, those who speak out against the ES marketplace are scorned as ‘anti-environmentalists’, or ‘flat earthers’. Nonetheless, many minds are now open to new possibilities, so once people understand that the solution being offered has already been decided on by the very globalist banks and corporations we have come to despise, a critical mass could arise, focused on finding alternatives to valuing nature, and planned obsolescence.

Our biggest hope is the science of complex adaptive systems –the theory of climate change rests upon computer models of earth, but complexity science reveals how very complex and interwoven all of the earth’s components are, and we are an infinite distance from being able to truly model its workings upon a computer. The best we can hope for is a crude approximation, and even then, it has been shown that complex adaptive systems are self-regulating. If the ecological economists, and complexity scientists, could see the bigger picture of future natural capital accountancy . . .

  • the plans for large monocultures of genetically modified biomass crops, for biofuel, and thousands of household products
  • the increasing inclusion of nuclear energy in the definition of sustainability (as arenewable)
  • the effects of patented GMO crops, and schemes such as REDD and carbon credits, upon local communities
  • the effects of geo-engineering and nano-technology
  • the rise in surveillance that monitoring of natural and human capital entails

. . . I think they would agree that the trade in ecosystem service credits is A VERY BAD IDEA, and has little to do with caring for the earth, or its people. Once fully established, the ES marketplace could make our current fiat system redundant. The future is biomimicry, and the economy is set to by circular – modeled on what we have and who we are, it will be used for simulations, to make predictions. This is the golden nugget for the powers that be. One we shall deny them.

Notes:

[1] such as computer simulations claiming to model the earth’s climate in the 1960s, and theReport from Iron Mountain – and a great many other things that will have to wait for another article!

Julie Beal is a UK-based independent researcher who has been studying the globalist agenda for more than 20 years. Please visit her website, Get Mind Smart, for a wide range of information about Agenda 21, Communitarianism, Ethics, Bioscience, and much more.

10 13 11 flagbar


Rockefeller and Ruckelshaus New Economy Rising

07/29/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/rockefeller-and-ruckelshaus-new-economy.html

 Julie Beal

Activist Post

Putting a price tag on the services provided by nature, and human beings, was first proposed by ecological economists some 40 years ago, as a way to protect biodiversity, and to give a truer figure for the GDP of a nation. This is done by monitoring all resources (natural capital), and the well-being of the people, and the services they provide ‘for free’, such as caring for elderly relatives. The GDP would then reflect the ‘true wealth’ of the country – essential knowledge for globalist investors.

The idea fleshed out and evolved amidst a hyped-up media panic about the future of the earth –funded by those in power, and with much to gain from using the excuse of ‘environmentalism’. Now, a global market for ecosystem service credits is being steadily established, which would one day affect us all profoundly. The global commons is being sold off! Some peoples are already being charged ‘user fees’ for using the services that nature provides, such as water, whilst fortunes for many of the power elite have been secured with the purchase of carbon credits, with many more ecosystem ‘credits’ to come. These credits, and the community currencies also being promoted by the elite, signify the endlessly ‘renewable’ stock of assets supplied by natural, and human/social, capital. As our current system collapses, a New Economy is rising.

The key turning point was the launch of Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in 1992; however, there were decades of events pre-dating this launch[1].  Suffice it to say, understanding that future prosperity lay in controlling natural resources, key global elites had established conservation and preservation initiatives throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, such as the founding of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (‘the Fauna’) in 1903, under the patronage of the Royal Crown, and the creation of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, by Charles Rothschild in 1912. (Source)

The concept of ecology was increasingly popularised throughout the start of the century, with a notable change in the public mindset by the 1960s. James S. Bowman, (The Environmental Movement: An Assessment of Ecological Politics, 1976) attributed this to a succession of significant events, such as the threat of nuclear fallout from a distance, the vision of earth from above, and campaigns such as the Sierra Club’s plea to save the Grand Canyon from being dammed and flooded. Edward Bernays would have approved of the media fanfare for Earth Day in 1970.
Changing the public mindset readied the world for the political pantomime that began in earnest in the 1980s, when ‘Environmentalism’ became the property of the rich. Replacing the flower-power generation, and their profligate hedonism, the new environmentalists were politicians and profiteers, claiming to care as much as the hippies before them, but in a ‘rational’, mainstream, way. One of the first key moves was the formation of the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 1982, with a $15 million donation from the MacArthur Foundation. Another key event was the Fourth World Wilderness Congress in Colorado, U.S.A. in 1988, when onto the stage stepped Mr Rockefeller, and Mr Ruckelshaus. They were introduced by James Gustav Speth (co-founder of the WRI), as, respectively, ‘Mr Development’ and ‘Mr Environment’.

Extended version herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdgiehz9dU

The Congress, which was also attended by Baron Edmund de Rothschild, and the U.S. Treasury Secretary James Baker, was opened by Maurice Strong, with the remark, “We are having a great convergence today – not a Harmonic Convergence – but a global convergence.” As George Hunt identified, the meeting marked the creation of a new political ideology to end all politics: the communitarian synthesis, the final solution, which accords us all the responsibility to protect the earth, and to value the well-being of others. To do as we’re told. Also unveiled at the Congress was “the ‘World Wilderness Inventory’, prepared by the Sierra Club at the behest of the Fourth World Wilderness Congress. ‘Only areas of at least 400 square kilometers (1 million acres) were inventoried, because the constraints of this particular study did not allow identification of smaller wilderness areas, though they, too, are of interest.'”

Attorney and business mogul,  William D. Ruckelshaus was at the Congress to proclaim concern about the environment, and stress the global nature of the ‘crisis.’ Ruckelshaus was the first (and the fifth) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator and was the man who, controversially, overturned the court ruling on the safety of DDT, leading to it being banned. Several million people are said to have died of malaria as a result. Ruckelshaus is also said by many to have had connections with the Audubon Society and the Environmental Defense Fund.

George Hunt described how Ruckelshaus was, at that time,

the CEO and Chairman of the Board for BFI, Browning-Ferris Industries, one of the largest private environment companies in the world. The hypocrisy is that Ruckelshaus as EPA chief, made the very laws by which his waste company, BFI, is becoming rich. Hypocrisy number two is that Ruckelshaus and Maurice Strong were key investors in American Water Development, a company which tried to circumvent Colorado water laws and gain control of one of the largest underground reservoirs of water in the world….

Representing ‘Mr Development’ at the Congress, Rockefeller launched the concept of business ‘ethics’, paving the way for the green face presented by corporate social responsibility programs today. One of the richest men in the world telling businesses not to put profit first! As if!!! He even had the gall to blame the poorest people in the world for environmental degradation, but the overall idea was to say, ‘We’re all in this together’.

Hunt documented many of the events and issues around Agenda 21, as they were happening; hesaw right through the phony rhetoric of these powerful globalists, and the way our core values, and our natural resources, are being exploited by those with the most vested interest in managing those resources. The conversation about our core values is being controlled by those who do not exhibit these values, and are in positions of great power. It is but an ideological charade: when they want to influence development, such as to create smart cities, and reserve land for biofuel crops, they’ll say ‘it’s got to be sustainable’; and when they want to extract, pollute, grow, develop, and pump us full of pharmaceuticals, GMOs, and vaccines, they’ll say it’s for the sake of our well-being.

Gustav Speth, former head of the Council on Environmental Quality, spearheaded the Global 2000 Report for the Carter Administration, (well worth reading about here) which led to the formation of the World Resources Institute (WRI). Much of this was documented by Stephen Moore, who wrote, in 1985,

Global 2000 was the intellectual rationale for WRI; it was formed to, “provide a global perspective on resource, population, and environmental issues”.

So far, the consensus is that WRI has had surprisingly little influence on policy and academic thought. Harvey Alder, Manager of the Resource Policy Office of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, speculates that WRI may amount to “no more than a defense of Global 2000”. In fact, one of WRI’s major projects is an annual world resources report to improve global resource data collection, which is right in line with a Global 2000 recommendation. With a $4 million budget WRI could wield vast future influence.”

Speth remains a central figure at the WRI, along with Al Gore, and Ruckelshaus, who has also served on the Board of Directors of Monsanto and numerous other firms. The EPA partnered with the WRI in 2008 to advance the ecosystem services marketplace. The WRI is now headed byAndrew Steer, who has worked, “at the World Bank as Director of the Environmental Department, where he oversaw a major expansion of the Bank’s environmental program, and a number of important innovations, including natural capital accounting and the introduction of carbon trading at the World Bank.” Steer was also the chief author of the World Development Report on Environment and Development, presented at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit by World Bank.

After co-founding the WRI, Speth went on to serve “as Administrator of the United Nations Sustainable Development Program (UNDP) from 1993 to 2000. He was the highest-ranking American in the UN system: ‘in effect the No. 2 job at the U.N. next to the secretary general.'” (Source)

At a conference in 1997, he said, “Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand.” (Source)

According to their website, in 1988 the WRI took over, “the North American branch of a London-based nonprofit, the Institute for International Environment and Development (IIED), a major contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In absorbing the Washington office and its staff, WRI became an aid contractor with a portfolio of environmental and development projects around the world.” The institute then went on to work with Maurice Strong to implement Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity, at the UN’s Rio summit, which the WRI claims, “drew heavily on principles that WRI had outlined in an earlier report written in collaboration with the U.N. Environment Program and the World Conservation Union”.

Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, the WRI collaborated with the UN and World Bank to disseminate the policy of a ‘green GNP’, based upon research conducted at WRI by Robert Repetto, whereby monetary values are given to ‘ecosystem services’ to act as a guide to sustainable development. These ideas were also endorsed in a report by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in 1976 (‘The Unfinished Agenda’see chapter 9). The report was edited by Gerald O. Barney, who was also the Director of the Global 2000 Study.

As documented by Vicky Davis, the proposal to link the environment to the economy was advocated by Atari Democrats such as Al Gore, and Tim Wirth, who believed, “market forces can be harnessed to protect the environment and work better than “command and control regulations.” The upsurge in activity by political and commercial interests in environmentalism led the Fresno Bee(1989) to wonder why, “during the past 12 months — environmental politics has gone from virtual international obscurity to center stage”, and to conclude, “… the environment provides an almost perfect arena for East-West cooperation.” (Source)

In the same year, the Atlanta Journal reported, “Global climate is starting to figure into investment decisions.” Twenty-four years later, it is becoming standard practice for transnational corporations to report on their use of natural and human capital to meet their corporate social responsibility requirements. Investors increasingly expect them to prove they can satisfy all three criteria of Agenda 21 – care of the environment, equity, and the economy must all be factored in to the company’s accounts. To do this, companies can convert the goods and the bads they do into their monetary equivalents, such as carbon credits, and Payments for Ecosystem Services.

Natural capital is understood as the “flows of goods and services such as water, medicines and food”, provided by nature and people, and which benefit human well being. Nature and human beings have been re-defined as an endlessly renewable stock of assets. We are all biomass, transforming energy. The Natural Capital Declaration was signed last year by numerous financial institutions, and supported by several global organisations, including UNDP and WWF. Their 2013 ‘roadmap’ helps define what the corporations’ concept of ‘externalities’ includes:

Natural capital is not only relevant from an economic and financial perspective but equally from a cultural and social perspective – based on, for example, the work of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on indigenous community knowledge as a key facilitator of our understanding of natural capital, such as unlocking medicines for pharmaceutical production. However, the Natural Capital Declaration does not intend to quantify human capital depletion/degradation such as that associated with the loss of livelihoods.

Repetto’s work on ecosystem services (green accounting) was pushed forward by the WRI, leading to the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, which was a “global audit of ecosystem services”. This audit confirmed there were trillions of dollars worth of such services to be had, and now forms the backbone of the various green accounting methodologies, such as World Bank’s System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) was adopted as the international standard for statistical analysis of natural capital by the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) at its forty-third session in 2012. The World Bank’s Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) Partnership is helping countries to start doing natural capital accounting, partnered with several UN agencies.

Robert Costanza also co-authored the now seminal piece of research which involved providing the net monetary benefits which nature could provide. Along with several of his colleagues, it seems Costanza may now be having some doubts about pricing nature; in a post entitled ‘Conventional markets are the wrong institutions for managing ecosystem services’, he belatedly criticised the financial behemoth being created, and proposed instead that the commons should still belong to the people, and should be managed by an ‘ecosystem trust’. (Source) However, the process which will privatize the commons is in full swing. There are numerous projects on the go, there is full backing amongst all those with power, and steps are being taken by nations to bring their laws in line with the scheme, guided by GLOBE International. This is a supra-national organisation made up of legislators from around the world, all of them committed to implementing natural capital accounting in their respective countries.

The corporate world is also very actively supporting the ES marketplace, with the TEEB for Business Coalition, the Corporate Eco Forum, and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) playing major roles.

The public face of the ecosystem services marketplace is now being popularised by the media. The values being espoused are noble, but their solutions are not. Even the airlines magnate, Richard Branson, now claims to believe in the Gaia hypothesis. His non-profit foundation, Virgin Unite, claims to be super-green, such as by investing in ‘green energy’; like other billionaires Branson also advocates natural capital accounting, and was involved in setting up the Carbon War Room, making Virgin, it would seem, what passes for a sustainable airline!

Bono and U2 are also aboard the eco-bandwagon – Bono has been hanging out at Davos, and with the likes of Al Gore, whilst the band claimed to have offset the carbon from their 3600 tour (the most un-eco-friendly tour ever). (Source)

Methinks that, “…intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us” (H. G. Wells)

Thousands of rousing speeches since have united folk across the globe, not just for a common cause, but for a common solution. Just like the people who have debated the theory of anthropogenic climate change, those who speak out against the ES marketplace are scorned as ‘anti-environmentalists’, or ‘flat earthers’. Nonetheless, many minds are now open to new possibilities, so once people understand that the solution being offered has already been decided on by the very globalist banks and corporations we have come to despise, a critical mass could arise, focused on finding alternatives to valuing nature, and planned obsolescence.

Our biggest hope is the science of complex adaptive systems –the theory of climate change rests upon computer models of earth, but complexity science reveals how very complex and interwoven all of the earth’s components are, and we are an infinite distance from being able to truly model its workings upon a computer. The best we can hope for is a crude approximation, and even then, it has been shown that complex adaptive systems are self-regulating. If the ecological economists, and complexity scientists, could see the bigger picture of future natural capital accountancy . . .

  • the plans for large monocultures of genetically modified biomass crops, for biofuel, and thousands of household products
  • the increasing inclusion of nuclear energy in the definition of sustainability (as arenewable)
  • the effects of patented GMO crops, and schemes such as REDD and carbon credits, upon local communities
  • the effects of geo-engineering and nano-technology
  • the rise in surveillance that monitoring of natural and human capital entails

. . . I think they would agree that the trade in ecosystem service credits is A VERY BAD IDEA, and has little to do with caring for the earth, or its people. Once fully established, the ES marketplace could make our current fiat system redundant. The future is biomimicry, and the economy is set to by circular – modeled on what we have and who we are, it will be used for simulations, to make predictions. This is the golden nugget for the powers that be. One we shall deny them.

Notes:

[1] such as computer simulations claiming to model the earth’s climate in the 1960s, and theReport from Iron Mountain – and a great many other things that will have to wait for another article!

Julie Beal is a UK-based independent researcher who has been studying the globalist agenda for more than 20 years. Please visit her website, Get Mind Smart, for a wide range of information about Agenda 21, Communitarianism, Ethics, Bioscience, and much more.

10 13 11 flagbar


UK Internet Porn Censor to Also Block Conspiracy Theorie

07/29/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/uk-internet-porn-censor-to-also-block.html

 Big Brother Weds the Nanny Who’s Pregnant with Internet Censorship.

 Eric Blair

Activist Post

The totalitarian tip-toe is tap dancing to tyranny with the proposed Internet censorship bill in the United Kingdom. In the name of keeping children safe from porn, the UK law will impose Internet filters on far more than just porn.

According to Wired:

As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on “violent material”, “extremist related content”, “anorexia and eating disorder websites” and “suicide related websites”, “alcohol” and “smoking”. But the list doesn’t stop there. It even extends to blocking “web forums” and “esoteric material“, whatever that is. “Web blocking circumvention tools” is also included, of course.

The definition of “esoteric” makes clear that censorship of broad topics is the goal of this so-called ISP filter:

es·o·ter·ic [es-uh-ter-ik] adjective
1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest;
2. belonging to the select few.
3. private; secret; confidential.
Translation: anything outside the acceptable mainstream narrative will be filtered. In short, the free flow of information is under assault with this law.

The organization Open Rights Group refers to this totalitarian tip-toe as “sleepwalking into censorship“:

What’s clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind ‘nudge theory‘ and ‘choice architecture’ that is popular with Cameron.

The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there’s not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website’s audience.

Open Rights also says the law could be used to play economic favorites, thus undermining the free market on the Internet:

There comes a point that it is simply better to place your sales through Amazon and ebay, and circulate your news and promotions exclusively through Facebook and Twitter, as you know none of these will ever be filtered.

