Secession Begins at Home

01/31/2015

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=bf16b152ccc444bdbbcc229e4&id=2bf761a2a3&e=ba977b782f

By Jeff Deist

[This article is adapted from a talk presented at the Houston Mises Circle, January 24, 2015.]

Presumably everyone in this room, or virtually everyone, is here today because you have some interest in the topic of secession. You may be interested in it as an abstract concept or as a viable possibility for escaping a federal government that Americans now fear and distrust in unprecedented numbers.

As Mises wrote in 1927:

The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest.

I’m sure this sentiment is shared by many of you. Mises understood that mass democracy was no substitute for liberal society, but rather the enemy of it. Of course he was right: nearly 100 years later, we have been conquered and occupied by the state and its phony veneer of democratic elections. The federal government is now the putative ruler of nearly every aspect of life in America.

That’s why we’re here today entertaining the audacious idea of secession — an idea Mises elevated to a defining principle of classical liberalism.

It’s tempting, and entirely human, to close our eyes tight and resist radical change — to live in America’s past.

But to borrow a line from the novelist L.P. Hartley, “The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.” The America we thought we knew is a mirage; a memory, a foreign country.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why we should take secession seriously, both conceptually — as consistent with libertarianism — and as a real alternative for the future.

Does anyone really believe that a physically vast, multicultural, social democratic welfare state of 330 million people, with hugely diverse economic, social, and cultural interests, can be commanded from DC indefinitely without intense conflict and economic strife?

Does anyone really believe that we can unite under a state that endlessly divides us? Rich vs. poor, black vs. white, Hispanic vs. Anglo, men vs. women, old vs. young, secularists vs. Christians, gays vs. traditionalists, taxpayers vs. entitlement recipients, urban vs. rural, red state vs. blue state, and the political class vs. everybody?

Frankly it seems clear the federal government is hell-bent on Balkanizing America anyway. So why not seek out ways to split apart rationally and nonviolently? Why dismiss secession, the pragmatic alternative that’s staring us in the face?

Since most of us in the room are Americans, my focus today is on the political and cultural situation here at home. But the same principles of self-ownership, self-determination, and decentralization apply universally — whether we’re considering Texas independence or dozens of active breakaway movements in places like Venice, Catalonia, Scotland, and Belgium.

I truly believe secession movements represent the last best hope for reclaiming our birthright: the great classical liberal tradition and the civilization it made possible. In a world gone mad with state power, secession offers hope that truly liberal societies, organized around civil society and markets rather than central governments, can still exist.

Secession as a “Bottom-Up” Revolution

“But how could this ever really happen?” you’re probably thinking.

Wouldn’t creating a viable secession movement in the US necessarily mean convincing a majority of Americans, or at least a majority of the electorate, to join a mass political campaign much like a presidential election?

I say no. Building a libertarian secession movement need not involve mass political organizing: in fact, national political movements that pander to the Left and Right may well be hopelessly naïve and wasteful of time and resources.

Instead, our focus should be on hyper-localized resistance to the federal government in the form of a “bottom-up” revolution, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe terms it.

Hoppe counsels us to use what little daylight the state affords us defensively: just as force is justified only in self-defense, the use of democratic means is justified only when used to achieve nondemocratic, libertarian, pro-private property ends.

In other words, a bottom-up revolution employs both persuasion and democratic mechanisms to secede at the individual, family, community, and local level — in a million ways that involve turning our backs on the central government rather than attempting to bend its will.

Secession, properly understood, means withdrawing consent and walking away from DC — not trying to capture it politically and “converting the King.”

Secession is Not a Political Movement

Why is the road to secession not political, at least not at the national level? Frankly, any notion of a libertarian takeover of the political apparatus in DC is fantasy, and even if a political sea change did occur the army of 4.3 million federal employees is not simply going to disappear.

Convincing Americans to adopt a libertarian political system — even if such an oxymoron were possible — is a hopeless endeavor in our current culture.

Politics is a trailing indicator. Culture leads, politics follows. There cannot be a political sea change in America unless and until there is a philosophical, educational, and cultural sea change. Over the last 100 years progressives have overtaken education, media, fine arts, literature, and pop culture — and thus as a result they have overtaken politics. Not the other way around.

This is why our movement, the libertarian movement, must be a battle for hearts and minds. It must be an intellectual revolution of ideas, because right now bad ideas run the world. We can’t expect a libertarian political miracle to occur in an illibertarian society.

Now please don’t get me wrong. The philosophy of liberty is growing around the world, and I believe we are winning hearts and minds. This is a time for boldness, not pessimism.

Yet libertarianism will never be a mass —which is to say majority — political movement.

Some people will always support the state, and we shouldn’t kid ourselves about this. It may be due to genetic traits, environmental factors, family influences, bad schools, media influences, or simply an innate human desire to seek the illusion of security.

But we make a fatal mistake when we dilute our message to seek approval from people who seemingly are hardwired to oppose us. And we waste precious time and energy.

