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


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


Brinks Vaults Are Being Depleted: “This Has the Appearance of a Run On the Bank”

07/17/2013

http://www.shtfplan.com/precious-metals/report-brinks-vaults-are-being-depleted-this-has-the-appearance-of-a-run-on-the-bank_07152013

By Mac Slavo

The price of gold and silver has seen a massive decline as of late, prompting one analyst to suggest that there is no compelling fundamental reason to own precious metals and the only thing investors can do now is “hope and panic, in that order.”

But while current prices and technical charts may leave some with the feeling that gold’s bull run is over and the bubble has popped, others are scooping up as much yellow and silver metal as they can find, and in some cases they’re doing it by the tens of thousands of ounces.

According to recent data from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, private investors are rapidly exchanging their paper holdings and turning them into deliverable physical assets, an indication that the purported ‘free market’ price for gold on global exchanges is grossly undervalued.

Brinks is now being depleted.  

They have gone from 447,199 on July 3rd to 134,525 on July 9th which is a drop of 312,674 oz.

If this is correct, then this is a decline of 70 percent in the gold held in private accounts at Brinks in just one week.

If this is data is correct, it would not be too much of a stretch to say that this has the appearance of ‘a run on the bank.’

Jesse’s Cafe Americain via Steve Quayle

Commodities guru Doug Casey recently noted that it costs mining companies about $1200 an ounce to get gold out of the ground. Given that the price of gold is hovering right at that amount as of this writing it should be obvious that the going price for gold at this time is not sustainable. Either demand has waned and gold producers are going to be closing up shop soon because their business models will not be able to function under these prices, or we’re set to see prices bounce back significantly in coming months and years.

If we are to believe that investors are losing interest in precious metals, then how is it possible that major gold retailers like JM Bullion were reporting weeks-longdelivery delays citing “astounding volume” from the retail sector?

Even the US Mint has seen such high demand (118% increase year-over-year) that they have actuallysuspended the sale of some of their gold American Eagles because they are unable to source the gold blanks required to strike the coins.

Obviously what mainstream analysts are reporting and what is happening in the real world are two different things, as evidenced by the large scale physical deliveries being reported around the globe.

The price of gold may have dropped 25% in the last 12 months, but a similar scenario unfolded from 1975 to1976 when gold dropped nearly 50%, only to recover and go to new highs, quadrupling in value over the subsequent five years.

We’ve noted previously that the volatility in financial markets will be so extreme that even gold investors will be shaken.

If there’s one thing that should be clear, it’s that the global economic crisis is nowhere close to be resolved, and recovery could be a decade or more away. In fact, chances are we have yet to see the worst of it.

It is during environments exactly like these – when the people fear their government and lose confidence in its ability to mitigate crises – that precious metals become the investment asset of last resort.

It has happened throughout history. And it’s happening right now.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

 Biblical ‘Money Code’ ExposedMoneynews

Billionaire Tells Americans to Prepare For “F…Moneynews


Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to http://www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

10 13 11 flagbar


An Economic Nightmare Scenario

07/17/2013

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/an-economic-nightmare-scenario.html

By Michael Snyder

Most people have no idea that the U.S. financial system is on the brink of utter disaster. If interest rates continue to rise rapidly, the U.S. economy is going to be facing an economic crisis far greater than the one that erupted back in 2008. At this point, the economic paradigm that the Federal Reserve has constructed only works if interest rates remain super low. If they rise, everything falls apart.  Much higher interest rates would mean crippling interest payments on the national debt, much higher borrowing costs for state and local governments, trillions of dollars of losses for bond investors, another devastating real estate crash and the possibility of a multi-trillion dollar derivatives meltdown.

Everything depends on interest rates staying low. Unfortunately for the Fed, it only has a certain amount of control over long-term interest rates, and that control appears to be slipping.  The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries has soared in recent weeks.  So have mortgage rates.  Fortunately, rates have leveled off for the moment, but if they resume their upward march we could be dealing with a nightmare scenario very, very quickly.