It seems Western government’s voracity for Internet censorship has increased many fold since the Snowden revelations about digital spying.

Direct Internet censorship was imposed on millions of U.S. government computers blocking them from viewing any material related to the Snowden leak, which at the time of the leak and even now represents a large percentage of all political and technical news stories.

And as John Naughton of the Guardian points out today, the real story about the Snowden leak that everyone is ignoring are the implications on Internet freedom, which he lists as the following:

The first is that the days of the internet as a truly global network are numbered. It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty.

Second, the issue of internet governance is about to become very contentious. Given what we now know about how the US and its satraps have been abusing their privileged position in the global infrastructure, the idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has become untenable.

Third, as Evgeny Morozov has pointed out, the Obama administration’s “internet freedom agenda” has been exposed as patronising cant. “Today,” he writes, “the rhetoric of the ‘internet freedom agenda’ looks as trustworthy as George Bush’s ‘freedom agenda’ after Abu Ghraib.”

As a final note, porn filters already exist for parents in the private marketplace if they choose to use them.  So, there is no need for governments to make them mandatory, which indicates that the real agenda behind these new proposed laws is much more about censorship than protecting children.

10 13 11 flagbar


UK Internet Porn Censor to Also Block Conspiracy Theorie

07/29/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/uk-internet-porn-censor-to-also-block.html

 Big Brother Weds the Nanny Who’s Pregnant with Internet Censorship.

 Eric Blair

Activist Post

The totalitarian tip-toe is tap dancing to tyranny with the proposed Internet censorship bill in the United Kingdom. In the name of keeping children safe from porn, the UK law will impose Internet filters on far more than just porn.

According to Wired:

As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on “violent material”, “extremist related content”, “anorexia and eating disorder websites” and “suicide related websites”, “alcohol” and “smoking”. But the list doesn’t stop there. It even extends to blocking “web forums” and “esoteric material“, whatever that is. “Web blocking circumvention tools” is also included, of course.

The definition of “esoteric” makes clear that censorship of broad topics is the goal of this so-called ISP filter:

es·o·ter·ic [es-uh-ter-ik] adjective
1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest;
2. belonging to the select few.
3. private; secret; confidential.
Translation: anything outside the acceptable mainstream narrative will be filtered. In short, the free flow of information is under assault with this law.

The organization Open Rights Group refers to this totalitarian tip-toe as “sleepwalking into censorship“:

What’s clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind ‘nudge theory‘ and ‘choice architecture’ that is popular with Cameron.

The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there’s not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website’s audience.

Open Rights also says the law could be used to play economic favorites, thus undermining the free market on the Internet:

There comes a point that it is simply better to place your sales through Amazon and ebay, and circulate your news and promotions exclusively through Facebook and Twitter, as you know none of these will ever be filtered.

It seems Western government’s voracity for Internet censorship has increased many fold since the Snowden revelations about digital spying.

Direct Internet censorship was imposed on millions of U.S. government computers blocking them from viewing any material related to the Snowden leak, which at the time of the leak and even now represents a large percentage of all political and technical news stories.

And as John Naughton of the Guardian points out today, the real story about the Snowden leak that everyone is ignoring are the implications on Internet freedom, which he lists as the following:

The first is that the days of the internet as a truly global network are numbered. It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty.

Second, the issue of internet governance is about to become very contentious. Given what we now know about how the US and its satraps have been abusing their privileged position in the global infrastructure, the idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has become untenable.

Third, as Evgeny Morozov has pointed out, the Obama administration’s “internet freedom agenda” has been exposed as patronising cant. “Today,” he writes, “the rhetoric of the ‘internet freedom agenda’ looks as trustworthy as George Bush’s ‘freedom agenda’ after Abu Ghraib.”

As a final note, porn filters already exist for parents in the private marketplace if they choose to use them.  So, there is no need for governments to make them mandatory, which indicates that the real agenda behind these new proposed laws is much more about censorship than protecting children.

10 13 11 flagbar


Insuring Deposits Ensuring Insolvency

07/24/2013

http://mises.org/daily/6487/Insuring-Deposits-Ensuring-Insolvency

 by Frank Hollenbeck

The US government is trying to implement the 21st century version of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The proposed bill would separate traditional banks (which are backed by the FDIC) from riskier financial institutions that include companies focused on investment banking, private equity and more. This is to give the impression that governments are taking actions against the financial sector whose actions nearly brought the entire world economy to its knees back in 2008. The implicit assumption is: if this legislation is passed, the banking sector will never again be a source of financial panics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, the housing bubble would still have existed without investment banking. The liar loans and no-money-down loans were all commercial banking activities. If these mortgage loans had never existed, investment banks could not have repackaged and sold then to mutual and pension funds, and insurance companies. By setting rates too low for too long, the central bank created an environment for bubbles. Glass-Steagall would have been a bump in the road. If a child goes into a candy store and “pigs out”, do you blame the child (the bankers), or the parents (the central bank) for putting him in the candy store in the first place?

Second, the US experienced several severe financial crises during the 19th century: the panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 among others. At the time, most investment banking activities did not even exist. The banking sector’s ability to create money out of thin air allowed the excessive credit growth, unjustified by the resources liberated by real savings, which spurred economic activity during the boom phase of the business cycle. This growth could not have occurred without fractional reserve banking. End that, and you end most boom and bust cycles.

The Glass-Steagall act was completely repealed in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, allowing commercial banks to easily enter investment banking activities. In other words, fractional reserve banking and deposit insurance allowed banks to take on risky gambles, and now they were being allowed to engage in even riskier gambles. The recent legislation such as Dodd-Frank, the Vickers report in the UK and the liikanen report in Continental Europe all try to limit commercial bank activity into investment banking. The essential idea behind some of these new rules is each gamble would be assigned a risk weighting. A commercial bank could then only take on so many bets before being required to split off these risky activities into a separate entity.

No one, of course, is asking the critical question: why are banks allowed to take these risky gambles with deposits in the first place? They shouldn’t be.

Deposit insurance is one of the two factors which allows banks to take such risky gambles. Created in 1933, it is a perfect example of government policy that ultimately will be determined to have done more harm than good. It was supposed to reduce risks, but has done just the opposite. When governments provide flood insurance the private sector would never consider, people then build homes in areas prone to suffer from severe flooding.

Prior to deposit insurance, people were careful about where they deposited their money to pay rent or food bills. If a bank ran into trouble by undertaking poor lending practices, people would quickly try to pull their money out of the bank. Bank runs were a good thing because runs served to force banks to be extremely careful about their lending practices. The threat of a bank run maintained sound incentives.

Deposit insurance is a perfect example of Frederick Bastiat’s parable of the broken window: what is seen, and what is not seen. For about 70 years, bank runs have been eliminated; giving depositors what some would say is the illusion of protection. That is what is seen. What is not seen is, without insurance, banks would have been taking much less risks with deposits, and governments would have been less able to finance spending through bank purchases of their bonds.

Europe, today, is a perfect example of the disastrous effects of deposit insurance. Had it not existed, the 2008 crisis might have never occurred, or been much milder or occurred much earlier, and the debt situation of governments worldwide would be completely different. It is surprising how many free market economists defend deposit insurance although it is a product that the free market, prior to 1933, never considered worth undertaking.

Why was Ireland forced to bail out its banks? Why don’t governments treat banks like any other business? If Nokia was unable to sell phones competitively, it should go bankrupt. The government should not be bailing out private businesses. Again, it is the fault of deposit insurance. Although a bank may no longer exist, the government is still liable for the banks’ liabilities, its deposits, because of deposit insurance.

Today, many Italian or Spanish banks have used deposits to buy large percentages of their government’s debt. If either Spain or Italy is closed out of the financial markets, which is getting more and more likely, the value of their debt will drop significantly as Greek debt did back in 2010. These banks will go bankrupt instantly, and the Italian or Spanish governments will be on the hook for the deposits that served as funds to purchase their bonds since these deposits are insured!

These governments will then have to print their way out of the problem. However, this would go against the ECB’s mandate and would probably face a German veto. A breakup of the Euro would then be inevitable. An official rate would then be set between Euros and liras or pesetas. This rate, however, would have nothing to do with the market rate. Depositors holding less than 100,000 euros would get their money back in liras or pesetas. However, this new currency would not be able to buy much. Deposit insurance guarantees the nominal value of deposits, not its real value: hence, the illusion of protection.

The economic consequences of the hyperinflation inevitable in Spain or Italy will have worldwide repercussion. None of this would have happened without fractional reserve banking. Deposit insurance would then have been unnecessary.

We need to end this constant race between banks and regulators. We already have more compliance officers than loan officers. All this new banking legislation will probably make the situation even worse. Banks will always be able to use new technologies and new financial instruments to stay one step ahead of the regulators. We continue to put bandages on a system that is rotten to the core. Banking in its current form is not capitalism. It is fraud and crony capitalism, kept afloat by ever-more desperate government interventions. It should be dismantled. 

10 13 11 flagbar


Insuring Deposits Ensuring Insolvency

07/24/2013

http://mises.org/daily/6487/Insuring-Deposits-Ensuring-Insolvency

 by Frank Hollenbeck

The US government is trying to implement the 21st century version of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The proposed bill would separate traditional banks (which are backed by the FDIC) from riskier financial institutions that include companies focused on investment banking, private equity and more. This is to give the impression that governments are taking actions against the financial sector whose actions nearly brought the entire world economy to its knees back in 2008. The implicit assumption is: if this legislation is passed, the banking sector will never again be a source of financial panics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, the housing bubble would still have existed without investment banking. The liar loans and no-money-down loans were all commercial banking activities. If these mortgage loans had never existed, investment banks could not have repackaged and sold then to mutual and pension funds, and insurance companies. By setting rates too low for too long, the central bank created an environment for bubbles. Glass-Steagall would have been a bump in the road. If a child goes into a candy store and “pigs out”, do you blame the child (the bankers), or the parents (the central bank) for putting him in the candy store in the first place?

Second, the US experienced several severe financial crises during the 19th century: the panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 among others. At the time, most investment banking activities did not even exist. The banking sector’s ability to create money out of thin air allowed the excessive credit growth, unjustified by the resources liberated by real savings, which spurred economic activity during the boom phase of the business cycle. This growth could not have occurred without fractional reserve banking. End that, and you end most boom and bust cycles.

The Glass-Steagall act was completely repealed in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, allowing commercial banks to easily enter investment banking activities. In other words, fractional reserve banking and deposit insurance allowed banks to take on risky gambles, and now they were being allowed to engage in even riskier gambles. The recent legislation such as Dodd-Frank, the Vickers report in the UK and the liikanen report in Continental Europe all try to limit commercial bank activity into investment banking. The essential idea behind some of these new rules is each gamble would be assigned a risk weighting. A commercial bank could then only take on so many bets before being required to split off these risky activities into a separate entity.

No one, of course, is asking the critical question: why are banks allowed to take these risky gambles with deposits in the first place? They shouldn’t be.

Deposit insurance is one of the two factors which allows banks to take such risky gambles. Created in 1933, it is a perfect example of government policy that ultimately will be determined to have done more harm than good. It was supposed to reduce risks, but has done just the opposite. When governments provide flood insurance the private sector would never consider, people then build homes in areas prone to suffer from severe flooding.

Prior to deposit insurance, people were careful about where they deposited their money to pay rent or food bills. If a bank ran into trouble by undertaking poor lending practices, people would quickly try to pull their money out of the bank. Bank runs were a good thing because runs served to force banks to be extremely careful about their lending practices. The threat of a bank run maintained sound incentives.

Deposit insurance is a perfect example of Frederick Bastiat’s parable of the broken window: what is seen, and what is not seen. For about 70 years, bank runs have been eliminated; giving depositors what some would say is the illusion of protection. That is what is seen. What is not seen is, without insurance, banks would have been taking much less risks with deposits, and governments would have been less able to finance spending through bank purchases of their bonds.

Europe, today, is a perfect example of the disastrous effects of deposit insurance. Had it not existed, the 2008 crisis might have never occurred, or been much milder or occurred much earlier, and the debt situation of governments worldwide would be completely different. It is surprising how many free market economists defend deposit insurance although it is a product that the free market, prior to 1933, never considered worth undertaking.

Why was Ireland forced to bail out its banks? Why don’t governments treat banks like any other business? If Nokia was unable to sell phones competitively, it should go bankrupt. The government should not be bailing out private businesses. Again, it is the fault of deposit insurance. Although a bank may no longer exist, the government is still liable for the banks’ liabilities, its deposits, because of deposit insurance.

Today, many Italian or Spanish banks have used deposits to buy large percentages of their government’s debt. If either Spain or Italy is closed out of the financial markets, which is getting more and more likely, the value of their debt will drop significantly as Greek debt did back in 2010. These banks will go bankrupt instantly, and the Italian or Spanish governments will be on the hook for the deposits that served as funds to purchase their bonds since these deposits are insured!

These governments will then have to print their way out of the problem. However, this would go against the ECB’s mandate and would probably face a German veto. A breakup of the Euro would then be inevitable. An official rate would then be set between Euros and liras or pesetas. This rate, however, would have nothing to do with the market rate. Depositors holding less than 100,000 euros would get their money back in liras or pesetas. However, this new currency would not be able to buy much. Deposit insurance guarantees the nominal value of deposits, not its real value: hence, the illusion of protection.

The economic consequences of the hyperinflation inevitable in Spain or Italy will have worldwide repercussion. None of this would have happened without fractional reserve banking. Deposit insurance would then have been unnecessary.

We need to end this constant race between banks and regulators. We already have more compliance officers than loan officers. All this new banking legislation will probably make the situation even worse. Banks will always be able to use new technologies and new financial instruments to stay one step ahead of the regulators. We continue to put bandages on a system that is rotten to the core. Banking in its current form is not capitalism. It is fraud and crony capitalism, kept afloat by ever-more desperate government interventions. It should be dismantled. 

10 13 11 flagbar


The Biggest Oil Discovery In 50 Years?

07/24/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/the-biggest-oil-discovery-in-50-years.html

By Michael Snyder

In a virtually uninhabitable section of South Australia, a discovery has been made which could rock the world.  Some are calling it the biggest discovery of oil in 50 years.  Earlier this year, a company called Linc Energy announced that tests had revealed that there was a minimum of 3.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent sitting under more than 65,000 square kilometres of land that it owns in the Arckaringa Basin.

But that is the minimum number. It has been projected that there could ultimately be up to 233 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the area.  If that turns out to be accurate, the oil sitting under that land is worth approximately 20 trillion dollars, and it would be roughly equivalent to the total amount of oil sitting under the sands of Saudi Arabia.  In essence, it would be a massive game changer.

If the 233 billion barrel figure is accurate (and some have even suggested that the true number could actually be 400 billion barrels), that would make it nearly 10 times larger than the Bakken formation, 17 times larger than the Marcellus discovery and 80 times larger than the Eagle Ford deposit down in Texas.

It would also mean that Australia now has more “black gold” than the nations of Iran, Iraq, Canada and Venezuela.
The closest town to this oil discovery, Coober Pedy, is in the process of being totally transformed.  It normally only has about 1,700 inhabitants, but news of this discovery has drawn in 20,000 additional people already and real estate prices in the town are absolutely skyrocketing.

So does all of this mean that gas prices will go down soon?

Well, unfortunately that is not likely to be the case.

First of all, the oil in this formation in Australia is going to be quite expensive to extract.  It has been estimated that it is going to cost up to 300 million dollars just to get this site ready for production.

In addition, many of our politicians are absolutely determined to greatly punish the use of oil because they believe that it is the primary cause of global warming.  So they continue to raise taxes on gasoline consumption.

Today, motorists in the United States pay an average of 49.5 centsof taxes per gallon of gasoline, and in the state of California motorists pay an average of 71.9 cents of taxes per gallon of gasoline.

Hopefully the price of gasoline will come down a bit over the next few years, but even if it does I would not expect it to come down too much.

But what we can be sure of is that the world is not going to run out of oil any time soon.  Those that have been predicting that we are are on the verge of an “energy doomsday” can take a rest for a while.

Sometimes it is funny to look back and remember some of the ridiculous things that our politicians were saying about oil in the old days.  For example, U.S. President Jimmy Carter made the following statement back in 1977….

Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.

That prediction didn’t exactly work out for him did it?

It is time that the American people were told the truth about our energy situation, and the truth is that we have plenty of energy resources.  The following stats have been updated from one of myprevious articles

#1 Back in 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey told the American people that the Bakken Shale formation in western North Dakota and eastern Montana only held 151 million barrels of oil.  Today, government officials are admitting that it holds 7.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, and some analysts believe that the actual number could be closer to 24 billion barrels of oil.

#2 It is estimated that there are 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the tar sands of Utah.

#3 It is estimated that there are 86 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.

#4 It is believed that there are 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River formation in Wyoming.

#5 Overall, the United States is sitting on approximately1.442 trillion barrels of recoverable oil.