What’s important is not convincing those who fundamentally disagree with us, but the degree to which we can extract ourselves from their political control.

This is why secession is a tactically superior approach in my view: it is far less daunting to convince liberty-minded people to walk away from the state than to convince those with a statist mindset to change.

What About the Federales?

Now I know what you’re thinking, and so does the aforementioned Dr. Hoppe:

Wouldn’t the federales simply crush any such attempt (at localized secession)?

They surely would like to, but whether or not they can actually do so is an entirely different question … it is only necessary to recognize that the members of the governmental apparatus always represent, even under conditions of democracy, a (very small) proportion of the total population.

Hoppe envisions a growing number of “implicitly seceded territories” engaging in noncompliance with federal authority:

Without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central government is not much more than hot air.

It would be prudent … to avoid a direct confrontation with the central government and not openly denounce its authority …

Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and noncooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in each and every federal law …

Finally, he concludes as only Hoppe could (remember this is the 1990s):

Waco, a teeny group of freaks, is one thing. But to occupy, or to wipe out a significantly large group of normal, accomplished, upstanding citizens is quite another, and quite a more difficult thing.

Now you may disagree with Dr. Hoppe as to the degree to which the federal government would actively order military violence to tamp down any secessionist hotspots, but his larger point is unassailable: the regime is largely an illusion, and consent to its authority is almost completely due to fear, not respect. Eliminate the illusion of benevolence and omnipotence and consent quickly crumbles.

Imagine what a committed, coordinated libertarian base could achieve in America! 10 percent of the US population, or roughly thirty-two million people, would be an unstoppable force of nonviolent withdrawal from the federal leviathan.

As Hoppe posits, it is no easy matter for the state to arrest or attack large local groups of citizens. And as American history teaches, the majority of people in any conflict are likely to be “fence sitters” rather than antagonists.

Left and Right are Hypocrites Regarding Secession

One of the great ironies of our time is that both the political Left and Right complain bitterly about the other, but steadfastly refuse to consider, once again, the obvious solution staring us in the face.

Now one might think progressives would champion the Tenth Amendment and states’ rights, because it would liberate them from the Neanderthal right wingers who stand in the way of their progressive utopia. Imagine California or Massachusetts having every progressive policy firmly in place, without any preemptive federal legislation or federal courts to get in their way, and without having to share federal tax revenues with the hated red states.

Imagine an experiment where residents of the San Francisco bay area were free to live under a political and social regime of their liking, while residents of Salt Lake City were free to do the same.

Surely both communities would be much happier with this commonsense arrangement than the current one, whereby both have to defer to Washington!

But in fact progressives strongly oppose federalism and states’ rights, much less secession! The reason, of course, is that progressives believe they’re winning and they don’t intend for a minute to let anyone walk away from what they have planned for us.

Democracy is the great political orthodoxy of our times, but its supposed champions on the Left can’t abide true localized democracy — which is in fact the stated aim of secession movements.

They’re interested in democracy only when the vote actually goes their way, and then only at the most attenuated federal level, or preferably for progressives, the international level. The last thing they want is local control over anything! They are the great centralizers and consolidators of state authority.

“Live and let live” is simply not in their DNA.

Our friends on the Right are scarcely better on this issue.

Many conservatives are hopelessly wedded to the Lincoln myth and remain in thrall to the central warfare state, no matter the cost.

As an example, consider the Scottish independence referendum that took place in September of 2014.

Some conservatives, and even a few libertarians claimed that we should oppose the referendum on the grounds that it would create a new government, and thus two states would exist in the place of one. But reducing the size and scope of any single state’s dominion is healthy for liberty, because it leads us closer to the ultimate goal of self-determination at the individual level, to granting each of us sovereignty over our lives.

Again quoting Mises:

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. (italics added)

Furthermore, some conservatives argue that we should not support secession movements where the breakaway movement is likely to create a government that is more “liberal” than the one it replaces. This was the case in Scotland, where younger Scots who supported the independence referendum in greater numbers hoped to create strong ties with the EU parliament in Brussels and build a Scandinavian-style welfare state run from Holyrood (never mind that Tories in London were overjoyed at the prospect of jettisoning a huge number of Labour supporters!).

But if support for the principle of self-determination is to have any meaning whatsoever, it must allow for others to make decisions with which we disagree. Political competition can only benefit all of us. What neither progressives nor conservatives understand — or worse, maybe they do understand — is that secession provides a mechanism for real diversity, a world where we are not all yoked together. It provides a way for people with widely divergent views and interests to live peaceably as neighbors instead of suffering under one commanding central government that pits them against each other.

Secession Begins With You

Ultimately, the wisdom of secession starts and ends with the individual. Bad ideas run the world, but must they run your world?

The question we all have to ask ourselves is this: how seriously do we take the right of self-determination, and what are we willing to do in our personal lives to assert it?

Secession really begins at home, with the actions we all take in our everyday lives to distance and remove ourselves from state authority — quietly, nonviolently, inexorably.