In particular, the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries is a very important number to watch.  So much else in our financial system depends on that number as CNN recently explained…

Indeed, since May, just before Bernanke announced a probable end to QE3, the yield on 10-year Treasuries has jumped around almost one percentage point, to 2.6%, wiping out more than two years of interest payments. The markets clearly fear that far higher long-term rates are lurking in the absence of exceptional policies to rein them in.

That’s a crucial issue, because those rates are highly influential in determining the future performance of stocks, bonds, and real estate. Investors grant equities higher multiples when long-term rates are lower; both longer-maturity Treasuries and corporate bonds jump when rates decline; and developers pocket more cash flow from their projects when they borrow cheaply, raising the values of office and apartment buildings. When rates reverse course, so do all of those prices the Fed has been endeavoring to swell as a tonic for the economy.
Even though the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries has risen substantially, it is still very low.  It has a lot more room to go up.  In fact, as the chart posted below demonstrates, the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries was above 6 percent back in the year 2000…

7-17-2013 9-25-54 AM

And the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries should rise substantially.  It simply is not rational to lend the U.S. government money at less than 3 percent when the real rate of inflation is about 8 percent, the Federal Reserve is rapidly debasing the currency by wildly printing money and the federal government has been piling up debt as if there is no tomorrow…

7-17-2013 9-28-01 AM

Anyone that lends the U.S. government money at current rates is being very foolish.  You will end up getting back money that has much less purchasing power than you originally invested.

Why would anyone do that?

But if interest rates rise, the U.S. government could be looking at some very hairy interest payments very rapidly.  For example, if the average rate of interest on U.S. government debt just gets back to 6 percent (and it has been far higher than that in the past), the federal government will be shelling out a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the national debt.

State and local governments all over the nation could also very rapidly be facing a nightmare scenario.

Detroit is already on the verge of formally declaring the largest municipal bankruptcy in the history of the United States, and there are many other state and local governments from coast to coast that are rapidly heading toward financial disaster even though borrowing costs are super low right now.

If interest rates start rising dramatically, it would cause a huge wave of municipal financial disasters, and municipal bond investors would lose massive amounts of money

Muni bond investors are in for the shock of their lives,” said financial advisor Ric Edelman. “For the past 30 years there hasn’t been interest rate risk.”

That risk can be extreme. A one-point rise in the interest rate could cut 10 percent of the value of a municipal bond with a longer duration, he said.

Many retail buyers, though, are not ready for the change and “when it starts, it will be too late for them to react,” he said, adding that he was encouraging investors to look at their portfolio allocation and make changes to protect themselves from interest rate risks now.

In fact, bond investors of all types could be facing monstrous losses if interest rates go up dramatically.

It is being projected that if U.S. Treasury yields rise by an average of 3 percentage points, it will cause bond investors to lose a trillion dollars.

And already we have started to see a race for the exits in the bond market.  A total of 80 billion dollars was pulled out of bond funds during the month of June alone.  If you want a visual of the flow of money out of the bond market, just check out the chart below.

7-17-2013 9-30-14 AMWe are witnessing things happen in the financial markets that have not happened in a very, very long time.

And junk bonds will be hit particularly hard.  About a decade ago, the average yield on junk bonds was about twice what it is right now.  When the junk bond crash comes, there is going to be mass carnage on Wall Street.

But of much greater importance to most Americans is what is happening to mortgage rates.  As mortgage rates rise, it becomes much more difficult to sell a house and much more expensive to buy a house.

According to CNBC, there is an increasing amount of concern that the rise in mortgage rates that we are witnessing could throw the real estate market into absolute turmoil…

The housing recovery is in for a major pause due to higher mortgage rates. It is not in the numbers now, and it won’t be for a few months, but it is coming, according to one noted analyst. The market has seen rising rates before, but never so far so fast; there is no precedent for a 45 percent spike in just six weeks. The spike is causing a sense of urgency now, a rush to buy before rates go higher, but that will be short term. Home sales and home prices will both come down if rates don’t return to their lows, and the expectation is that they will not.