#6 According to the Institute of Energy Research, the United States has an 88 year supply of natural gas.

#7 According to the Institute of Energy Research, the United States has a 169 year supply of oil.

#8 According to the Institute of Energy Research, the United States has a 465 year supply of coal.

#9 Goldman Sachs is predicting that the United States will be the number one oil producing country in the world by the year 2017.

So the bottom line is that we have plenty of energy resources.  We do not need to be importing oil from OPEC or anyone else.

But just because we are not going to run out of oil, natural gas or coal any time soon does not mean that we should not be developing alternative energy resources.  We should definitely be seeking ways to produce energy more cheaply, more cleanly and more efficiently.

If America does not end up leading the world in developing new forms of energy, we should be ashamed of ourselves.  And right now, the Chinese appear to be way ahead of us as far as thorium energy is concerned, and Italian scientists appear to be ahead of our own scientists in developing “cold fusion” technology.

So yes, let’s be glad that we are not going to be facing a crippling energy crisis in this generation, but let’s also not be complacent.  There are lots of new technologies out there just waiting to be developed, and the rewards are going to go to those that are able to develop them first.

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

10 13 11 flagbar


Ten Benefits of Expatriation

07/24/2013

http://www.caseyresearch.com/crpmkt/AmEx.php?ppref=ATP068BN0810A

 Published by Casey Research

The following is an excerpt from the free 29-page American Expatriation Guide, written by a former U.S. citizen who wants to remain anonymous. Read what he has to say – from a “been there, done that” perspective – and maybe take your own first steps to move to greener pastures.

Everybody has their own personal reasons for expatriating, but here are some of the benefits:

1) Freedom from the global U.S. tax net. Taxing you no matter where you breathe on this earth is wanton American exceptionalism. What other nations don‘t dare do to their citizens, the U.S. government doesn‘t think twice about. Once you renounce, it‘s your choice either to live the rest of your life free of any tax net, or to pick a place you want to be year-round and opt into the tax system (assuming it’s not a tax-free jurisdiction). If you do, you‘ll at least know you have the freedom to walk away from it by simply moving elsewhere.

Taxes in the U.S. are already high, and rates are set to increase across the board. To gain some perspective, it’s clarifying to calculate the number of months per year you work for the government. How many months did it take to pay all the federal, state, and local income taxes, capital gains taxes, FICA taxes, property taxes, and AMT – plus the raft of permitting, licensing and accounting costs you incur over the course of a year? Add corporate taxes if you’re a business owner. And don’t forget the new 3.8% health care surcharge tax on all investment income, including dividends. Be honest and add it all up. You’ll then have a decent idea of how much it costs you in time and money to be a U.S. citizen every year. That cost will rise dramatically going forward.

Here’s the take-away: The biggest guaranteed return on your capital that you’ll ever have is investing your money free of taxes. Do some long-run compounding calculations with and without taxes to see what I mean. I’ll wager John Templeton did.

2) Freedom from the death taxIts political label is the “estate tax,” but the fact is the tax is based solely on your demise. I used to think the death tax only applied to gains on assets that had not been taxed already. How naïve I was! It grabs half of all your assets, regardless of the fact that you‘ve paid taxes on them.

If you have over a few million dollars net worth, your heirs will be writing a heart-stopping check to the IRS. They also may be forced to liquidate your assets to raise cash. This has happened to countless small businesses and family farms. And if you’re a young, talented entrepreneur who goes on to earn substantial wealth over the course of your life, the death tax has you in its crosshairs too.

The death tax is 45% now and is scheduled to jump to 55% in 2011. Either way, the amount is staggering. Expatriation lifts the death tax burden from your children and other heirs.

3) Freedom from the U.S. government’s War on Solvency. Washington‘s crazed debt addiction is uncontrollable and endemic. U.S. politicians have strapped an inconceivably large debt burden on the backs of their subjects. It pays to spend some time on http://www.usdebtclock.org. The multi-trillion dollar debt avalanche roars on, headed straight towards economic hell. After “Debt Per Taxpayer” and “Liability Per Citizen,” check out “U.S. Unfunded Liabilities” to see a number that’s suited to astronomical calculations – not economics.

Don‘t be tricked into thinking this is a partisan issue. It‘s sobering to review the debt records of both Democratic and Republican administrations… to behold what politicians do when given trillions of dollars of other people‘s money. They spend it all – and then borrow trillions more! Of course, the burden of servicing that debt is on you, not them. Their six-figure salaries are guaranteed, along with their uber-perks and fully funded pension plans.

While often described as “the richest nation in the world,” the reality is that the U.S. is the most indebted nation, by a country mile. No other government comes close to matching the debt burden that has been dumped onto every taxpayer. The U.S. government is rampantly incurring debt in your name, and you have no way to stop it or slow it down. Standing in free speech zones with protest signs didn‘t work when it came to war and crony bailouts, and it won‘t work for the debt burden either.

Besides, it‘s already too late. The interest alone on the debt is trillions of dollars. Trillions…as in thousands upon thousands of billions. Google “interest due on U.S. debt” if you think I‘ve veered into the realm of fiction. Once you’ve returned, I think you‘ll agree: The one truly meaningful act you can take as an individual is to opt out. Unload the government’s debt burden off your back. Don’t let yourself or your family be a casualty of the government’s War on Solvency.

4) Freedom from being treated like a “toxic citizen.” When traveling abroad, being a U.S. passport holder used to be a positive thing. Now it‘s an albatross. The New York Times article I cited earlier explains it plainly: Americans abroad are being treated like “toxic citizens.” They’re cut off from banking and other business and investing opportunities solely because of their U.S. citizenship.

Typical currency controls don‘t permit you to take money out of a country. The U.S. doesn‘t have that (yet). Instead, and this is quite clever, the government enacts laws and regulations that function as indirect currency controls. There are so many Patriot Act and other costly impositions forced on foreign banks that handle U.S. customers that they’re simply refusing to put up with the harassment. Here’s the upshot: Your money isn’t fenced in; it’s fenced out.

If you seek firsthand evidence, visit a major banking center outside the U.S. and try to open a bank account. Odds are you’ll be turned away when the bank finds out you‘re a U.S. citizen. Reports abound of U.S. citizens’ long-held accounts at foreign banks being summarily terminated. The U.S. government has made its subjects, along with their money, persona non grata.

I‘ve read that some foreign banks are now setting up, in essence, holding pens designed to handle U.S. citizens who want to bank offshore. But, really, what‘s the point? You‘re burdened with having to file extra IRS paperwork, along with FBAR forms to the Treasury Department. And even if you don‘t file all the extra papers (not a smart move), new laws force foreign banks who accept U.S. customers to report on you anyway. They are pressured to sign “information reporting agreements” to have U.S. citizens as customers. Google “FATCA” and “qualified intermediary agreements” if you want details.

Now for the most extreme instance of liability. Being a U.S. passport holder can mean life or death in the context of a terrorist attack. The U.S. government‘s never-ending War on Terror makes the world more dangerous for Americans. After so many years of bombing and military occupation in the Middle East, how can the hundreds of thousands of civilians who’ve been maimed and killed by the U.S. government NOT be the source of enduring resentment and blowback? Needless to say, the U.S. passport is on the short list of ones you least want to have if somebody sticks a gun in your face and says, “Passport.” Unfortunately, this has happened on more than one occasion, and it would be unreasonable to assume it won’t happen in the future.

5) Freedom from the paperwork prison. Millions of Americans are plagued every year by days, sometimes weeks, of preparing tax documents and paying thousands of dollars to accountants to decipher the IRS tax code. There are, literally, hundreds of different IRS forms. The tornado of rules and regulations in the tax code fills roughly 70,000 pages. And then you have to save boxes and boxes of papers for years in fear of someday being audited and not being able to produce the demanded documents. If you‘re unfamiliar with audits, here‘s how they work: You‘re guilty of whatever the IRS claims, unless you prove yourself innocent. If that sounds preposterous, I encourage you to ask a tax lawyer. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not apply. Freedom from spending days of tedium on mind-numbing paperwork and thousands on accounting fees has been an absolute joy. Highly recommended.

6) Freedom to invest without tax distortions that encourage capital misallocation. The U.S. tax system encourages misallocation of your investment capital. It obscures the act of buying and selling securities based on a rational assessment of their value. For instance, you end up not selling a security you otherwise would simply because you don’t want to trigger taxes yet. Or you hold on longer than you might otherwise to get long-term capital gains treatment. Or you sell securities you normally would keep – for “tax loss harvesting.”

Moreover, you‘re incented to give an artificial value premium to municipal bonds simply because they aren‘t taxed, despite their negative real return after inflation. And your assessment of real estate’s value is warped too, by mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemptions. The phrase “letting the tax tail wag the dog” encapsulates these distortions. Expatriation instantly liberates you from them.

7) Freedom from being crushed by the fiat currency landslide. If you pay attention to the world‘s major currencies, you‘ll notice they fluctuate, often dramatically, against each other. In a year‘s time, the price of an item can increase or decrease 20%, 30% – sometimes more – solely based on which currency you use to pay for it. The same item! The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this guide. Suffice to say, it has to do with government central banks manipulating their currencies by price-fixing interest rates and continually printing money.

Regardless of the reason for the volatile swings in the value of currencies, there it is. Reality. So what‘s the risk for you? For one thing, you can have all your money in one currency, earn a positive investment return on paper (that you’re taxed on), but actually lose purchasing power. Think about it this way. The U.S. imports goods from all over the world. When the U.S. dollar drops in value, it takes more of them to buy those goods. That makes you functionally poorer, no matter what your account statement says. It‘s that simple.

Every time the dollar drops, you get the short end of the stick. The value of your savings erodes. Your money is like ice cubes. The longer you wait to use them, the more they melt. According to the government’s official “inflation calculator,” the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since 1913. See for yourself here: www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

When you’re out of the global U.S. tax net, you can freely diversify the currencies you own to protect your purchasing power from being diluted. If you do this as a U.S. citizen and the dollar drops, you’re taxed on the paper gains from those other currencies. In other words, you’re taxed for simply preserving your purchasing power. And if you choose the monetary metal, gold, as a fiat currency hedge, you’re taxed even more heavily. No matter what you do to try and preserve the purchasing power of your dollars, one way or another you’re slowly being bled. That ends on the day you expatriate.

8) Freedom from the accountability for how the U.S. government spends your money. I sleep much better knowing I no longer fund the military-industrial-banking complex. Anybody can get mugged, but every U.S. taxpayer is a constant patsy for the political establishment. The rip-offs are so unthinkably big and endemic, there‘s nothing an individual can do to stop them.

If you step back and take an honest look, you’ll see that the unfortunate state of affairs in America has resulted from the reign of both political parties. Don’t fall for the divide and conquer strategy that politicians use to corral people into “red” and “blue” sports teams. Donkeys and elephants are sold as team mascots pretending to be in mortal conflict. In reality both parties work together to advance their agendas in lockstep…logrolling…and when necessary, one side “takes the hit” whenever the illusion of accountability is needed. The system depends on the delusion that people can “vote the bums out.”

Meanwhile, every government failure becomes the pretext for more government growth. If you don’t get distracted by the spectacle, it’s impossible not to notice the pattern: Every political solution to any problem involves more regulation of your life and more taking of your money.

What are the consequences of this vicious cycle of growth through failure? Most Americans are familiar with the oft-chanted phrase, “We‘re #1!” Humor me for a minute and try this exercise. Mentally separate yourself from the government you‘re paying trillions of dollars to fund. Then, consider that the U.S. is:  #1 in government debt and deficits  #1 in unfunded liabilities, most importantly Medicare and Social Security #1 in building and maintaining the biggestWMD stockpile in the world  #1 in weapon sales to foreign governments  #1 in bombs dropped and missiles fired on other nations  #1 in causing civilian casualties and property destruction  #1 in “defense” spending – about as much as all other countries combined  #1 in lawyers per capita, with over 1.1 million total  #1 in law suits filed – millions and millions every year  #1 in political lobbyists, special interest groups and campaign donations  #1 in taxpayer bailouts of the politically connected “too big to fail” corporations  #1 in people imprisoned – “The United States has 4% of the world‘s population and 25% of the world‘s incarcerated population.” -Wikipedia

I‘ve avoided citing sources for these claims (save the last one) because I‘m hoping you‘ll be moved to verify them for yourself. The process is eye-opening. If you fall for the political fallacy that “the government is the people,” you end up with the faulty conclusion that America must be overrun by war-crazed, lawsuit-happy, debt-addicted criminals. How could anybody buy this after even a moment of clear thought? There’s certainly no resemblance to the American people I know. These problems stem from the military-industrial-banking complex, the dark heart of the U.S. political machine. Why continue being the stooge that supplies the money to run it?

Looking at the world with fresh, open eyes isn‘t easy. One of the great benefits of liberating yourself from the grip of the U.S. political system is that the world becomes your oyster. You’re free to embrace places that welcome individuals who seek to live peaceful and prosperous lives.

9) Freedom to radically increase your charitable giving. Individual liberty sparks our charitable instincts. If you care deeply about philanthropy, expatriation frees up vastly more of your capital to give away. Also, your philanthropic impulses are no longer distorted by the IRS. You can give to any charitable cause worldwide without being penalized if it‘s not anointed as a tax-deductible entity.

The human impulse to help another in need is older than any government. Your judgment about how to contribute your capital to best help others will forever be superior to that of bureaucrats. Expatriation opens up new possibilities for you to reach out and help others in need.

10) Freedom from the risk of getting trapped. Politicians don‘t like it when the people who pay their salaries, fund their pensions, and fuel their jets close their wallets and walk away. As the number of renunciations continues to rise, it inevitably will turn into a political hot-button. The media will set the stage for politicians to denounce renunciation, paving the way to make exercising the right more difficult and costly. Wealthy people who renounce will be called greedy and unpatriotic. “Turning their backs on their fellow Americans” will be the sound bite wielded by politicians to conjure up the demand to “do something.” When that happens, I expect the exit tax to become dramatically worse. Instead of taxing unrealized gains at their regular rates, it may function more like the death tax. Add up everything you own – then cough up half. Otherwise sit down and shut up.

The other timing consideration is that getting a second passport is becoming more difficult, more lengthy and more costly. You need a second passport to expatriate, and countries are increasing the number of years it takes to gain citizenship. There are only two countries left in the world that have an economic citizenship program, which is by far the fastest way to get a second passport. If these two programs are pressured to fold, escaping the U.S. political combine will take most people five or more years, instead of less than one. You can bet on this: No matter what happens, it won’t get any easier.

[The full 29-page FREE report American Expatriation Guide – How to Divorce the U.S. Government is a virtual treasure trove of information for anyone thinking of leaving the US… including in-depth, practical advice, and links to useful websites and forms you’ll need for expatriation. Fill out your email bellow and download it now. ] Go here first http://www.caseyresearch.com/crpmkt/AmEx.php?ppref=ATP068BN0810A

10 13 11 flagbar


Ten Benefits of Expatriation

07/24/2013

http://www.caseyresearch.com/crpmkt/AmEx.php?ppref=ATP068BN0810A

 Published by Casey Research

The following is an excerpt from the free 29-page American Expatriation Guide, written by a former U.S. citizen who wants to remain anonymous. Read what he has to say – from a “been there, done that” perspective – and maybe take your own first steps to move to greener pastures.

Everybody has their own personal reasons for expatriating, but here are some of the benefits:

1) Freedom from the global U.S. tax net. Taxing you no matter where you breathe on this earth is wanton American exceptionalism. What other nations don‘t dare do to their citizens, the U.S. government doesn‘t think twice about. Once you renounce, it‘s your choice either to live the rest of your life free of any tax net, or to pick a place you want to be year-round and opt into the tax system (assuming it’s not a tax-free jurisdiction). If you do, you‘ll at least know you have the freedom to walk away from it by simply moving elsewhere.

Taxes in the U.S. are already high, and rates are set to increase across the board. To gain some perspective, it’s clarifying to calculate the number of months per year you work for the government. How many months did it take to pay all the federal, state, and local income taxes, capital gains taxes, FICA taxes, property taxes, and AMT – plus the raft of permitting, licensing and accounting costs you incur over the course of a year? Add corporate taxes if you’re a business owner. And don’t forget the new 3.8% health care surcharge tax on all investment income, including dividends. Be honest and add it all up. You’ll then have a decent idea of how much it costs you in time and money to be a U.S. citizen every year. That cost will rise dramatically going forward.

Here’s the take-away: The biggest guaranteed return on your capital that you’ll ever have is investing your money free of taxes. Do some long-run compounding calculations with and without taxes to see what I mean. I’ll wager John Templeton did.

2) Freedom from the death taxIts political label is the “estate tax,” but the fact is the tax is based solely on your demise. I used to think the death tax only applied to gains on assets that had not been taxed already. How naïve I was! It grabs half of all your assets, regardless of the fact that you‘ve paid taxes on them.