The state is crumbling all around us, under the weight of its own contradictions, its own fiscal mess, and its own monetary system. We don’t need to win control of DC.

What we need to do, as people seeking more freedom and a better life for future generations, is to walk away from DC, and make sure we don’t go down with it.

How To Secede Right Now

So in closing, let me make a few humble suggestions for beginning a journey of personal secession. Not all of these may apply to your personal circumstances; no one but you can decide what’s best for you and your family. But all of us can play a role in a bottom-up revolution by doing everything in our power to withdraw our consent from the state:

  • Secede from intellectual isolation. Talk to like-minded friends, family, and neighbors — whether physically or virtually — to spread liberty and cultivate relationships and alliances. The state prefers to have us atomized, without a strong family structure or social network;
  • secede from dependency. Become as self-sufficient as possible with regard to food, water, fuel, cash, firearms, and physical security at home. Resist being reliant on government in the event of a natural disaster, bank crisis, or the like;
  • secede from mainstream media, which promotes the state in a million different ways. Ditch cable, ditch CNN, ditch the major newspapers, and find your own sources of information in this internet age. Take advantage of a luxury previous generations did not enjoy;
  • secede from state control of your children by homeschooling or unschooling them;
  • secede from college by rejecting mainstream academia and its student loan trap. Educate yourself using online learning platforms, obtaining technical credentials, or simply by reading as much as you can;
  • secede from the US dollar by owning physical precious metals, by owning assets denominated in foreign currencies, and by owning assets abroad;
  • secede from the federal tax and regulatory regimes by organizing your business and personal affairs to be as tax efficient and unobtrusive as possible;
  • secede from the legal system, by legally protecting your assets from rapacious lawsuits and probate courts as much as possible;
  • secede from the state healthcare racket by taking control of your health, and questioning medical orthodoxy;
  • secede from your state by moving to another with a better tax and regulatory environment, better homeschooling laws, better gun laws, or just one with more liberty-minded people;
  • secede from political uncertainly in the US by obtaining a second passport; or
  • secede from the US altogether by expatriating.
  • Most of all, secede from the mindset that government is all-powerful or too formidable an opponent to be overcome. The state is nothing more than Bastiat’s great fiction, or Murray’s gang of thieves writ large. Let’s not give it the power to make us unhappy or pessimistic.

All of us, regardless of ideological bent and regardless of whether we know it or not, are married to a very violent, abusive spendthrift. It’s time, ladies and gentlemen, to get a divorce from DC.

 10 13 11 flagbar


Sons of Liberty A Review

01/30/2015

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36045/Nelson-Hultberg-Sons-of-Liberty-A-Review/?uuid=6F80FACC-5056-9627-3C224900D5600C65

1-30-2015 12-27-30 PM

By Nelson Hultberg – January 30, 2015

The History channel’s new miniseries, “Sons of Liberty,”* will anger the purists and the prudes. But it will delight the swashbuckler in the rest of us. It is a big, bodacious screening with superb production values that covers the lead-up years to the American Revolution, 1765-1775. Yes, certain liberties are taken with some of the facts and events. The main characters are glamorized. But the essential theme of America’s birth is kept intact: we as a nation were spawned by a band of rebels made up of assorted firebrands, smugglers, and philosophers all coalescing together under the rubric of Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man. Besides, what depiction of history is not romanticized by making the main characters a bit handsomer and younger than they, perhaps, were. Certainly not any depiction made for television.

The main character striding through “Sons of Liberty” is the famous Samuel Adams, played robustly by British actor, Ben Barnes, who doesn’t give us an actualization of Adams’ role in history, but rather a symbolization of it. First of all, Barnes is in his early thirties, and Adams was 51 years old when he fomented the Boston Tea Party. So the producers of “Sons of Liberty” are trying to give us the symbolic Sam Adams and what his role was in the creation of America. Sam Adams was the quintessential rebel mind. He didn’t have the scholarly genius of Thomas Jefferson, but he had a brilliant revolutionary mind. And valor permeated his entire life. He blended mind and defiance as well as, and perhaps better than, any of our Founders.

Sam Adams told his fellow patriots in 1773 in the build-up to the Boston Tea Party, “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

This is what brings about all revolutionary change in history – small minorities of men and women fervently committed to a cause that will require courage and resourcefulness to bring into fruition. Yes, luck is also necessary, but mostly courage and resourcefulness because luck eventually descends upon us all. It’s the ones with courage who ride the luck into history and change the fate of mankind. Sam Adams and the “Sons of Liberty” were these kind of men. They seized the opportunity that the arrogant, blundering British gave to them.

The valor of Sam Adams was the spark that made him one of our most important Founders. As we all know, the colonists were by no means united. “Sons of Liberty” portrays this Rebel-Tory division clearly, and it demonstrates how remarkable the likes of Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and Dr. Joseph Warren were. They were willing to break from the security and stability of life under the British Crown to venture into uncharted waters for a new future – a break that offered them certain death or prison if they failed, yet they eagerly proceeded. In the process they galvanized a band of rebels and lit the match to “the shot heard round the world.”