We have seen the number of mortgage applications fall for four weeks in a row, and at this point mortgage applications have declined by 28 percent over the past month.

That is an absolutely stunning decline, but it just shows the power of interest rates.

Let’s try to put this into real-world terms.

A year ago, the 30-year rate was sitting at 3.66 percent.  The monthly payment on a 30-year, $300,000 mortgage at that rate would be $1374.07.

If the 30-year rate rises to 8 percent, the monthly payment on a 30 year, $300,000 mortgage at that rate would be $2201.29.

Does 8 percent sound crazy to you?

It shouldn’t.  8 percent was considered to be normal back in the year 2000…

This is what we are talking about when we talk about the “bubbles” that the Federal Reserve has created.  The housing market is now completely and totally dependent on these artificially low mortgage rates.  If rates go back to “normal”, the results would be absolutely devastating. But of course the biggest problem with rapidly rising interest rates is the potential for a derivatives crisis.

There are several major U.S. banks that have tens of trillions of dollars of exposure to derivatives.  The following is from one of my previous articles entitled “The Coming Derivatives Panic That Will Destroy Global Financial Markets“…

JPMorgan Chase
Total Assets: $1,812,837,000,000 (just over 1.8 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $69,238,349,000,000 (more than 69 trillion dollars)

Citibank
Total Assets: $1,347,841,000,000 (a bit more than 1.3 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $52,150,970,000,000 (more than 52 trillion dollars)

Bank Of America
Total Assets: $1,445,093,000,000 (a bit more than 1.4 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $44,405,372,000,000 (more than 44 trillion dollars)

Goldman Sachs
Total Assets: $114,693,000,000 (a bit more than 114 billion dollars – yes, you read that correctly)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $41,580,395,000,000 (more than 41 trillion dollars)

That means that the total exposure that Goldman Sachs has to derivatives contracts is more than 362 times greater than their total assets.

The largest chunk of those derivatives contracts is made up of interest rate derivatives.

I have mentioned this so many times before, but it bears repeating that there are approximately 441 trillion dollars worth of interest rate derivatives sitting out there.

If rapidly rising interest rates suddenly cause trillions of dollars of those bets to start going bad, we could potentially see several of the “too big to fail” banks collapse at the same time.

So what would happen then?

Would the federal government and the Federal Reserve somehow come up with trillions of dollars (or potentially even tens of trillions of dollars) to bail them out?

The Federal Reserve has created a giant mess, and when this current low interest rate bubble ends our financial system is going to slam very violently into a very solid brick wall.

As Graham Summers recently pointed out, entrusting Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke with control of our financial system is like putting a madman behind the wheel of a speeding vehicle…

Imagine if you were in the car with a driver who was going 85 MPH down a road with a speed limit of 35 MPH (this isn’t a bad metaphor as there is absolutely no evidence that QE creates jobs or GDP growth so there is no reason for the Fed to be doing it in the first place).

The guy is obviously out of control. The dangers of driving this fast are myriad (crashing, running someone over, etc.) while the benefits (you might get where you want to go a little faster assuming you don’t crash) are minimal.

Now imagine that the driver turned to you and said, “I’m thinking about slowing down.” Seems like a great idea doesn’t it? But then a mere two minutes later he says “ we need to continue at 85 MPH for the foreseeable future.”

At this point any sane person would scream, “STOP.” The driver is clearly a madman and shouldn’t be let anywhere near the driver’s seat. Moreover, he’s totally lost all credibility and isn’t to be trusted.

That’s our Fed Chairman.

Sadly, most Americans do not understand any of this.

Most Americans have no idea about the immense economic pain that is going to hit us when interest rates go back to normal levels.

All of this could have been avoided, but instead the American people let the central planners over at the Federal Reserve run wild.

When the bubble finally bursts, the official unemployment rate is going to rocket well up into the double digits, millions of families will lose their homes and America will find itself in the middle of the worst economic crisis in modern U.S. history.

Please share this article with as many people as you can.  We need to help people understand what is coming so that they will not be blindsided by 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