If you have over a few million dollars net worth, your heirs will be writing a heart-stopping check to the IRS. They also may be forced to liquidate your assets to raise cash. This has happened to countless small businesses and family farms. And if you’re a young, talented entrepreneur who goes on to earn substantial wealth over the course of your life, the death tax has you in its crosshairs too.

The death tax is 45% now and is scheduled to jump to 55% in 2011. Either way, the amount is staggering. Expatriation lifts the death tax burden from your children and other heirs.

3) Freedom from the U.S. government’s War on Solvency. Washington‘s crazed debt addiction is uncontrollable and endemic. U.S. politicians have strapped an inconceivably large debt burden on the backs of their subjects. It pays to spend some time on http://www.usdebtclock.org. The multi-trillion dollar debt avalanche roars on, headed straight towards economic hell. After “Debt Per Taxpayer” and “Liability Per Citizen,” check out “U.S. Unfunded Liabilities” to see a number that’s suited to astronomical calculations – not economics.

Don‘t be tricked into thinking this is a partisan issue. It‘s sobering to review the debt records of both Democratic and Republican administrations… to behold what politicians do when given trillions of dollars of other people‘s money. They spend it all – and then borrow trillions more! Of course, the burden of servicing that debt is on you, not them. Their six-figure salaries are guaranteed, along with their uber-perks and fully funded pension plans.

While often described as “the richest nation in the world,” the reality is that the U.S. is the most indebted nation, by a country mile. No other government comes close to matching the debt burden that has been dumped onto every taxpayer. The U.S. government is rampantly incurring debt in your name, and you have no way to stop it or slow it down. Standing in free speech zones with protest signs didn‘t work when it came to war and crony bailouts, and it won‘t work for the debt burden either.

Besides, it‘s already too late. The interest alone on the debt is trillions of dollars. Trillions…as in thousands upon thousands of billions. Google “interest due on U.S. debt” if you think I‘ve veered into the realm of fiction. Once you’ve returned, I think you‘ll agree: The one truly meaningful act you can take as an individual is to opt out. Unload the government’s debt burden off your back. Don’t let yourself or your family be a casualty of the government’s War on Solvency.

4) Freedom from being treated like a “toxic citizen.” When traveling abroad, being a U.S. passport holder used to be a positive thing. Now it‘s an albatross. The New York Times article I cited earlier explains it plainly: Americans abroad are being treated like “toxic citizens.” They’re cut off from banking and other business and investing opportunities solely because of their U.S. citizenship.

Typical currency controls don‘t permit you to take money out of a country. The U.S. doesn‘t have that (yet). Instead, and this is quite clever, the government enacts laws and regulations that function as indirect currency controls. There are so many Patriot Act and other costly impositions forced on foreign banks that handle U.S. customers that they’re simply refusing to put up with the harassment. Here’s the upshot: Your money isn’t fenced in; it’s fenced out.

If you seek firsthand evidence, visit a major banking center outside the U.S. and try to open a bank account. Odds are you’ll be turned away when the bank finds out you‘re a U.S. citizen. Reports abound of U.S. citizens’ long-held accounts at foreign banks being summarily terminated. The U.S. government has made its subjects, along with their money, persona non grata.

I‘ve read that some foreign banks are now setting up, in essence, holding pens designed to handle U.S. citizens who want to bank offshore. But, really, what‘s the point? You‘re burdened with having to file extra IRS paperwork, along with FBAR forms to the Treasury Department. And even if you don‘t file all the extra papers (not a smart move), new laws force foreign banks who accept U.S. customers to report on you anyway. They are pressured to sign “information reporting agreements” to have U.S. citizens as customers. Google “FATCA” and “qualified intermediary agreements” if you want details.

Now for the most extreme instance of liability. Being a U.S. passport holder can mean life or death in the context of a terrorist attack. The U.S. government‘s never-ending War on Terror makes the world more dangerous for Americans. After so many years of bombing and military occupation in the Middle East, how can the hundreds of thousands of civilians who’ve been maimed and killed by the U.S. government NOT be the source of enduring resentment and blowback? Needless to say, the U.S. passport is on the short list of ones you least want to have if somebody sticks a gun in your face and says, “Passport.” Unfortunately, this has happened on more than one occasion, and it would be unreasonable to assume it won’t happen in the future.

5) Freedom from the paperwork prison. Millions of Americans are plagued every year by days, sometimes weeks, of preparing tax documents and paying thousands of dollars to accountants to decipher the IRS tax code. There are, literally, hundreds of different IRS forms. The tornado of rules and regulations in the tax code fills roughly 70,000 pages. And then you have to save boxes and boxes of papers for years in fear of someday being audited and not being able to produce the demanded documents. If you‘re unfamiliar with audits, here‘s how they work: You‘re guilty of whatever the IRS claims, unless you prove yourself innocent. If that sounds preposterous, I encourage you to ask a tax lawyer. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not apply. Freedom from spending days of tedium on mind-numbing paperwork and thousands on accounting fees has been an absolute joy. Highly recommended.

6) Freedom to invest without tax distortions that encourage capital misallocation. The U.S. tax system encourages misallocation of your investment capital. It obscures the act of buying and selling securities based on a rational assessment of their value. For instance, you end up not selling a security you otherwise would simply because you don’t want to trigger taxes yet. Or you hold on longer than you might otherwise to get long-term capital gains treatment. Or you sell securities you normally would keep – for “tax loss harvesting.”

Moreover, you‘re incented to give an artificial value premium to municipal bonds simply because they aren‘t taxed, despite their negative real return after inflation. And your assessment of real estate’s value is warped too, by mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemptions. The phrase “letting the tax tail wag the dog” encapsulates these distortions. Expatriation instantly liberates you from them.

7) Freedom from being crushed by the fiat currency landslide. If you pay attention to the world‘s major currencies, you‘ll notice they fluctuate, often dramatically, against each other. In a year‘s time, the price of an item can increase or decrease 20%, 30% – sometimes more – solely based on which currency you use to pay for it. The same item! The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this guide. Suffice to say, it has to do with government central banks manipulating their currencies by price-fixing interest rates and continually printing money.

Regardless of the reason for the volatile swings in the value of currencies, there it is. Reality. So what‘s the risk for you? For one thing, you can have all your money in one currency, earn a positive investment return on paper (that you’re taxed on), but actually lose purchasing power. Think about it this way. The U.S. imports goods from all over the world. When the U.S. dollar drops in value, it takes more of them to buy those goods. That makes you functionally poorer, no matter what your account statement says. It‘s that simple.

Every time the dollar drops, you get the short end of the stick. The value of your savings erodes. Your money is like ice cubes. The longer you wait to use them, the more they melt. According to the government’s official “inflation calculator,” the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since 1913. See for yourself here: www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

When you’re out of the global U.S. tax net, you can freely diversify the currencies you own to protect your purchasing power from being diluted. If you do this as a U.S. citizen and the dollar drops, you’re taxed on the paper gains from those other currencies. In other words, you’re taxed for simply preserving your purchasing power. And if you choose the monetary metal, gold, as a fiat currency hedge, you’re taxed even more heavily. No matter what you do to try and preserve the purchasing power of your dollars, one way or another you’re slowly being bled. That ends on the day you expatriate.

8) Freedom from the accountability for how the U.S. government spends your money. I sleep much better knowing I no longer fund the military-industrial-banking complex. Anybody can get mugged, but every U.S. taxpayer is a constant patsy for the political establishment. The rip-offs are so unthinkably big and endemic, there‘s nothing an individual can do to stop them.

If you step back and take an honest look, you’ll see that the unfortunate state of affairs in America has resulted from the reign of both political parties. Don’t fall for the divide and conquer strategy that politicians use to corral people into “red” and “blue” sports teams. Donkeys and elephants are sold as team mascots pretending to be in mortal conflict. In reality both parties work together to advance their agendas in lockstep…logrolling…and when necessary, one side “takes the hit” whenever the illusion of accountability is needed. The system depends on the delusion that people can “vote the bums out.”

Meanwhile, every government failure becomes the pretext for more government growth. If you don’t get distracted by the spectacle, it’s impossible not to notice the pattern: Every political solution to any problem involves more regulation of your life and more taking of your money.

What are the consequences of this vicious cycle of growth through failure? Most Americans are familiar with the oft-chanted phrase, “We‘re #1!” Humor me for a minute and try this exercise. Mentally separate yourself from the government you‘re paying trillions of dollars to fund. Then, consider that the U.S. is:  #1 in government debt and deficits  #1 in unfunded liabilities, most importantly Medicare and Social Security #1 in building and maintaining the biggestWMD stockpile in the world  #1 in weapon sales to foreign governments  #1 in bombs dropped and missiles fired on other nations  #1 in causing civilian casualties and property destruction  #1 in “defense” spending – about as much as all other countries combined  #1 in lawyers per capita, with over 1.1 million total  #1 in law suits filed – millions and millions every year  #1 in political lobbyists, special interest groups and campaign donations  #1 in taxpayer bailouts of the politically connected “too big to fail” corporations  #1 in people imprisoned – “The United States has 4% of the world‘s population and 25% of the world‘s incarcerated population.” -Wikipedia

I‘ve avoided citing sources for these claims (save the last one) because I‘m hoping you‘ll be moved to verify them for yourself. The process is eye-opening. If you fall for the political fallacy that “the government is the people,” you end up with the faulty conclusion that America must be overrun by war-crazed, lawsuit-happy, debt-addicted criminals. How could anybody buy this after even a moment of clear thought? There’s certainly no resemblance to the American people I know. These problems stem from the military-industrial-banking complex, the dark heart of the U.S. political machine. Why continue being the stooge that supplies the money to run it?

Looking at the world with fresh, open eyes isn‘t easy. One of the great benefits of liberating yourself from the grip of the U.S. political system is that the world becomes your oyster. You’re free to embrace places that welcome individuals who seek to live peaceful and prosperous lives.

9) Freedom to radically increase your charitable giving. Individual liberty sparks our charitable instincts. If you care deeply about philanthropy, expatriation frees up vastly more of your capital to give away. Also, your philanthropic impulses are no longer distorted by the IRS. You can give to any charitable cause worldwide without being penalized if it‘s not anointed as a tax-deductible entity.

The human impulse to help another in need is older than any government. Your judgment about how to contribute your capital to best help others will forever be superior to that of bureaucrats. Expatriation opens up new possibilities for you to reach out and help others in need.

10) Freedom from the risk of getting trapped. Politicians don‘t like it when the people who pay their salaries, fund their pensions, and fuel their jets close their wallets and walk away. As the number of renunciations continues to rise, it inevitably will turn into a political hot-button. The media will set the stage for politicians to denounce renunciation, paving the way to make exercising the right more difficult and costly. Wealthy people who renounce will be called greedy and unpatriotic. “Turning their backs on their fellow Americans” will be the sound bite wielded by politicians to conjure up the demand to “do something.” When that happens, I expect the exit tax to become dramatically worse. Instead of taxing unrealized gains at their regular rates, it may function more like the death tax. Add up everything you own – then cough up half. Otherwise sit down and shut up.

The other timing consideration is that getting a second passport is becoming more difficult, more lengthy and more costly. You need a second passport to expatriate, and countries are increasing the number of years it takes to gain citizenship. There are only two countries left in the world that have an economic citizenship program, which is by far the fastest way to get a second passport. If these two programs are pressured to fold, escaping the U.S. political combine will take most people five or more years, instead of less than one. You can bet on this: No matter what happens, it won’t get any easier.

[The full 29-page FREE report American Expatriation Guide – How to Divorce the U.S. Government is a virtual treasure trove of information for anyone thinking of leaving the US… including in-depth, practical advice, and links to useful websites and forms you’ll need for expatriation. Fill out your email bellow and download it now. ] Go here first http://www.caseyresearch.com/crpmkt/AmEx.php?ppref=ATP068BN0810A

10 13 11 flagbar


The Coming Retirement Crisis That Will Shake America To The Core

07/24/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/the-tip-of-iceberg-of-coming-retirement.html

 By Michael Snyder

The pension nightmare that is at the heart of the horrific financial crisis in Detroit is just the tip of the iceberg of the coming retirement crisis that will shake America to the core.  Right now, more than 10,000 Baby Boomers are hitting the age of 65 every single day, and this will continue to happen every single day until the year 2030.  As a society, we have made trillions of dollars of financial promises to these Baby Boomers, and there is no way that we are going to be able to keep those promises.  The money simply is not there.
Yes, I suppose that we could eventually see a “super devaluation” of the U.S. dollar and keep our promises to the Baby Boomers using currency that is not worth much more than Monopoly money, but as it stands right now we simply do not have the resources to do what we said that we were going to do.  The number of senior citizens in the United States is projected to more than double by the middle of the century, and it would have been nearly impossible to support them all even if we weren’t in the midst of a long-term economic decline.  Tens of millions of Americans that are eagerly looking forward to retirement are going to be in for a very rude awakening in the years ahead.  There is going to be a lot of heartache and a lot of broken promises.

What is going on in Detroit right now is a perfect example of what will soon be happening all over the nation.  Many city workers stuck with their jobs for decades because of the promise of a nice pension at the end of the rainbow.  But now those promises are going up in smoke.  There has even been talk that retirees will only end up getting about 10 cents for every dollar that they were promised.

Needless to say, many pensioners are extremely angry that the promises that were made to them are not going to be kept.  The following is from a recent article in the New York Times

Many retirees see the plan to cut their pensions as a betrayal, saying that they kept their end of a deal but that the city is now reneging. Retired city workers, police officers and 911 operators said in interviews that the promise of reliable retirement income had helped draw them to work for the City of Detroit in the first place, even if they sometimes had to accept smaller salaries or work nights or weekends.

“Does Detroit have a problem?” asked William Shine, 76, a retired police sergeant.

“Absolutely. Did I create it? I don’t think so. They made me some promises, and I made them some promises. I kept my promises. They’re not going to keep theirs.”
But Detroit is far from an isolated case.  As Detroit Mayor Dave Bing said the other day, many other cities are heading down the exact same path…

We may be one of the first. We are the largest. But we absolutely will not be the last.

Yes, Detroit’s financial problems are immense.  But other major U.S. cities are facing unfunded pension liabilities that are even worse.

For example, here are the unfunded pension liabilities for four financially-troubled large U.S. cities

Detroit: $3.5 billion
Baltimore: $680 million
Los Angeles: $9.4 billion
Chicago: $19 billion

When you break it down on a per citizen basis, Detroit is actually in better shape than the others…

Detroit: $7,145
Baltimore: $7,247
Los Angeles: $8,437
Chicago: $13,355

And many state governments are in similar shape.  Right now, the state of Illinois has unfunded pension liabilities that total approximately $100 billion.

There are some financial “journalists” out there that are attempting to downplay this problem, but sticking our heads in the sand is not going to make any of this go away.

According to Northwestern University Professor John Rauh, the total amount of unfunded pension and healthcare obligations for retirees that state and local governments across the United States have accumulated is 4.4 trillion dollars.

So where are they going to get that money?

They are going to raise your taxes of course.

Just check out what is happening right now in Scranton, Pennsylvania

Scranton taxpayers could face a 117 percent increase in taxes next year as the city’s finances continue to spiral out of control.

A new analysis by the Pennsylvania Economy League projects an $18 million deficit for 2014, an amount so massive it outpaces the approximate $17 million the struggling city collects annually

A 117 percent tax increase?

What would Dwight Schrute think of that?

Perhaps you are reading this and you are assuming that your retirement is secure because you work in the private sector.

Well, just remember what happened to your 401k during the financial crisis of 2008.  During the next major stock market crash, your 401k will likely get absolutely shredded.  Many Americans will probably see the value of their 401k accounts go down by 50 percent or more.

And if you have stashed your retirement funds with the wrong firm, you could end up losing everything.  Just ask anyone that had their nest eggs invested with MF Global.

But of course most Americans are woefully behind on saving for retirement anyway.  A study conducted by Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research found that American workers are $6.6 trillion short of what they need to retire comfortably.

That certainly isn’t good news.

On top of everything else, the federal government has been recklessly irresponsible as far as planning for the retirement of the Baby Boomers is concerned.

As I noted yesterday, the U.S. government is facing a total of 222 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.  Social Security and Medicare make up the bulk of that.

At this point, the number of Americans on Medicare is projected to grow from a little bit more than 50 million today to 73.2 million in 2025.

The number of Americans collecting Social Security benefits is projected to grow from about 56 million today to 91 million in 2035.

How is a society with a steadily declining economy going to care for them all adequately?
Yes, we truly are careening toward disaster.

If you are not convinced yet, here are some more numbers.  The following stats are from one of my previous articles entitled “Do You Want To Scare A Baby Boomer?“…

1. Right now, there are somewhere around 40 million senior citizens in the United States.  By 2050 that number is projected to skyrocket to 89 million.

2. According to one recent poll, 25 percent of all Americans in the 46 to 64-year-old age bracket have no retirement savings at all.

3. 26 percent of all Americans in the 46 to 64-year-old age bracket have no personal savings whatsoever.