The Partnership

In the first segment, we see Sam Adams and John Hancock initiate their partnership, which eventually leads to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. Adams is a scruffy, roguish firebrand, while Hancock is portrayed as a rich, cautious, unbearably foppish socialite who relies on trade and imports to bring him the lavish life he desires. In addition, the director, Kari Skogland, has him constantly urging Adams and his band of street rebels to “stop their insanity.” Unfortunately this is not the historical Hancock at all. Yet at every turn, Skogland and her writers insist on painting this false picture of Hancock as timidly opposing the rebellion, even opposing the dumping of the tea into Boston Harbor.

All historical records clearly show Hancock was a vigorous supporter of the colonial protests against the British from 1765 on in concert with Adams. Yet Skogland has him reluctantly and timidly dragging his feet throughout these crucial years. Hancock was not a warrior, but he was very much a willing rebel who financed the agitations and the dumping of the tea. He was upper class, yes, but hardly a fop. He fervently favored the revolution, and served admirably in various roles of political leadership for the American cause from the beginning. For some reason, however, Skogland’s writers have quite incorrectly portrayed him. Not good.

The British Are Coming

In the second segment, we are introduced to the tyrannical British Gen. Thomas Gage (played to menacing perfection by Marton Csokas) and also to the renowned Paul Revere and his epic ride (played forcefully by the rugged Michael Raymond-James). Revere was a silversmith, but he had a warrior persona. The Boston Tea Party is presented in a sensationalized manner with Sam Adams standing astride one of the ships to stare down a regiment of British regulars with muskets raised on the wharf, daring them to shoot him. Quisling Governor Hutchinson arrives just in time to halt the British regiment leader for fear of making the heroic Adams into a martyr.

If director, Skogland, is lacking in historical accuracy, she is certainly not deficient in the ability to entertain her viewers. She gives us action, conflict, suspense, and charismatic characters we care about, as well as a salacious romance between Dr. Joseph Warren and Gen. Gage’s ravishing wife, Margaret, played by Emily Berrington. Ryan Eggold is very appealing as the clever and courageous Dr. Joseph Warren. Berrington is pristinely beautiful as Margaret Gage. Their love affair is total fiction; but its insertion into the story allows “Sons of Liberty” to avoid being just a litany of politics and battles. It becomes a sexy romp as well. After all, America’s rebels were not prudes; they lusted after women in their day as we do in ours. This tale is not meant to be a staid documentary with sidebar commentaries by dreary Doris Goodwin types. It is meant to be a TV blockbuster. Sex is necessary for that.

Lexington and Bunker Hill

The third and final segment begins with the British rout of the rebels at Lexington Green on April 19, 1775 and the following rebel victory at the Concord munitions storage. Thus begins our War for Independence. These and the later battle scenes are carried off spectacularly with big sophisticated production values. The Concord surprise victory for the rebels shakes Gage and his troops severely, which is demonstrated by Gage’s hurried request to London for more troops and his demand to recklessly attack the rebels at Bunker Hill despite the certainty of heavy British casualties and warnings from his subordinate officers. Gage is vile and icy in demeanor. He will surely go down as one of the great villains of TV entertainment. There is a grisly inhumanity about the man. Gen. Washington termed him a ruthless cancer.

At John Adams’ insistence, our rebel heroes then pay a visit to Benjamin Franklin for advice and support. Apparently the historical Franklin is not in Skogland’s memory bank either, for the Franklin we encounter here seems more like a brawny biker with a Harley outside at the hitching post. He is played by Breaking Bad’s robustious Dean Norris. He pours forth the braininess we expect from Franklin, but Skogland has injected a few choice morsels of modern dialogue into his part. “You’re talking about a new country,” he informs a startled contingent of Sam and John Adams, and Paul Revere. They reply hesitantly that they guess they are, to which Franklin responds, “That’s a bat shit crazy idea.” But he assures them that he agrees with this crazy idea. Inserting modern slang into the revered mouths of the Founders may be “progressive” and “avant-garde” to Skogland, but to me it is a stink bomb for the script.

Next comes the Battle of Bunker Hill, and it is as gritty and grotesque as a battle can be. Huge casualties are suffered by the rebels as they are overrun by the monster British war machine and Gage’s fanaticism. In the aftermath, Gen. Washington, who up till now has remained a non-participant in the rebel hostilities, manifests as the heroic leader we know from history and assures the rebels that all is not lost. A fierce war is coming, but he will lead them.

The finale is a stirring speech for liberty by Sam Adams in front of the delegates of the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia in July of 1776 that prefaces the signing of the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock inscribes his now famous signature to the storied document, a war begins, and a new country is born.

The Lesson for Us Today

In conclusion, “Sons of Liberty” is far from accurate history, but it is splendid entertainment. Most importantly it is true to the fundamental fount of America – that we were spawned by a new philosophical vision of strictly limited government instituted to protect men’s rights rather than manipulate men’s lives.