4. One survey that covered all American workers found that 46 percent of them have less than $10,000 saved for retirement.

5. According to a survey conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, “60 percent of American workers said the total value of their savings and investments is less than $25,000”.

6. A Pew Research survey found that half of all Baby Boomers say that their household financial situations have deteriorated over the past year.

7. 67 percent of all American workers believe that they “are a little or a lot behind schedule on saving for retirement”.

8. Today, one out of every six elderly Americans lives below the federal poverty line.

9. More elderly Americans than ever are finding that they must continue working once they reach their retirement years.  Between 1985 and 2010, the percentage of Americans in the 65 to 69-year-old age bracket that were still working increased from 18 percent to 32 percent.

10. Back in 1991, half of all American workers planned to retire before they reached the age of 65.  Today, that number has declined to 23 percent.

11. According to one recent survey, 70 percent of all American workers expect to continue working once they are “retired”.

12. According to a poll conducted by AARP, 40 percent of all Baby Boomers plan to work “until they drop”.

13. A poll conducted by CESI Debt Solutions found that 56 percent of American retirees still had outstanding debts when they retired.

14. Elderly Americans tend to carry much higher balances on their credit cards than younger Americans do.  The following is from a recent CNBC article

New research from the AARP also shows that those ages 50 and over are carrying higher balances on their credit cards — $8,278 in 2012 compared to $6,258 for the under-50 population.

15. A study by a law professor at the University of Michigan found that Americans that are 55 years of age or older now account for 20 percent of all bankruptcies in the United States.  Back in 2001, they only accounted for 12 percent of all bankruptcies.

16. Between 1991 and 2007 the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 that filed for bankruptcy rose by a staggering 178 percent.

17. What is causing most of these bankruptcies among the elderly?  The number one cause is medical bills.  According to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills are a major factor in more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States.  Of those bankruptcies that were caused by medical bills, approximately 75 percent of them involved individuals that actually did have health insurance.

18. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits.  Today, that number has fallen to 2.5 workers, and if you eliminate all government workers, that leaves only 1.6 private sector workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits.

19. Millions of elderly Americans these days are finding it very difficult to survive on just a Social Security check.  The truth is that most Social Security checks simply are not that large.  The following comes directly from the Social Security Administration website

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

You can view the rest of the statistics right here.

Sadly, most Americans are not aware of these things.

The mainstream media keeps most of the population entertained with distractions.  This week it is the birth of the royal baby, and next week it will be something else.

Meanwhile, our problems just continue to get worse and worse.

There is no way in the world that we are going to be able to keep all of the financial promises that we have made to the Baby Boomers.  A lot of them are going to end up bitterly disappointed.

All of this could have been avoided if we would have planned ahead as a society.

But that did not happen, and now we are all going to pay the price for it.

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

10 13 11 flagbar


Parental Rights God given and Unalienable Or Government granted and Revocable?

07/23/2013

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/parental-rights-god-given-and-unalienable-or-government-granted-and-revocable/

 By Publius Huldah

Editor’s Note: Before you get into Publius Huldah’s response, there is a bit of information that is necessary for readers to know. As you recall, Publius Huldah posted an article on the issue of the Parental Rights Amendment and then subsequently we were contacted by Michael Farris’ spokesman to see if we might post a response, which we did here. When Mr. Farris’ spokesman realized that commenters saw what I saw, namely an attack on Publius Huldah and self-promotion, I received the following email response:

“Several folks on your blog have asked for clarification specific to the issues, and Mr. Farris’ response is seen as more of an attack on PH than certainly was intended. Would you be amenable to another response that does not address PH at all, but which goes point-by-point through her concerns?

If you would be willing to consider posting it, I will get to work on securing that for you. I believe it would benefit both of us and your readers for us to be clearer on the issues she has raised.

Thank you for your consideration, and for providing a forum for this discussion. You and I disagree on the PRA, but I hope we will continue to do so agreeably (as is my perception at least. I hope it is yours as well).”

I replied and told him that would be acceptable, but since Mr. Farris is a litigator, perhaps he should have taken this course of action in the first place and told him he would need to wait until Publius Huldah had responded to Mr. Farris’ article. I was told by Farris’ spokesman it was reasonable and he asked for Publius Huldah’s contact information, which I was told not to give out (by the way, anyone can go to her site and contact her through the site). Once contact information was turned down, I then received the following email response:

“I have spoken again with Mike Farris, and we simply cannot continue to engage with someone claiming to be a lawyer but refusing to identify herself or provide verifiable credentials. I understand you are convinced she is a lawyer, but we have only her word for it.

Anonymity and a claim to be a lawyer are incompatible with each other.

If we cannot verify by name that she has a license to practice law, we simply cannot continue this debate in this forum.

I regret that we must ask this. I, like you, was looking forward to the debate. But a request for credentials from the outset is not unreasonable. Mr. Farris’ credentials are already on the table.

I hope you will understand.”

I’m not going to tell people what to think about this, but I do find that Publius Huldah’s credentials were not an issue for Mr. Farris to respond to in the first article nor were they an issue when there was an agreement to follow up with a second response. However, this makes one wonder if you don’t provide certain credentials, does Mr. Farris not think it worthy of his time to engage you about this subject? I’ll let the reader decide. Without further ado, Publius Huldah’s response to Michael Farris.

Our Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… (2nd para) [emphasis mine]

So! Rights come from God; they are unalienable;
the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and when government takes away our God given rights, it’s time to “throw off such Government.”

That is our Founding Principle.

Let us now compare our Founding Principle with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It enumerates 30 some “rights,” among which are:

Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 21 … 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections …

Article 29 … 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. [all boldface mine]

So! Rights are enumerated; they come from man [constitutions or laws]; governments may do whatever a majority of people want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us]; and rights may be limited by law & are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].

Now, let’s look at the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) from the website of parentalrights.org and compare it with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1

“SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2

The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices
within public schools for one’s child.

SECTION 3

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 4

This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life. [all boldface mine]

SECTION 5
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

So! Under the PRA, parental rights come from the Constitution – not God. They are only “fundamental” rights, not unalienable rights. They are enumerated rights, the extent of which will be decided by federal judges. 2And these “fundamental” rights may be infringed by law when the government has a good reason for infringing them.

And even though parentalrights.org uses the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into supporting the PRA; 3 the PRA itself is the repudiation of our Founding Principles that Rights come from God and are unalienable, and that the sole purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us; and adoption of the U.N. theory that rights come from the State, will be determined by the State, and are revocable at the will of the State.

Let’s turn to Michael Farris’ paper posted July 9, 2013 in Freedom Outpost. His paper followed my initial paper where I addressed, Section by Section, the PRA of which Farris is principal author. He is also Executive Director of parentalrights.org.

1. Mr. Farris’ rationale for the PRA: Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000)

Farris cites Scalia’s dissent to support his own perverse theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can’t enforce it, and the right can’t be protected.

But Farris ignores the majority’s holding in Troxel, and misstates the gist of Scalia’s dissent. I’ll show you.

This case originated in the State of Washington, and involved a State Statute (§26.10.160(3)) addressing visitation rights by persons who were not parents. Two grandparents filed an action under this State Statutewanting increased visitation of their grandchildren. The mother (Granville) was willing to permit some visitation, but not as much as the grandparents wanted.

This State family law case got to the U.S. supreme Court on the ground that the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment was at stake.

And what did the supreme Court say in Troxel v. Granville ?

“…In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children…

“…We therefore hold that the application of §26.10.160(3) to Granville and her family violated her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters.” [all boldface mine]

Do you see? The supreme Court has already “discovered,” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, a parental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of children.

Now! In order to understand Scalia’s dissent, one must first learn:

  • That the powers of the federal courts are enumerated and strictly defined; and
  • The original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and how the supreme Court perverted it.

These are explained in detail here: Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation, & Gay Marriage. In a nutshell, the linked paper shows that federal courts may lawfully hear only cases falling within the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. One of these categories is cases:

“…arising under this Constitution…”

In Federalist Paper No. 80 (2nd para), Alexander Hamilton says that before a case can properly be said to “arise under the Constitution”, it must:

“…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” [emphasis added]

So! Does our federal Constitution “expressly contain” provisions about abortion? Homosexual sex? Homosexual marriage? Parental rights? No, it does not.

Since these matters are not delegated to the federal government, they are reserved to the States and The People (10th Amendment). The federal government has no lawful authority over these issues.

Well, then, how did the supreme Court overturn State Statutes criminalizing abortion and homosexual sex, and State Statutes addressing parental rights?

They used the “due process” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to usurp power over these issues. Section 1 says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [boldface mine]

Professor Raoul Berger proves in his book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

Professor Berger also shows (Ch. 11) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial!

Professor Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials
– to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Statutes!

Justice Scalia understands this.

And now, you can understand Scalia’s dissent. What he actually says is:

  • Parental rights are “unalienable” and come from God (Declaration of Independence). They are among the retained rights of the people (9th Amendment). [Parental rights don’t come from the 14th Amendment!]
  • The Declaration of Independence does not delegate powers to federal courts. It is the federal Constitution which delegates powers to federal courts.
  • It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights.]
  • The federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what “rights” people have and use their lists to overturn State statutes. [That is what the supreme Court did when they fabricated“liberty rights” to abortion and homosexual sex, and overturned State Statutes criminalizing these acts.]
  • The federal Constitution does not mention “parental rights” – such cases do not “arise under the Constitution”. So federal courts have no “judicial power” over such cases.

In his closing, Scalia warns against turning family law over to the federal government:

“…If we embrace this unenumerated right … we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.” [emphasis mine]

Do you see? “Parental rights” is a state matter; and parents need to replace bad State legislators.

But the PRA delegates power over “parental rights” to the federal government and makes it an enumerated power.

So! When Farris says:

“4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary’s exercise of its existing power.”

His words are false. The PRA transforms what is now a usurped power over parental rights seized by the supreme Court by perverting Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment [the majority opinion in Troxel illustrates this], toan enumerated power of the federal government.

2. The PRA expressly delegates to the federal and State governments power to infringe God-given parental rights!

Mr. Farris asserts that the PRA gives no power to Congress over children because he – the principal author of the PRA – purposefully left out the language which appears in other amendments that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

So! What did Farris put in his PRA? Look at his SECTION 3:

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.” [emphasis mine]

The wording assumes the federal and State governments will be making laws “infringing” parental rights! And because of the PRA, such laws will be constitutional5

The only issue will be whether such acts of Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] “serve the government’s interest.” And who will decide? The federal courts [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] will decide.

The same goes for State Statutes and State courts.

Furthermore, Acts of Congress or State Statutes need only recite the boilerplate language that the law “serves the government’s interest, etc.,” and it will go to the courts clothed with a presumption of correctness.

3. The PRA is not “just like” the Second Amendment

Mr. Farris says the PRA is:

“… just like the Second Amendment in this regard. The Second Amendment gives no level of government the power to regulate guns. (Any such power comes from some other provision of the Constitution [state or federal]). And the Second Amendment is a limitation on the exercise of such powers.”

Rubbish!

WE THE PEOPLE did not delegate to the federal government power to restrict our arms.

The 2nd Amendment shows that WE THE PEOPLE really meant it when we declined to give the federal government enumerated power to restrict our arms.

So! As shown here, all federal laws and rules of the BATF pertaining to background checks, dealer licensing, banning sawed off shotguns, etc., are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The PRA is not “just like” the 2nd Amendment because the PRA is an express delegation of power over children and parental rights to the federal and State governments!

4. Pen Names

Publius is the pen name used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when, during 1787 and 1788, they wrote The Federalist Papers to explain the proposed Constitution and induce The People to ratify it.

Huldah is the prophet at 2 Kings 22. The Book of the Law had been lost for a long time. When it was found, it was taken to Huldah who gave guidance about it to the king and his priests.

Do you see? And it’s about Our Country – not my personal glory, fame, and fundraising.

My qualifications? My work speaks for itself.

5. Learn the Constitution and understand the PRA? Or put your trust in Farris?

My previous paper is about the PRA and our Constitution. It isn’t about Mr. Farris.

But Farris’ response is about persons: 429 of his 2,044 words are devoted to his illustrious self; 170 words are spent to disparage Publius Huldah.

I teach the original intent of our Constitution so that our People can become what Alexander Hamilton expected them to be:

“… a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority…” Federalist Paper No. 16 (next to last para)

To that end, I have published some 50 papers proving that original intent, using The Federalist Papers as the best evidence of that original intent. Many are posted here.

We must all do our civic duty and learn our Founding Principles and Constitution so that we can learn to think for ourselves and help restore our Constitutional Republic.

But Farris says you should believe in … him. He says:

“6. Who are you going to believe—a trusted advocate for parental rights or an anonymous blogger?”

He doesn’t ask you to learn and think – he asks you to believe … in him.

6. An Alternative Organization: National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD)

NHELD has been warning for years about the Parental Rights Amendment. NHELD

“…does not believe in blindly following the word of anyone. NHELD … does not believe in just directing families to act in unison on the basis of an opinion that NHELD … has formed on its own. NHELD … believes in an informed, empowered citizenry, who is able to fight for freedom effectively…”

NHELD advises:

“…individuals not to take the word of anyone else about what … legislation says, but to read the text for themselves …”

7. How do Governments “secure” our God given Rights?

Our rights must be “secured” from people & civil governments who seek to take them away.

For an illustration of how the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government enable it to “secure” our God given rights to life, liberty & property, see James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers under the subheading, Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell. The federal government isn’t to secure these rights in all ways – just in those ways appropriate to the national government of a Federation of Sovereign States.

The powers reserved by The States and The People enable the States to secure these rights in the ways appropriate to States. States secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, drunk drivers, quarantining people with infectious deadly diseases, etc. States secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers; by providing courts for recovery for fraud, breach of contract; etc.

Our federal Constitution secures our God given rights by strictly limiting the powers of Congress, the powers of the President, and the powers of the federal courts.

Civil governments are controlled by limiting their powers.

To delegate to the federal government express power to infringe “parental rights” under the pretext of “protecting” such rights is absurd! But that is Farris’ argument.

Parents! Justice Scalia gives excellent advice: elect to your State Legislature people who understand that your responsibilities to your children are determined by God alone.

We must stop looking for the magic pill, roll up our sleeves, man up, and fix our own States.

Conclusion

The PRA is a radical transformation of our conception of Rights from being unalienable gifts of God to the UN Model where “rights” are granted by government and revocable at the will of government. This is being sold to you as a means of “protecting” your parental rights! But it transfers power over children to the federal and State governments. You are being told to trust the “experts” and “believe” what they tell you. But if the PRA is ratified, the federal and State governments will have constitutional authority to infringe your “parental rights”. And you will have no recourse.

Endnotes:

Craigers61 pointed out, in his comment to my initial paper, that Section 3 of the PRA is a paraphrase of [Article 29] of the UN [Declaration] in which:

“… all of the rights “given” by the UN earlier in the document can be taken back if any right goes against the UN’s “mission.” It’s a big finger on the chess piece in which the Political power can take back the right granted at any time they deem…

…Also, do you see the other problem here? The STATE grants the right to the parents! … In classical liberalism, the philosophy that founded the USA, all rights are INALEIANBLE! They reside in the human being themselves! They cannot be given, they cannot be taken and they cannot be circumscribed by the STATE…”

Bob in Florida

asks Farris:

“But, what you say we must do – pass the Parental Rights Amendment – to defeat the Scalia argument that there is no legal text to cite to allow parents to have rights to direct their children’s education, medical care, etc., requires that we do exactly what the writers of the Constitution did not want to do – enumerate each and every right we have.

Their reason was that this would require that we enumerate each and every right and to leave one out would imply we don’t have that right. Their chosen approach was to only define the powers given to the government
and all others were reserved to the States or the People. [emphasis mine]

Are you not advocating we do exactly what they didn’t want to do – enumerate each and every right?”

3 Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since “parental rights” & “children” are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty addressing such would be a proper object ofnullification. But if the PRA is ratified, then these will be enumerated powers, and the Senate will have lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

4 It is GOD’s prerogative to decide what Rights we have. Not mans’.

5 Un-anonymous blogger Doug Newman pointed out four years ago that:

“…The PRA actually puts a constitutional blessing on federal intrusion into parenting…”

10 13 11 flagbar

 


Parental Rights God given and Unalienable Or Government granted and Revocable?

07/23/2013

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/parental-rights-god-given-and-unalienable-or-government-granted-and-revocable/

 By Publius Huldah

Editor’s Note: Before you get into Publius Huldah’s response, there is a bit of information that is necessary for readers to know. As you recall, Publius Huldah posted an article on the issue of the Parental Rights Amendment and then subsequently we were contacted by Michael Farris’ spokesman to see if we might post a response, which we did here. When Mr. Farris’ spokesman realized that commenters saw what I saw, namely an attack on Publius Huldah and self-promotion, I received the following email response:

“Several folks on your blog have asked for clarification specific to the issues, and Mr. Farris’ response is seen as more of an attack on PH than certainly was intended. Would you be amenable to another response that does not address PH at all, but which goes point-by-point through her concerns?

If you would be willing to consider posting it, I will get to work on securing that for you. I believe it would benefit both of us and your readers for us to be clearer on the issues she has raised.

Thank you for your consideration, and for providing a forum for this discussion. You and I disagree on the PRA, but I hope we will continue to do so agreeably (as is my perception at least. I hope it is yours as well).”

I replied and told him that would be acceptable, but since Mr. Farris is a litigator, perhaps he should have taken this course of action in the first place and told him he would need to wait until Publius Huldah had responded to Mr. Farris’ article. I was told by Farris’ spokesman it was reasonable and he asked for Publius Huldah’s contact information, which I was told not to give out (by the way, anyone can go to her site and contact her through the site). Once contact information was turned down, I then received the following email response:

“I have spoken again with Mike Farris, and we simply cannot continue to engage with someone claiming to be a lawyer but refusing to identify herself or provide verifiable credentials. I understand you are convinced she is a lawyer, but we have only her word for it.

Anonymity and a claim to be a lawyer are incompatible with each other.

If we cannot verify by name that she has a license to practice law, we simply cannot continue this debate in this forum.

I regret that we must ask this. I, like you, was looking forward to the debate. But a request for credentials from the outset is not unreasonable. Mr. Farris’ credentials are already on the table.

I hope you will understand.”

I’m not going to tell people what to think about this, but I do find that Publius Huldah’s credentials were not an issue for Mr. Farris to respond to in the first article nor were they an issue when there was an agreement to follow up with a second response. However, this makes one wonder if you don’t provide certain credentials, does Mr. Farris not think it worthy of his time to engage you about this subject? I’ll let the reader decide. Without further ado, Publius Huldah’s response to Michael Farris.

Our Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… (2nd para) [emphasis mine]

So! Rights come from God; they are unalienable;
the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and when government takes away our God given rights, it’s time to “throw off such Government.”

That is our Founding Principle.

Let us now compare our Founding Principle with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It enumerates 30 some “rights,” among which are:

Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 21 … 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections …

Article 29 … 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. [all boldface mine]

So! Rights are enumerated; they come from man [constitutions or laws]; governments may do whatever a majority of people want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us]; and rights may be limited by law & are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].

Now, let’s look at the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) from the website of parentalrights.org and compare it with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1

“SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2

The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices
within public schools for one’s child.

SECTION 3

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 4

This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life. [all boldface mine]

SECTION 5
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

So! Under the PRA, parental rights come from the Constitution – not God. They are only “fundamental” rights, not unalienable rights. They are enumerated rights, the extent of which will be decided by federal judges. 2And these “fundamental” rights may be infringed by law when the government has a good reason for infringing them.

And even though parentalrights.org uses the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into supporting the PRA; 3 the PRA itself is the repudiation of our Founding Principles that Rights come from God and are unalienable, and that the sole purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us; and adoption of the U.N. theory that rights come from the State, will be determined by the State, and are revocable at the will of the State.

Let’s turn to Michael Farris’ paper posted July 9, 2013 in Freedom Outpost. His paper followed my initial paper where I addressed, Section by Section, the PRA of which Farris is principal author. He is also Executive Director of parentalrights.org.

1. Mr. Farris’ rationale for the PRA: Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000)

Farris cites Scalia’s dissent to support his own perverse theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can’t enforce it, and the right can’t be protected.

But Farris ignores the majority’s holding in Troxel, and misstates the gist of Scalia’s dissent. I’ll show you.

This case originated in the State of Washington, and involved a State Statute (§26.10.160(3)) addressing visitation rights by persons who were not parents. Two grandparents filed an action under this State Statutewanting increased visitation of their grandchildren. The mother (Granville) was willing to permit some visitation, but not as much as the grandparents wanted.

This State family law case got to the U.S. supreme Court on the ground that the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment was at stake.

And what did the supreme Court say in Troxel v. Granville ?

“…In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children…

“…We therefore hold that the application of §26.10.160(3) to Granville and her family violated her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters.” [all boldface mine]

Do you see? The supreme Court has already “discovered,” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, a parental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of children.

Now! In order to understand Scalia’s dissent, one must first learn:

  • That the powers of the federal courts are enumerated and strictly defined; and
  • The original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and how the supreme Court perverted it.

These are explained in detail here: Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation, & Gay Marriage. In a nutshell, the linked paper shows that federal courts may lawfully hear only cases falling within the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. One of these categories is cases:

“…arising under this Constitution…”

In Federalist Paper No. 80 (2nd para), Alexander Hamilton says that before a case can properly be said to “arise under the Constitution”, it must:

“…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” [emphasis added]

So! Does our federal Constitution “expressly contain” provisions about abortion? Homosexual sex? Homosexual marriage? Parental rights? No, it does not.

Since these matters are not delegated to the federal government, they are reserved to the States and The People (10th Amendment). The federal government has no lawful authority over these issues.

Well, then, how did the supreme Court overturn State Statutes criminalizing abortion and homosexual sex, and State Statutes addressing parental rights?

They used the “due process” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to usurp power over these issues. Section 1 says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [boldface mine]

Professor Raoul Berger proves in his book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

Professor Berger also shows (Ch. 11) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial!

Professor Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials
– to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Statutes!

Justice Scalia understands this.

And now, you can understand Scalia’s dissent. What he actually says is:

  • Parental rights are “unalienable” and come from God (Declaration of Independence). They are among the retained rights of the people (9th Amendment). [Parental rights don’t come from the 14th Amendment!]
  • The Declaration of Independence does not delegate powers to federal courts. It is the federal Constitution which delegates powers to federal courts.
  • It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights.]
  • The federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what “rights” people have and use their lists to overturn State statutes. [That is what the supreme Court did when they fabricated“liberty rights” to abortion and homosexual sex, and overturned State Statutes criminalizing these acts.]
  • The federal Constitution does not mention “parental rights” – such cases do not “arise under the Constitution”. So federal courts have no “judicial power” over such cases.

In his closing, Scalia warns against turning family law over to the federal government:

“…If we embrace this unenumerated right … we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.” [emphasis mine]

Do you see? “Parental rights” is a state matter; and parents need to replace bad State legislators.

But the PRA delegates power over “parental rights” to the federal government and makes it an enumerated power.

So! When Farris says:

“4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary’s exercise of its existing power.”

His words are false. The PRA transforms what is now a usurped power over parental rights seized by the supreme Court by perverting Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment [the majority opinion in Troxel illustrates this], toan enumerated power of the federal government.

2. The PRA expressly delegates to the federal and State governments power to infringe God-given parental rights!

Mr. Farris asserts that the PRA gives no power to Congress over children because he – the principal author of the PRA – purposefully left out the language which appears in other amendments that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

So! What did Farris put in his PRA? Look at his SECTION 3:

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.” [emphasis mine]

The wording assumes the federal and State governments will be making laws “infringing” parental rights! And because of the PRA, such laws will be constitutional5

The only issue will be whether such acts of Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] “serve the government’s interest.” And who will decide? The federal courts [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] will decide.

The same goes for State Statutes and State courts.

Furthermore, Acts of Congress or State Statutes need only recite the boilerplate language that the law “serves the government’s interest, etc.,” and it will go to the courts clothed with a presumption of correctness.

3. The PRA is not “just like” the Second Amendment

Mr. Farris says the PRA is:

“… just like the Second Amendment in this regard. The Second Amendment gives no level of government the power to regulate guns. (Any such power comes from some other provision of the Constitution [state or federal]). And the Second Amendment is a limitation on the exercise of such powers.”

Rubbish!

WE THE PEOPLE did not delegate to the federal government power to restrict our arms.

The 2nd Amendment shows that WE THE PEOPLE really meant it when we declined to give the federal government enumerated power to restrict our arms.

So! As shown here, all federal laws and rules of the BATF pertaining to background checks, dealer licensing, banning sawed off shotguns, etc., are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The PRA is not “just like” the 2nd Amendment because the PRA is an express delegation of power over children and parental rights to the federal and State governments!

4. Pen Names

Publius is the pen name used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when, during 1787 and 1788, they wrote The Federalist Papers to explain the proposed Constitution and induce The People to ratify it.

Huldah is the prophet at 2 Kings 22. The Book of the Law had been lost for a long time. When it was found, it was taken to Huldah who gave guidance about it to the king and his priests.

Do you see? And it’s about Our Country – not my personal glory, fame, and fundraising.

My qualifications? My work speaks for itself.

5. Learn the Constitution and understand the PRA? Or put your trust in Farris?

My previous paper is about the PRA and our Constitution. It isn’t about Mr. Farris.

But Farris’ response is about persons: 429 of his 2,044 words are devoted to his illustrious self; 170 words are spent to disparage Publius Huldah.

I teach the original intent of our Constitution so that our People can become what Alexander Hamilton expected them to be:

“… a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority…” Federalist Paper No. 16 (next to last para)

To that end, I have published some 50 papers proving that original intent, using The Federalist Papers as the best evidence of that original intent. Many are posted here.

We must all do our civic duty and learn our Founding Principles and Constitution so that we can learn to think for ourselves and help restore our Constitutional Republic.

But Farris says you should believe in … him. He says:

“6. Who are you going to believe—a trusted advocate for parental rights or an anonymous blogger?”

He doesn’t ask you to learn and think – he asks you to believe … in him.

6. An Alternative Organization: National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD)

NHELD has been warning for years about the Parental Rights Amendment. NHELD

“…does not believe in blindly following the word of anyone. NHELD … does not believe in just directing families to act in unison on the basis of an opinion that NHELD … has formed on its own. NHELD … believes in an informed, empowered citizenry, who is able to fight for freedom effectively…”

NHELD advises:

“…individuals not to take the word of anyone else about what … legislation says, but to read the text for themselves …”

7. How do Governments “secure” our God given Rights?

Our rights must be “secured” from people & civil governments who seek to take them away.

For an illustration of how the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government enable it to “secure” our God given rights to life, liberty & property, see James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers under the subheading, Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell. The federal government isn’t to secure these rights in all ways – just in those ways appropriate to the national government of a Federation of Sovereign States.

The powers reserved by The States and The People enable the States to secure these rights in the ways appropriate to States. States secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, drunk drivers, quarantining people with infectious deadly diseases, etc. States secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers; by providing courts for recovery for fraud, breach of contract; etc.

Our federal Constitution secures our God given rights by strictly limiting the powers of Congress, the powers of the President, and the powers of the federal courts.

Civil governments are controlled by limiting their powers.

To delegate to the federal government express power to infringe “parental rights” under the pretext of “protecting” such rights is absurd! But that is Farris’ argument.

Parents! Justice Scalia gives excellent advice: elect to your State Legislature people who understand that your responsibilities to your children are determined by God alone.

We must stop looking for the magic pill, roll up our sleeves, man up, and fix our own States.

Conclusion

The PRA is a radical transformation of our conception of Rights from being unalienable gifts of God to the UN Model where “rights” are granted by government and revocable at the will of government. This is being sold to you as a means of “protecting” your parental rights! But it transfers power over children to the federal and State governments. You are being told to trust the “experts” and “believe” what they tell you. But if the PRA is ratified, the federal and State governments will have constitutional authority to infringe your “parental rights”. And you will have no recourse.

Endnotes:

Craigers61 pointed out, in his comment to my initial paper, that Section 3 of the PRA is a paraphrase of [Article 29] of the UN [Declaration] in which:

“… all of the rights “given” by the UN earlier in the document can be taken back if any right goes against the UN’s “mission.” It’s a big finger on the chess piece in which the Political power can take back the right granted at any time they deem…

…Also, do you see the other problem here? The STATE grants the right to the parents! … In classical liberalism, the philosophy that founded the USA, all rights are INALEIANBLE! They reside in the human being themselves! They cannot be given, they cannot be taken and they cannot be circumscribed by the STATE…”

Bob in Florida

asks Farris:

“But, what you say we must do – pass the Parental Rights Amendment – to defeat the Scalia argument that there is no legal text to cite to allow parents to have rights to direct their children’s education, medical care, etc., requires that we do exactly what the writers of the Constitution did not want to do – enumerate each and every right we have.

Their reason was that this would require that we enumerate each and every right and to leave one out would imply we don’t have that right. Their chosen approach was to only define the powers given to the government
and all others were reserved to the States or the People. [emphasis mine]

Are you not advocating we do exactly what they didn’t want to do – enumerate each and every right?”

3 Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since “parental rights” & “children” are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty addressing such would be a proper object ofnullification. But if the PRA is ratified, then these will be enumerated powers, and the Senate will have lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

4 It is GOD’s prerogative to decide what Rights we have. Not mans’.

5 Un-anonymous blogger Doug Newman pointed out four years ago that:

“…The PRA actually puts a constitutional blessing on federal intrusion into parenting…”

10 13 11 flagbar

 


Worldwide Unemployment Crisis There Are 93 Million Unemployed Workers In G20 Nations

07/22/2013

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/worldwide-unemployment-crisis-there-are-93-million-unemployed-workers-in-g20-nations

 Michael Snyder

Did you know that the total number of unemployed workers in G20 counties is now up to 93 million and that it is increasing with each passing day? You see, the truth is that the United States is not the only one dealing with a systemic unemployment crisis. This is literally happening all over the planet.  So what is causing this crisis?  Is there any hope that it will be turned around?  Well, unfortunately there are several long-term trends that have been developing for decades that have played a major role in bringing us to this point.

First of all, the giant corporations that now totally dominate the global economy have figured out that they can make a lot more money by replacing expensive workers that live in major industrialized nations with workers that live in nations where it is legal to pay slave labor wages.  So it isn’t really a huge mystery why there is such a huge problem with unemployment in the Western world.  If you were running a giant corporation, why would you want to hire workers that will cost you 10 to 20 times as much as other workers?  A worker is a worker, and over the past decade we have seen a massive movement of jobs to countries where labor is cheaper.

In addition, large corporations are also trying to completely eliminate as many jobs as they can by using technology.  If a corporation can get a computer or a machine or a robot to do a task more cheaply than a human worker can do it, then why would that corporation want to continue to rely on human labor?  And of course we have seen an overall weakening of the economies of the Western world in recent years as well.  This has been particularly true in the United States.  As these long-term trends intensify, the worldwide unemployment crisis is going to get even worse.

In fact, the director general of the International Labor Organization is fully convinced that unemployment is going to continue to rise in G20 nations.  Just check out what he told CNBC on Friday…

Unemployment will likely soar further in the group of 20 major economic powers without immediate action, Guy Ryder, the director general of the International Labor Organization told CNBC on Friday, comparing the jobs crisis to the 2008-2009 financial crisis and warning it needs to be tackled urgently.

“We have gone backwards. It is quite alarming to see…that unemployment has not gone down, in fact it’s gone up,” Ryder told CNBC at the G20 finance ministers’ meeting in Moscow.

He said 93 million people were currently unemployed in the G20.

And when those living in G20 nations lose their jobs, they tend to stay out of work for a very long time.  In fact, 30 percent of unemployed workers in G20 countries have been out of work for one year or longer.

Major industrialized nations all over the planet are no longer able to produce enough jobs for their people.  In many “wealthy nations” the unemployment rate has already risen well up into double digits.  Just consider the following numbers…

-The unemployment rate is above 25 percent in South Africa.

-The unemployment rate in France recently hit a 15-year high.

-The unemployment rate in Italy is up to 12.2 percent, which is the highest in 35 years.

-The unemployment rate in the eurozone as a whole is up to an all-time high of 12.2 percent.

-The unemployment rate in Poland is13.2 percent.

-The unemployment rate in Ireland is now 13.6 percent.

-The unemployment rate in Portugal has rocketed up to 17.7 percent.

-The unemployment rate in Greece is currently sitting at 26.9 percent and it is being projected that it will soon hit 30 percent.

-The unemployment rate in Spain is even worse than in Greece.  The unemployment rate in Spain is a staggering 27.2 percent.

Sadly, it looks like things are not going to be getting better any time soon.  In fact, global business confidence is now the lowest that it has been since the last recession.

So what about the United States?

Well, it is true that our official numbers do not look quite as bad as much of the rest of the world.  But the official unemployment rate in the U.S. has been at 7.5 percent or higher for 54 months in a row. That is the longest stretch in U.S. history.

But at least it is not in double digits yet.

Things could be worse.

However, that does not mean that we are doing well either.

The mainstream media is attempting to convince us that everything is just fine because the unemployment rate has been “going down”, but when you take a deeper look at the numbers that is not exactly an accurate assessment of our situation.

As the New York Times recently pointed out, the decline in the unemployment rate can almost entirely be accounted for by a decline in the labor participation rate…

Let’s take a step back. Lots of people lost jobs during the Great Recession. In the aftermath, the great surprise has been how few are looking for new jobs. Labor force participation, the share of adults working or trying to find work, has stagnated at about 63.5 percent, almost three percentage points below the pre-recession level.