How did these scruffy “Sons of Liberty,” and the rag-tag army they morphed into, pull off defeating the most powerful military force in the world at that time? They did it because there exists a dynamic force in our lives that all tyrannical systems lack and all rational revolutionaries possess – moral truth! This is what brings the most powerful of tyrannies down. No matter how much military or regulatory control they possess, no matter how ruthless they are – they are always vulnerable in face of men and women who are in possession of truth and willing to take a moral stand against overwhelming odds. Moral truth connected to unbending human will is what eventually destroys the most entrenched of evil.

We have this force on our side today in the crisis we now face, which is identical in principle to the crisis our Founders faced. We possess the same moral truth that they had, and we can use it to overcome today’s Washington tyrants. We just have to design the right strategy to implement it. There are countless Americans out there just waiting for the right mix of political savvy and passion to come along and sweep them up into a crusade.

In 1776, the Tories timidly hid behind closed doors where it was safe and popular. They wallowed in pessimism and lamented that nothing could be done. The British were too strong. Why make a big fuss? But the rebels – men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock, Paul Revere and Joseph Warren – would have none of it. They knew they had moral truth on their side, and that the British Gargantua would fall precisely because of that. And if they weren’t absolutely certain they would prevail, they knew they still must fight, or their lives were meaningless. This is the lesson we glean from the Sons of Liberty for our lives today.

Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and Dr. Joseph Warren are eternal archetypes of what is required as human beings to live freely and justly. If you missed this original History channel presentation of their fight, it will come around again. Don’t miss its rerun.

History channel, January 25-27, 2015; Directed by Kari Skogland; written by Stephen David and David C. White.

10 13 11 flagbar


Wealth Gap 10 percent of Americans Own 91 percent (but the Queen and Rothschilds Still Own Almost Everything)

01/29/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/wealth-gap-10-of-americans-own-91-but.html

1-29-2015 10-52-14 AM

By Melissa Melton
Activist Post 

Are you fighting for your servitude as if for your salvation? Then you have been well-deceived. You have been sheeple-compromised. Your thoughts are not your own. Your actions are not your own. You are in all ways a conditioned puppet who is under the delusion that it is free, and the psychopaths of the world are your uncompromising puppet masters. —Gary ‘Z’ McGee, Waking Times

Every few months for the last couple of years, a new story pops up declaring the “official” wealth gap — the one most public sources will admit to — is getting wider and wider at a faster and faster rate.

This is the real economic crisis.

The wealth gap in America, for example, is insane these days.

Check out this fresh report from Nation of Change (an ironic name considering the topic):

Just 10 percent of Americans own 91 percent of the nation’s stocks and mutual funds, according to economist Edward Wolff (Table 7). Most of the remainder is held by a “middle class” that is steadily losing ground. The bottom 60 percent is almost entirely shut out (Table 2).

Stock owners, some of whom made billions of dollars last year, can defer their income taxes indefinitely, pay a reduced capital gains tax when they decide to cash in, or pass on the capital gains tax-free to their heirs…

$2 of every $5 owned today was created in the last five years, most of it from the financial markets, and almost all of it going to the richest 10 percent.

Unfathomably, the richest 1 percent took anywhere from 95 percent to 116 percent of the new income gains after the recession. Yes, 116 percent, because almost everyone else went backwards. Median wealth dropped about 40 percent from 2007 to 2013.

And it just keeps getting worse. Remember that big report that came out last year about how the 85 richest people in the world — only 85 people — own as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 BILLION poorest? This isn’t set up to let more people get in the club fake American Dream style either. Only people who are still asleep believe that.

No, the elite are closing ranks. The report about the 85 versus 3.5 billion came out in January 2014. It was quickly followed up by a new report just a couple months later that it was down to a mere 67 people… sixty-seven people… who own more than the bottom half of everybody in the whole entire world.

The number is likely smaller now.

But Who Are the Real Owners?

This number, as most of us have come to realize, is totally skewed anyway because no one anywhere in traditional media print wants to admit that the real owners (as George Carlin would call them) — the 0.0000001% of whatever they are — own so much wealth most of us cannot conceive of numbers that big without frying our grey brain matter like eggs on the sidewalk in Hell.

Facts like the Queen of England is truly one of the world’s richest people and the world’s largest land owner, with holdings worth approximately £17,600,000,000,000. Although an estimate is hard to truly make because she has a lot of proxies, it is estimated that woman is worth some obscene amount like $33 trillion (that’s trillion, with a ‘T’). Of course, someone did the math on that figure back in 2007, nearly a decade ago, so who knows what the number is now.

She nominally owns 6.6 billion acres of land on a planet that only has 36.8 billion acres of inhabitable land. She has so much money at this point that she has no clue what a hundred bucks means to the average human being if she ever did. This woman could literally end world poverty and hunger all by herself if she wanted to. It’s that much.

Think about that — we live in a world where one person can own 1/6 of the land on the entire planet and so much money no one would have to be poor or suffer but, hey, where’s the power in that? On an aside, did you know she controls uranium the way De Beers controls diamonds?