The unemployment rate has dropped almost entirely because of this decline in labor force participation. In other words, it has not fallen because people are finding jobs. It has fallen because fewer people are looking for jobs.

To get a more accurate picture of what is really happening with employment in America, you need to look at the employment-population ratio.  It is a measurement of the percentage of the working age population that is actually working.  As you can see, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been declining since the year 2000…

7-21-2013 10-41-52 AMAs you can see, there has been no employment recovery.

When the mainstream media tells you that the employment numbers for June were “great”, that is not being honest.  The truth is that the unemployment rate rose in 28 U.S. states and it only declined in 11 states during June, and as I mentioned yesterday, the U.S. economy actually lost 240,000 full-time jobs last month.

So no, things are not getting better, and the unemployment problems in the United States and in Europe are likely going to continue to get worse in the years ahead.

That is very bad news for most of us, because the only thing that most of us have to offer in the marketplace is our labor.  If the value that is placed on our labor is continually declining, then that puts us in a very difficult position.

It is almost as if we have all been drafted to play a very twisted game of musical chairs.  Each time the music stops, more chairs (jobs) are being pulled out of the game.

You might be doing okay for the moment, but what is going to happen when the music suddenly stops one day and your chairgets pulled out of the game?

That is something that you might want to start thinking about.

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Let’s see if I have this correct. Our fascist government has agreed to various international trade agreements that eliminate millions of jobs so the global corporations can make a higher return on their investments, then, bury our country in various wars that provide jobs for other Nations. Not satisfied with us being out of work, they spy on us 24-7 in case we conclude they are intentionally breaking Americas back and try to organize a resistance. They amass a superior army of trained killer cops to beat anyone senseless, who resists them, and have no problem living among us and raise their families without fear of retaliation. Sounds like a plan to me! The only thing I have trouble understanding is, why do we let them out of their house without a brigade of soldiers to protect them? WAKE UP AMERICA! What gives them the exclusive right to kill and maim people? Is tyranny so pleasant you prefer it over freedom? 

12-31-2011 SHIT FACE OBAMA10 13 11 flagbar


Is The Safety Of The State Really Worth More Than The Truth?

07/20/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/is-safety-of-state-really-worth-more.html

 By Brandon Smith

It’s a strange and terrible tragedy when a culture forgets its own history and identity. It is even more tragic when that culture becomes deluded enough to think it can replace its heritage from scratch; that it can conjure political and social reformations out of thin air, and abandon the centuries upon centuries of accomplishment and failures of generations past. To think that one can live without the lessons and principles of one’s ancestors is a disease – a mental disorder of the highest caliber. It is an insanity that leads to terrifying catastrophe.


There is no such thing as “starting over” or “rising anew”. There is no such thing as pure and unadulterated “change”. All shifts in human civilization are a product of that which has come before, and therefore each of these shifts retains the ideas, accomplishments, and dreams of our forefathers. No matter how ingenious we think we are today, most grand schemes and wondrous plans for the world have already been discovered, rediscovered, and applied over and over again by industrious men, great men, and even nefarious men century after century.

Unique ideas are very rare. The American Republic, as a sociopolitical structure, is such an idea.

The concept of citizen self-governance is extremely uncommon in the annals of humanity, namely because there has always been an establishment of elitists within any given epoch that have sought to destroy it. There have always been organizations of the power hungry who make it their mission to suppress free thought, and free peoples, and these organizations certainly exist today.

Though we have been given an astonishing guide-map in the form of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the establishment attempts to sell us on a very different value system. In their world, true self governance is impossible, because only the elect will ever receive the political and monetary support needed just to join the ranks of those who MIGHT be elected. The common man has no place within the halls of the federal oligarchy and the elite like it that way.
In their world, leaders do not owe allegiance to the citizenry. They do not answer to the public. They do as they wish, whenever they wish, and as long as they can wrap their tyranny in the costumes of so-called patriotism, justice, or safety of the masses, they can continue uninterrupted. The system is THEIR playground, not ours.

Those people allowed to operate as government employees are treated as indentured servants of the state. Their first loyalties, the government claims, are not to Americans, but to the corporate apparatus, that America has become. That is to say, they are supposed to protect the integrity of the system, before they protect the lives and liberties of the people.

Barack Obama’s new CIA director John Brennan’s “Honor the Oath” campaign makes this position clear. In Brennan’s words, “the oath government employees take is not to the Constitution, but to the corporate culture of secrecy”:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cia-cracks-down-its-own-stop-leaks

Sen. Dianne Feinstein‘s response to the Snowden leaks on NSA mass surveillance are also rather revealing in regard to how the establishment views the exposure of truths, especially when those truths involve the governments systematic targeting of innocent Americans. Feinstein stated:

“I don’t look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it’s an act of treason,” the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told reporters.

The California lawmaker went on to say that Snowden had violated his oath to defend the Constitution.

“He violated the oath, he violated the law. It’s treason.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-leaks-are-treason

I would also point out that this same twisted viewpoint has been expressed by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Top Democrats and top Republicans want Snowden’s head on a platter.

Now I can see a certain (but very selective) logic to the belief that defending the government structure from attack is the same as defending the American public from attack. Undoubtedly, an outside force seeking to undermine our safety and our freedoms should be stopped, and some out there believe we need watchmen to ensure this is done. However, what happens when the greatest threat to our way of life is coming from the watchmen themselves?

The federal government was created by the Founding Fathers, begrudgingly, to serve one primary purpose: The defense of individual liberty. But what happens when the federal government no longer pursues this function? What happens when the government becomes the very enemy it was designed to defend us against? Has it not then violated the charter that made it legal in the first place? And if so, should it not then be exposed and disbanded as a broken tool, a useless piece of hardware that no longer does any good for the people overall?

The problem is that the “watchmen” were institutionalized and bureaucratized. We were supposed to be the watchers and defenders, each and every one of us, but we handed over that power to elitist interests and secretive entities. We have handed over our eyes and our hands to men who care only for their own private societies, and not American society. We have fallen asleep on the job and dark-minded doppelgangers have taken our place.

Even so, this does not mean our responsibilities have disappeared. As the actions of a handful of government whistleblowers including Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning have shown, the requirements of honor and conscience are not void simply because you now receive a government paycheck. In fact, for any government employee who considers themselves honest and principled, whistleblowing is not “treason”, as the White House would have us believe. Rather, it is a duty.

There are two kinds of law. The first is Natural Law, or laws that follow the dictates of our hearts and our inborn moral compass. The Constitution that our nation was built upon is a perfect written representation of natural law. The second is self-serving law, or the laws that one group of people in power use to control another group of people without power. Most legal structures that exist in writing today are sadly a product of self-serving law.

Legitimate treason is essentially the abandonment of the true well being of one’s culture in order to gain something for one’s self. Maybe the enticement is monetary, or maybe the enticement is to aid a foreign interest. Or, maybe it is to satisfy a dangerously selfish ideological ego. In any case, the end result is severe harm to one’s homeland.

The question is, is it “treason” to tell the truth to the American people? Is the truth harmful to our culture, or is it just harmful to the establishment? Is the survival of the establishment irreconcilably intertwined with the survival of our society, or, is that only what they want us to think? If the establishment dies because it is revealed as corrupt, do we all die with it, or, could we carry on without it?

As I pointed out before, without our heritage and our history, America fails to be. Without the lessons of the past, we are nothing. Our federal government today has separated itself from the people and elevated itself to a godlike position in our personal lives, as many despotic governments throughout history have done. Our leadership has formed alliances with private elitist interests and forsaken their responsibilities in an effort to cement their political dominance rather than protect the common good; the kind of action which has invariably led to the totalitarian monstrosities of the past. And, our government has deemed that which is moral “unimportant” or “dangerous”, and that which is immoral a matter of national security, and thus sacrosanct. We are now expected to maintain “faith” in the benevolence and good graces of government, and damn to hell the very voice within our souls. We are expected to pray for the continued longevity of the machine, and rage against anyone who might enlighten us to the evil within it.

Many people who now work for the machine are not necessarily like the machine. They are not bent on the destruction of free civilization. They are not the enemy of life or the deeper good of man. But under the long cast shadow of tyranny, the path they have chosen eventually ends, and it will end with an incalculably difficult decision – to do what is right, or to do what is safe. To remember what it is our government is supposed to stand for, or forget all that came before.

Loyalty is not and never has been unconditional – loyalty to government most of all. Loyalty to the system is dependent upon the nature of the system and the people who sit at its apex. The system must reflect the higher aspirations of the society it seeks to manage or protect. It must be held to the highest possible standard and be totally transparent in its nature. It is the job of government whistleblowers to make this possible. If they do not, then criminality will remain painfully felt but officially unconfirmed. Our country will continue to crumble into fascist oblivion, and all that will be left for the citizenry is revolution.

We must remember what we believe in, and allow that to be enough. Our fears, our biases, our superficial desires; all are irrelevant. In the end, the only thing that matters is what we leave behind. For those within government today, this could mean a legacy of desperation and sadness, or a legacy of strength, truth, and enduring peace. Time is running out.

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com. Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.

10 13 11 flagbar


Is The Safety Of The State Really Worth More Than The Truth?

07/20/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/is-safety-of-state-really-worth-more.html

 By Brandon Smith

It’s a strange and terrible tragedy when a culture forgets its own history and identity. It is even more tragic when that culture becomes deluded enough to think it can replace its heritage from scratch; that it can conjure political and social reformations out of thin air, and abandon the centuries upon centuries of accomplishment and failures of generations past. To think that one can live without the lessons and principles of one’s ancestors is a disease – a mental disorder of the highest caliber. It is an insanity that leads to terrifying catastrophe.


There is no such thing as “starting over” or “rising anew”. There is no such thing as pure and unadulterated “change”. All shifts in human civilization are a product of that which has come before, and therefore each of these shifts retains the ideas, accomplishments, and dreams of our forefathers. No matter how ingenious we think we are today, most grand schemes and wondrous plans for the world have already been discovered, rediscovered, and applied over and over again by industrious men, great men, and even nefarious men century after century.

Unique ideas are very rare. The American Republic, as a sociopolitical structure, is such an idea.

The concept of citizen self-governance is extremely uncommon in the annals of humanity, namely because there has always been an establishment of elitists within any given epoch that have sought to destroy it. There have always been organizations of the power hungry who make it their mission to suppress free thought, and free peoples, and these organizations certainly exist today.

Though we have been given an astonishing guide-map in the form of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the establishment attempts to sell us on a very different value system. In their world, true self governance is impossible, because only the elect will ever receive the political and monetary support needed just to join the ranks of those who MIGHT be elected. The common man has no place within the halls of the federal oligarchy and the elite like it that way.
In their world, leaders do not owe allegiance to the citizenry. They do not answer to the public. They do as they wish, whenever they wish, and as long as they can wrap their tyranny in the costumes of so-called patriotism, justice, or safety of the masses, they can continue uninterrupted. The system is THEIR playground, not ours.

Those people allowed to operate as government employees are treated as indentured servants of the state. Their first loyalties, the government claims, are not to Americans, but to the corporate apparatus, that America has become. That is to say, they are supposed to protect the integrity of the system, before they protect the lives and liberties of the people.

Barack Obama’s new CIA director John Brennan’s “Honor the Oath” campaign makes this position clear. In Brennan’s words, “the oath government employees take is not to the Constitution, but to the corporate culture of secrecy”:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cia-cracks-down-its-own-stop-leaks

Sen. Dianne Feinstein‘s response to the Snowden leaks on NSA mass surveillance are also rather revealing in regard to how the establishment views the exposure of truths, especially when those truths involve the governments systematic targeting of innocent Americans. Feinstein stated:

“I don’t look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it’s an act of treason,” the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told reporters.

The California lawmaker went on to say that Snowden had violated his oath to defend the Constitution.

“He violated the oath, he violated the law. It’s treason.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-leaks-are-treason

I would also point out that this same twisted viewpoint has been expressed by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Top Democrats and top Republicans want Snowden’s head on a platter.

Now I can see a certain (but very selective) logic to the belief that defending the government structure from attack is the same as defending the American public from attack. Undoubtedly, an outside force seeking to undermine our safety and our freedoms should be stopped, and some out there believe we need watchmen to ensure this is done. However, what happens when the greatest threat to our way of life is coming from the watchmen themselves?

The federal government was created by the Founding Fathers, begrudgingly, to serve one primary purpose: The defense of individual liberty. But what happens when the federal government no longer pursues this function? What happens when the government becomes the very enemy it was designed to defend us against? Has it not then violated the charter that made it legal in the first place? And if so, should it not then be exposed and disbanded as a broken tool, a useless piece of hardware that no longer does any good for the people overall?

The problem is that the “watchmen” were institutionalized and bureaucratized. We were supposed to be the watchers and defenders, each and every one of us, but we handed over that power to elitist interests and secretive entities. We have handed over our eyes and our hands to men who care only for their own private societies, and not American society. We have fallen asleep on the job and dark-minded doppelgangers have taken our place.

Even so, this does not mean our responsibilities have disappeared. As the actions of a handful of government whistleblowers including Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning have shown, the requirements of honor and conscience are not void simply because you now receive a government paycheck. In fact, for any government employee who considers themselves honest and principled, whistleblowing is not “treason”, as the White House would have us believe. Rather, it is a duty.

There are two kinds of law. The first is Natural Law, or laws that follow the dictates of our hearts and our inborn moral compass. The Constitution that our nation was built upon is a perfect written representation of natural law. The second is self-serving law, or the laws that one group of people in power use to control another group of people without power. Most legal structures that exist in writing today are sadly a product of self-serving law.

Legitimate treason is essentially the abandonment of the true well being of one’s culture in order to gain something for one’s self. Maybe the enticement is monetary, or maybe the enticement is to aid a foreign interest. Or, maybe it is to satisfy a dangerously selfish ideological ego. In any case, the end result is severe harm to one’s homeland.

The question is, is it “treason” to tell the truth to the American people? Is the truth harmful to our culture, or is it just harmful to the establishment? Is the survival of the establishment irreconcilably intertwined with the survival of our society, or, is that only what they want us to think? If the establishment dies because it is revealed as corrupt, do we all die with it, or, could we carry on without it?

As I pointed out before, without our heritage and our history, America fails to be. Without the lessons of the past, we are nothing. Our federal government today has separated itself from the people and elevated itself to a godlike position in our personal lives, as many despotic governments throughout history have done. Our leadership has formed alliances with private elitist interests and forsaken their responsibilities in an effort to cement their political dominance rather than protect the common good; the kind of action which has invariably led to the totalitarian monstrosities of the past. And, our government has deemed that which is moral “unimportant” or “dangerous”, and that which is immoral a matter of national security, and thus sacrosanct. We are now expected to maintain “faith” in the benevolence and good graces of government, and damn to hell the very voice within our souls. We are expected to pray for the continued longevity of the machine, and rage against anyone who might enlighten us to the evil within it.

Many people who now work for the machine are not necessarily like the machine. They are not bent on the destruction of free civilization. They are not the enemy of life or the deeper good of man. But under the long cast shadow of tyranny, the path they have chosen eventually ends, and it will end with an incalculably difficult decision – to do what is right, or to do what is safe. To remember what it is our government is supposed to stand for, or forget all that came before.

Loyalty is not and never has been unconditional – loyalty to government most of all. Loyalty to the system is dependent upon the nature of the system and the people who sit at its apex. The system must reflect the higher aspirations of the society it seeks to manage or protect. It must be held to the highest possible standard and be totally transparent in its nature. It is the job of government whistleblowers to make this possible. If they do not, then criminality will remain painfully felt but officially unconfirmed. Our country will continue to crumble into fascist oblivion, and all that will be left for the citizenry is revolution.

We must remember what we believe in, and allow that to be enough. Our fears, our biases, our superficial desires; all are irrelevant. In the end, the only thing that matters is what we leave behind. For those within government today, this could mean a legacy of desperation and sadness, or a legacy of strength, truth, and enduring peace. Time is running out.

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com. Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.

10 13 11 flagbar


Agenda 21 Chapter 8 The Final Coup

07/19/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/agenda-21-chapter-8-final-coup.html

 By Julie Beal

If you think the economy is simply going to collapse, think again. The bankers, the corporations, and the United Nations have got ecosystem accounting ready to rock and roll, and it’s set to change everything….

… the plan is brilliant. You reduce the number from 7+ billion by at least 33% without firing one shot. You simply privatize all natural resources and then price access so that the bottom third of the globe’s population cannot afford it. And so, they die; it will be the biggest die-off of the Anthropocene epoch. From Papua New Guinea to Croatia, from Bolivia to Ghana, from Canada to Central America, from Scotland to Nigeria, from Australia to America, forests, water rights, mineral rights, arable land, national parks, and much more is being privatized with the usual outcomes: degradation, displacement of indigenous populations, higher costs, lack of access to necessary resources — starvation, death, social unrest and rebellion… (‘Natural Capital and the Real End Game’, Sandy Krolick)

There aren’t enough people talking about this. It casts a whole new light on the TPP, on the reasons for war, possible near-term changes to corporation tax, and economic failure in general, and boggles the mind when it comes to geoengineering. Whilst we can only speculate on these connections, one thing’s for sure – monocultures for biomass-products, GMOs, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and nuclear energy will play a huge role, as they are now deemed to be renewable and/or socially responsible.