Speaking of De Beers, did you know that company was founded on Rothschild capital?

Who are the Rothschilds? Why, the people who own the Queen.

Yes, the Rothschilds. Now we’re talking numbers like $500 trillion. That’s half a QUADRILLION dollars. I couldn’t even begin to tell you how to visualize that in terms that make mental sense. Just know that more than half the wealth that exists on this planet, they own.

Now we’re talking about people who aren’t even on the list over at Forbes. There’s a reason. Mostly it’s because then Forbes wouldn’t have a list.

After you read the rest of this article watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxmJUBDgpyQ

The world cannot continue this way forever. There are way more poor people than rich and the latter group is dwindling further and further all the time.

Pretty soon that huge number of poor are going to start to wonder why they can never catch a break, why they should even try… and why so few are making life-changing decisions for so many based on their immense wealth. People like Bill Gates with all his vaccines and population control agenda, Warren Buffett with his smart grid enslavement, George Soros buying civil unrest by the millions, and Michael Bloomberg buying gun control come immediately to mind.

More and more people are going to start to wonder who owns them… and why… and how do they ever get truly free from this utterly corrupt world order system?

WATCH GEORGE TELL IT LIKE IT REALLY IS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!

 10 13 11 flagbar


Failing Stimulus And The IMF’s New “Multilateral” World Order

01/28/2015

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2491-failing-stimulus

-and-the-imfs-new-multilateral-world-order

1-28-2015 11-02-54 AM

By Brandon Smith

My theme for 2015 has been the assertion that this will be a year of shattered illusions; social, political, as well as economic. As I have noted in recent articles, 2014 set the stage for multiple engineered conflicts, including the false conflict between Eastern and Western financial and political powers, as well as the growing conflict between OPEC nations, shale producers, as well as conflicting notions on the security of the dollar’s petro-status and the security and stability of the European Union.

Since the derivatives and credit crisis of 2008, central banks have claimed their efforts revolve around intervention against the snowball effect of classical deflationary market trends. The REAL purpose of central bank stimulus actions, however, has been to create an illusory global financial environment in which traditional economic fundamentals are either ignored, or no longer reflect the concrete truths they are meant to convey. That is to say, the international banking cult has NO INTEREST whatsoever in saving the current system, despite the assumptions of many market analysts. They know full well that fiat printing, bond buying, and even manipulation of stocks will not change the nature of the underlying crisis.

Their only goal has been to stave off the visible effects of the crisis until a new system is ready (psychologically justified in the public consciousness) to be put into place. I wrote extensively about the admitted plan for a disastrous “economic reset” benefiting only the global elites in my article ‘The Economic End Game Explained’.

We are beginning to see the holes in the veil placed over the eyes of the general populace, most notably in the EU, where the elites are now implementing what I believe to be the final stages of the disruption of European markets.

The prevailing illusion concerning the EU is that it is a “model” for the future the globalists wish to create, and therefore, the assumption is that they would never deliberately allow the transnational union to fail. Unfortunately, people who make this argument do not seem to realize that the EU is NOT a model for the New World Order, it is in fact a mere stepping stone.

The rising propaganda argument voiced by elites in the International Monetary Fund and the Bank For International Settlements, not to mention the ECB, is not that Europe’s troubles stem from its ludicrous surrender to a faceless bureaucratic machine. Rather, the argument from the globalists is that Europe is failing because it is not “centralized enough”. Mario Draghi, head of the ECB and member of the board of directors of the BIS, tried to sell the idea that centralization solves everything in an editorial written at the beginning of this year.

Ultimately, economic convergence among countries cannot be only an entry criterion for monetary union, or a condition that is met some of the time. It has to be a condition that is fulfilled all of the time. And for this reason, to complete monetary union we will ultimately have to deepen our political union further: to lay down its rights and obligations in a renewed institutional order.”

Make no mistake, the rhetoric that will be used by Fabian influenced media pundits and mainstream economic snake-oil salesmen in the coming months will say that the solution to EU instability as well as global instability is a single global governing body over the fiscal life of all nations and peoples. The argument will be that the economic crisis persists because we continue to cling to the “barbaric relic” of national sovereignty.

In the meantime, internationalists are protecting the legitimacy of stimulus actions and banker led policy by diverting attention away from the failure of the central planning methodology.

Mario Draghi has recently announced the institution of Europe’s own QE bond buying program, only months after Japan initiated yet another stimulus measure of its own, and only months after the Federal Reserve ended QE with the finale of the taper.

I would point out that essentially the moment the Fed finalized the taper of QE in the U.S., we immediately began to see a return of stock volatility, as well as the current plunge in oil prices. I think it should now be crystal clear to everyone where stimulus money was really going, as well as what assumptions oblivious day-traders were operating on.

The common claim today is that the QE of Japan and now the ECB are meant to take up the slack left behind in the manipulation of markets by the Fed. I disagree. As I have been saying since the announcement of the taper, stimulus measures have a shelf life, and central banks are not capable of propping up markets for much longer, even if that is their intention (which it is not). Why? Because even though market fundamentals have been obscured by a fog of manipulation, they unquestionably still apply. Real supply and demand will ALWAYS matter – they are like gravity, and we are forced to deal with them eventually.

Beyond available supply, all trade ultimately depend on two things – savings and demand. Without these two things, the economy will inevitably collapse. Central bank stimulus does not generated jobs, it does not generated available credit, it does not generated higher wages, nor does it generated ample savings. Thus, the economic crisis continues unabated and even stock markets are beginning to waver.

As demand collapses due to a lack of strong jobs and savings, it pulls down on the central bank fiat fueled rocket ship like an increase in gravity. The rocket (in this case equities markets and government debt) hits a point of terminal altitude. The banks are forced to pour in even more fiat fuel just to keep the vessel from crashing back to Earth. No matter how much fuel they create, the gravity of crashing demand increases equally in the opposite direction. In the end, the rocket will tumble and disintegrate in a spectacular explosion, filled to capacity with fuel but unable to go anywhere.

Oil markets have expressed this reality in relentless fashion the past few months. Real demand growth in oil has been stagnant for years, yet, because of stimulus, because of the real devaluation of the dollar, and because of market exuberance, prices were unrealistically high in comparison. The crash of oil is a startling sign that the exuberance is over, and something else is taking shape…

The disconnect within banker propaganda could be best summarized by Mario Draghi’s recent statements on the ECB’s new stimulus measures. When asked if he was concerned about the possibility of European QE triggering currency devaluation and hyperinflation, Draghi had this to say:

I think the best way to answer to this is have we seen lots of inflation since the QE program started? Have we seen that? And now it’s quite a few years that we started. You know, our experience since we have these press conferences goes back to a little more than three years. In these 3 years we’ve lowered interest rates, I don’t know how many times, 4 or 5 times, 6 times maybe. And each times someone was saying, this is going to be terrible expansionary, there will be inflation. Some people voted against lowering interest rates way back at the end of November 2013. We did OMP. We did the LTROs. We did TLTROs. And somehow this runaway inflation hasn’t come yet.

So the jury is still out, but there must be a statute of limitations. Also for the people who say that there would be inflation, yes When please. Tell me, within what?”

Firstly, if you are using “official” CPI numbers in the U.S. to gauge whether or not there has been inflation, then yes, Draghi’s claim appears sound. However, if you use the traditional method (pre-1990’s) to calculate CPI rather than the new and incomplete method, inflation over the past few years has stood at around 8%-10%, and most essential goods including most food items have risen in price by 30% or more, far above the official 0%-1% numbers presented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But beyond real inflation numbers I find a very humorous truth within Draghi’s rather disingenuous statement; yes, QE has not yet produced hyperinflation in the U.S. (primarily because the untold trillions in fiat created still sit idle in the coffers of international banks rather than circulating freely), however, what HAS stimulus actually accomplished if not inflation? Certainly not any semblance of economic recovery.

Look at it this way; I could also claim that if international bankers lined up on a stage at Davos and danced the funky-chicken, hyperinflation would probably not result. But what is the point of dancing the funky chicken, and really, what is the point of QE? Stimulus clearly has about as much positive effect on the economy as jerking around rhythmically in tight polypropylene disco pants.

Japan and the ECB are in fact launching sizable stimulus measures exactly because the QE of the Federal Reserve achieved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except the purchase of 5-6 years without total collapse (only gradual collapse). And what is the real cost/benefit ratio of that purchase of half a decade of fiscal purgatory? When the breakdown of debt and forex markets does occur, it will be a hundred times worse than if the Fed had done nothing at all. Which brings me to our current state of affairs in 2015, and the IMF plan to take advantage…

IMF head Christine Lagarde put out a press release this past week, one which was probably drafted for her by a team of ghouls at the BIS, mentioning the formation of what she called the “New Multilateralism”.

Lagarde begins with the same old song about accommodative monetary policy:

Besides structural reforms, building new momentum will require pulling all possible levers that can support global demand. Accommodative monetary policy will remain essential for as long as growth remains anemic – though we must pay careful attention to potential spillovers. Fiscal policy should be focused on promoting growth and creating jobs, while maintaining medium-term credibility.”

Of course, as we have already established, monetary policy does nothing to inspire demand. So, what is a global syndicate of bankers to do? Promote maximum interdependency! Lagarde laments the impediments of the sovereign attitude:

No economy is an island; indeed, the global economy is more integrated than ever before. Consider this: Fifty years ago, emerging markets and developing economies accounted for about a quarter of world GDP. Today, they generate half of global income, a share that will continue to rise.

But sovereign states are no longer the only actors on the scene. A global network of new stakeholders has emerged, including NGOs and citizen activists – often empowered by social media. This new reality demands a new response. We will need to update, adapt, and deepen our methods of working together.”

And here we have a more subtle insinuation of the planning and programming I have been warning about for years. Because national sovereignty is no longer “practical” in an economically interdependent world (a world forced into economic interdependency by the globalists themselves), we must now change our way of thinking to support a more globalist framework.