A circular economy which controls production and consumption is the ultimate aim, and this entails deep surveillance and prescriptive living for what will be called a steady-state system. The system is being implemented by measuring the new capital assets, which are created by pricing people, nature. From these new concepts, alternative currencies are forming – we’ve already got carbon credits, and social credits, and the Club of Rome (and CoR member, Bernard Lietaer), for instance, have proposed Wellness Tokens. George Soros is one of the many New Economists who are promoting community currencies.

It’s time to open our eyes to all Agenda 21 entails: there’s a lot more to it than most activists think. The communitarian ideals of smart growth and sustainable development are but one part of amuch bigger movement aiming for global ‘sustainability’ by privatizing the commons. This is achieved by measuring and pricing what are called ‘ecosystem services’, or the benefits accrued from the earth, and from people. It involves putting monetary values on aspects of nature, and the ‘services’ it provides (such as pollination), as well as pricing the productivity and overall conformity of human beings (see the U.N. plan to increase Global Happiness).
World Bank and the OECD are just two of the globalists which have perfected the ways of pricing nature, and human well-being. The next step is for corporations and governments to incorporate these prices into their financial accounts, as mandated by chapter 8 of Agenda 21. This goes under various names; the term used for the masses is ‘going beyond GDP’, but more formally, the process is known as ‘integrated reporting’. Rather than just add up the usual profits and losses, they have to factor in new kinds of assets and liabilities, i.e. all the positive and negative effects the companies have, upon the earth, and upon people.

Apart from the usual built capital, i.e. goods and infrastructure, that normally make up the accounts of a company, and which are being restricted due to the fear of scarcity, four new types ofself-perpetuating capital are now required to be priced, and accounted for. This new system of accountancy has been advanced for many years, and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has devised a framework which is to be implemented globally.

Specifically, there are five alternative forms of capital considered in the framework: manufactured capital accounts for machines the organisation uses to produce its goods or services; natural capital such as air, water and land; human capital covering not only people’s skills and experience, but also motivations or rewards to innovate; intellectual capital taking in the intangibles providing competitive advantage; and social capital – defined as the community stakeholders which “enhance individual and collective wellbeing”, which supports the business model. (Source)

The process of ecosystem accounting is generally made up of well-intentioned environmentalists, but led and paid for by trans-national corporations (TNCs), including Monsanto, Syngenta, Novartis, BP, Shell, Alcoa, General Motors, and Coca-Cola. (Source)

It’s unlikely that these corporations would be considered at all ‘sustainable’ by the environmentalists they are funding. Several corporations, such as Bayer, have also partnered with the U.N. to advance the protocol of Agenda 21.

Since the inception of the protocol, at the Earth Summit in 1992, unsustainable businesses have been busy greening themselves. In the ’90s, corporate governance became the hot topic, leading to the promotion of ‘business ethics’, and seeding the idea that corporations ‘care’ about the consequences of their actions. Small changes were made to how companies were run, so that they could promote themselves as ‘doing the right thing’. All of the top companies now have a team who deal with the image of the firm in terms of its ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR). Although the focus has been on carbon-reduction, the social aspect has become increasingly hyped. Being ‘socially responsible’ is said to mean showing consideration for the well-being of all shareholders (i.e. the people you interact with, or all those affected by the operations of a business) and usually manifests as donating to social causes, or getting company employees to do volunteer work for a charity.

There has been a concurrent rise in social investment, such that philanthro-capitalism is now mainstream. The City of London Corporation promotes itself as conforming to the green and caring new world order in much the same way as the other major players:

The City Corporation has been active in the “Social Action” area for many years. We call this activity “Supporting Society”. We already have a proud record of promoting volunteering, environmental management, philanthropy and other forms of social responsibility such as local recruitment and responsible procurement to City businesses, workers, residents and our own staff.

Commenting on the rise of social investment, Mark Boleat, Policy Chairman at the City of London Corporation, noted there is now a “fast-increasing demand for risk and growth capital”, and recommends applying tax reliefs to social investment. Earlier this year, he said:

A recent report by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that demand in the social investment market in England could reach £1bn by 2016, five times what it is today…… the demand for capital in the social sector could grow at a rate of 38% per annum.

Since the Fortune 500 gave birth to, and raised, their corporate images to the new green standard, there have been many changes to company law around the world to enforce corporate ‘commitments’ to being carbon-neutral, and socially responsible. There has also been a huge increase in businesses which help both the public and the private sector to achieve these commitments, such that now the ‘sustainability industry’ is booming. Over the years, then, it has become ‘de rigour’ to try to be green.

The concept of ‘sustainable development’ has taken on many layers of meaning, and has become so normalised, that practitioners who use the term have never even heard of Agenda 21. Town planners laugh in the faces of opponents of the agenda, because they believe strongly in what they do. After all, the science is settled – most of the world has already been ‘delphied’, having been besieged with visioning by the media for many years. Think – ‘icecaps melting’ and ‘cute polar bears’. So most people accept the sustainability agenda without question, and need no further ‘nudging’. They are not conscious of steering the agenda themselves, nor of the consequences.

Take, for instance, Lisa Duncan, who is a “Chevron Environmental Specialist”, and has become a volunteer with United Way’s Earn It! Keep It! Save It! free tax preparation program. Lisa says, “The feeling around Chevron is that we live and work in the area and should be part of improving the community….I wanted to help people, and I wanted it to be interesting.” (Source)

Another major mistake is to presume that anyone who says they care about the environment, and pays them to work to ‘save the world’ must be genuine. However, the sudden growth of ‘social giving’, and claims of ‘carbon-neutrality’, by the corporatocracy are not mirrored at the grassroots level. More to the point, those funding the eco-social technocratic smart world order are some of the most unsustainable/non-ecofriendly industries you could think of. Their keenness is so ripe, you can just smell their expectation of the profits they would reap.

So, if you’re going to say a word to anyone about Agenda 21, you’ve really got to tell them that, first and foremost, it’s about creating assets from nature and people. It is a system that willincrease zoning and smart growth. The plan is so huge, so ambitious, and so nearly ready – and it encompasses EVERY vileness of the New World Order we deplore.

Take drones, for instance. They would be used to spy on people to ensure compliance with the new regime, e.g. gathering evidence of anyone damaging an asset, such as marring a pretty view in an eco-tourist hotspot, or walking on soil in a protected area.

Take smart meters – these will be but one mechanism to enforce allocation of individual energy allowances, in the steady-state system.

Take GMOs and vaccines – they are part of the caring façade of the NWO, as they are already being marketed as ‘socially and environmentally responsible’ – the NewSpeak rationale for global law.

Take national sovereignty, political ideology, the ability to choose where and who you want to be – all of these are subsumed by the New Economy, which is a global database of assets and liabilities, comprised of measurements of natural, built and humancapital.

The right to give birth, access to water, food, clean air, a home, a gun, and possibly even the right to life – all will come under the laws associated with ownership of resources, and the aim of the communitarian steady-state system: R2P – to avoid running out, to protect what they say we have, and to always leave enough for future generations.

I hope, for all our sakes, that people will wake up to this, and obstruct it. No one can confer the responsibility to do so, but it sure would be good.

Think about the wars being waged – it’s not just central banks and the expansion of development/extraction in the Third World that the elites want. They need EVERY country to abide by the new system, because it can only be said to work if ALL production, and ALL consumption, is tallied and priced, so that quantum computers can claim to run global simulations of the ups and downs of the bio-economy. The idea is that we have to balance consumption with production, on a global scale, to maintain an ecological and psychological equilibrium, using the steady-state economic paradigm. It involves collecting a huge amount of data, on all of us. It is also open to endless abuses from the manipulation of data and statistics, such as by re-defining what constitutes scarcity, abundance, value. For this, the system needs data from all parts of the world. Non-compliance would be deemed akin to eco-terrorism!

The number of power-brokers playing the game of Global Monopoly is being reduced.

The countries which are not yet following the laws of Agenda 21 need to be made to comply. Iran, Iraq, Russia, China, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Israel have already joined the sustainability-club. Now the elites need to convince North Korea and Syria, and more of the African nations, such as Somalia, to conform. Widespread bombing may no longer be the choice method of control, since this damages profitable natural capital assets. Cyber-war and targeted drone strikes are much cleaner, less damaging to the environment – and this is worth much MUCH more to them than the (unproductive) people they kill.

The earth is being sold off: incorporated. And so are we. Because part of the plan involves measuring our happiness, which they call well-being, and so the countries which have the fittest, strongest, well-fed, schooled and happy conformists will be the ones who secure higher measures of GDP. This plan to ‘go beyond GDP’ – measuring the worth of the earth, and the people – will lead to the commodification of these new assets, which will then be tradeable, just like carbon. Over time, they come to function as currencies.

A good starting point to try and wrap your head around some of the basic concepts is a child-friendly guide, published by Peace Child International, the U.N.’s Youth Movement, called‘Introduction to Sustainable Devleopment’. It describes in simple terms the new economy being shaped by Agenda 21 (including Happiness Economics), and illustrates how lovely it all sounds.

Even the oceans are being sold off – or rather, the services they are deemed to provide, such as the profits gained from fishery, and ecotourism.

Besides the Green Economy, investment in the services provided by the oceans is growing. In February, this Blue Economy was given a boost by a new public-private partnership, launched with an investment of $1.5bn by World Bank’s Global Partnership for Oceans at The Economist’s World Oceans Summit. The system requires a constant stream of data from sensors like bioMEMS, and satellites, such as the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) technology(Source)

Things are moving fast now. It’s time to spread the word.

Help educate others and enter the Activist Post EXPOSE Agenda 21 Writing Contest. $750 in cash prizes will be awarded. Contest closes August 1st. 

This article first appeared at Get Mind Smart

Julie Beal is a UK-based independent researcher who has been studying the globalist agenda for more than 20 years. Please visit her website, Get Mind Smart, for a wide range of information about Agenda 21, Communitarianism, Ethics, Bioscience, and much more.

10 13 11 flagbar


U. S. government seceded from the American people

07/18/2013

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2013/130717/guested-sellin.html

 BY LAWRENCE SELLIN

The Preamble explicitly declares that “We the people…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The federal government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. It is a government of delegated powers, possessing no authority not expressly or by implication granted to it by the instrument that created it.

Edwin Vieira notes that, without exception, “We the people” are the sole source of whatever legal status the Constitution, the federal government and public officials have. “We the people,” therefore, are personally responsible for maintaining and protecting the Constitution and seeing to its enforcement even when the government, as an institution, proves to be impotent and our representatives are incompetent or dishonest. The republic could fall through domestic usurpation and tyranny when evil or misguided men corrupt, subvert and pervert the government by misusing the law to break the law, while, simultaneously, claiming to act under the law and in the interest of the American people.

In his 1999 book “Machiavelli on Modern Leadership” political scholar Michael A. Ledeen notes that republican governments don’t turn into dictatorships overnight. He quotes Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), who, in Discourses (Book III, Chapter VIII), blamed the influence of corrupt leaders on society:

“To usurp supreme and absolute authority…in a free state, and subject it to tyranny, the people must have already become corrupt by gradual steps from generation to generation.”

The implication is that people living in a free state will not go quietly into tyranny unless they have become complacent following generations of political corruption.

The assault on the Constitution and representative government has indeed been ongoing for generations. During the 1880s, Congress evolved from an institution of “citizen legislators” to a place where professional politicians advanced their political careers and member reelection and internal power incentives began to shape its proceedings.

According to Angelo Codevilla , in his book and Johns Hopkins University doctoral dissertation, “Congressional Government “ (1885), Woodrow Wilson argued that the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from meeting the country’s needs by enumerating rights that the government may not infringe. (“Congress shall make no law…” says the First Amendment, typically). Wilson maintained that an electoral system based on single member districts, empowers individual voters at the expense of “responsible parties.” Hence, the ruling class’s perpetual agenda has been to diminish the role of the citizenry’s elected representatives while enhancing that of party leaders as well as of groups willing to partner in the government’s plans. Fundamental to that effort is to craft a “living” Constitution in which restrictions on government give way to “positive rights,” meaning the growth of government power.

In a follow-up article , Codevilla contends that the United States already has a bona fide ruling class that transcends government, sees itself as distinct from the rest of society and as the only element that may act on its behalf. The ruling class considers those who resist it as having no moral or intellectual right, and, only reluctantly, any civil right to do so.

Republican leaders neither contest that view nor vilify their Democrat counterparts because they do not want to beat the ruling class, they want to join it. The GOP leadership has gradually solidified its choice to no longer represent what had been its constituency, but to adopt the identity of junior partners in the ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the views of Republican voters, the leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans. In short, at the outset of 2013, a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

The differences between the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. There is now a sharp division between the bipartisan ruling class and the rest of Americans, who are considered retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly controlled by the dictates of central authority.

The federal government has become an entity unto itself operating outside of Constitutional constraints and accountability to the American people.

The conflict of interests between the rulers and the ruled represented by the corrupt political status quo is unsustainable. A clash of historic proportions is inevitable.

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 (Jul 7, 2013) – Kindle eBook and “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership.“ He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

If the lazy citizens would get off their ass and study, we could put these traitors in our government where they belong, six feet under a manure pile. Wake the hell up America! What do you have to gain in a slave society?

10 13 11 flagbar


U. S. government seceded from the American people

07/18/2013

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2013/130717/guested-sellin.html

 BY LAWRENCE SELLIN

The Preamble explicitly declares that “We the people…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The federal government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. It is a government of delegated powers, possessing no authority not expressly or by implication granted to it by the instrument that created it.

Edwin Vieira notes that, without exception, “We the people” are the sole source of whatever legal status the Constitution, the federal government and public officials have. “We the people,” therefore, are personally responsible for maintaining and protecting the Constitution and seeing to its enforcement even when the government, as an institution, proves to be impotent and our representatives are incompetent or dishonest. The republic could fall through domestic usurpation and tyranny when evil or misguided men corrupt, subvert and pervert the government by misusing the law to break the law, while, simultaneously, claiming to act under the law and in the interest of the American people.

In his 1999 book “Machiavelli on Modern Leadership” political scholar Michael A. Ledeen notes that republican governments don’t turn into dictatorships overnight. He quotes Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), who, in Discourses (Book III, Chapter VIII), blamed the influence of corrupt leaders on society:

“To usurp supreme and absolute authority…in a free state, and subject it to tyranny, the people must have already become corrupt by gradual steps from generation to generation.”

The implication is that people living in a free state will not go quietly into tyranny unless they have become complacent following generations of political corruption.

The assault on the Constitution and representative government has indeed been ongoing for generations. During the 1880s, Congress evolved from an institution of “citizen legislators” to a place where professional politicians advanced their political careers and member reelection and internal power incentives began to shape its proceedings.

According to Angelo Codevilla , in his book and Johns Hopkins University doctoral dissertation, “Congressional Government “ (1885), Woodrow Wilson argued that the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from meeting the country’s needs by enumerating rights that the government may not infringe. (“Congress shall make no law…” says the First Amendment, typically). Wilson maintained that an electoral system based on single member districts, empowers individual voters at the expense of “responsible parties.” Hence, the ruling class’s perpetual agenda has been to diminish the role of the citizenry’s elected representatives while enhancing that of party leaders as well as of groups willing to partner in the government’s plans. Fundamental to that effort is to craft a “living” Constitution in which restrictions on government give way to “positive rights,” meaning the growth of government power.

In a follow-up article , Codevilla contends that the United States already has a bona fide ruling class that transcends government, sees itself as distinct from the rest of society and as the only element that may act on its behalf. The ruling class considers those who resist it as having no moral or intellectual right, and, only reluctantly, any civil right to do so.

Republican leaders neither contest that view nor vilify their Democrat counterparts because they do not want to beat the ruling class, they want to join it. The GOP leadership has gradually solidified its choice to no longer represent what had been its constituency, but to adopt the identity of junior partners in the ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the views of Republican voters, the leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans. In short, at the outset of 2013, a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

The differences between the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. There is now a sharp division between the bipartisan ruling class and the rest of Americans, who are considered retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly controlled by the dictates of central authority.

The federal government has become an entity unto itself operating outside of Constitutional constraints and accountability to the American people.

The conflict of interests between the rulers and the ruled represented by the corrupt political status quo is unsustainable. A clash of historic proportions is inevitable.

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 (Jul 7, 2013) – Kindle eBook and “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership.“ He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

If the lazy citizens would get off their ass and study, we could put these traitors in our government where they belong, six feet under a manure pile. Wake the hell up America! What do you have to gain in a slave society?

10 13 11 flagbar