The first big lie is that interdependency is a natural economic state. Historically, economies are more likely to survive and thrive the LESS dependent they are on outside factors. Independent, self contained, self sustaining, decentralized economies are the natural and preferable cultural path. Multilateralism (centralization) is completely contrary and destructive to this natural state, as we have already witnessed in the kind of panic which ensues across the globe when even one small nation, like Switzerland, decides to break from the accepted pattern of interdependency.

Also, take note of Lagarde’s reference to the growing role that developing nations (BRICS) are playing in this interdependent globalized mish-mash. As I have been warning, the IMF and the international banks fully intend to bring the BRICS further into the fold of the “new multilateralism”, and the supposed conflict between the East and the West is a ridiculous farce designed only as theater for the masses.

Lagarde reiterates the IMF push for inclusion of the BRICS (new networks of influence) into the new system, as well as the IMF’s role as the arbiter of global governance:

This can be done by building on effective institutions of cooperation that already exist. Institutions like the IMF should be made even more representative in light of the dynamic shifts taking place in the global economy. The new networks of influence should be embraced and given space in the twenty-first century architecture of global governance. This is what I have called the “new multilateralism.” I believe it is the only way to address the challenges that the global community faces.”

The IMF head finishes with my favorite line, one which should tell you all you need to know about what is about to happen in 2015. I have for some time been following the progress (or lack of progress) in the IMF reforms presented in 2010; reforms which the U.S. Congress has refused to pass. Why? I believe the reforms remain dormant because the U.S. is MEANT to lose its veto powers within the IMF, and the IMF has already made clear that lack of passage will result in just that.

Against this backdrop, the adoption of the IMF reforms by the United States Congress would send a long-overdue signal to rapidly growing emerging economies that the world counts on their voices, and their resources, to find global solutions to global problems.

Growth, trade, development, and climate change: 2015 will be a rendezvous of important multilateral initiatives. We cannot afford to see them fail. Let us make the right choices.”

Why remove U.S. veto power? Because BRICS nations like China are about to be given far more inclusion in the IMF’s multilateralist order. In fact, 2015 is the year in which the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights conference is set to commence, with initial discussions in May, and international meetings in October. I believe U.S. veto power will probably be removed by May, making the way clear (creating the rationale) for the marginalization of the U.S. dollar in favor of the SDR basket currency system, soon to be boosted by China’s induction.

In 2015 what we really have is a sprint towards currency and market devaluation across the spectrum. India, Japan, Russia, Europe, parts of South America, have all been debased monetarily. The U.S. has as well, most Americans just don’t know it yet. The value of this for globalists is far reaching. They have at a basic level created an atmosphere of lowered economic expectations – a global reduction in living standards which will at bottom lead to third world status for everyone. The elites hope that this will be enough to condition the public to support centralized financial control as the only option for survival.

It is hard to say what kind of Black Swans and false flags will be conjured in the meantime, but I highly doubt the shift towards the SDR will take place without considerable geopolitical turmoil. The public will require some sizable scapegoats for the kind of pain they will feel as the banks attempt to place the global economy in a totalitarian choke hold. While certain institutions may be held up as sacrificial lambs (including possibly the Federal Reserve itself), the concept of banker governance will be promoted as the best and only solution, despite the undeniable reality that the world would be a far better place if such men and their structures of influence were to be wiped off the face of the planet entirely.

REMINDER:  Alt-Market’s winter donation drive is now underway!  If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

10 13 11 flagbar

 


Handcuffs Leg Shackles and Tasers The New Face of Punishment in the Public Schools

01/27/2015

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82887b643445&id=52d1f5dee0&e=84f74f6a6a

By John W. Whitehead

January 26, 2015

“In many parts of the country, teachers are viewed as beyond reproach, much like doctors, police officers, or clergy … and, therefore, are rarely challenged about their classroom conduct. In some cases, this means that actions that would be considered criminal if committed by a parent remain unchallenged by law enforcement if they occur in a school setting.”—Senator Tom Harkin, “Dangerous Use of Seclusion and Restraints in Schools Remains Widespread and Difficult to Remedy: A Review of Ten Cases

Roughly 1500 kids are tied up or locked down every day by school officials in the United States.

At least 500 students are locked up in some form of solitary confinement every day, whether it be a padded room, a closet or a duffel bag. In many cases, parents are rarely notified when such methods are used.

On any given day when school is in session, kids who “act up” in class are pinned facedown on the floor, locked in dark closets, tied up with straps, bungee cords and duct tape, handcuffed, leg shackled, tasered or otherwise restrained, immobilized or placed in solitary confinement in order to bring them under “control.”

In almost every case, these undeniably harsh methods are used to punish kids for simply failing to follow directions or throwing tantrums. Very rarely do the kids pose any credible danger to themselves or others.

Unbelievably, these tactics are all legal, at least when employed by school officials or school resource officers (a.k.a. police officers) in the nation’s public schools.

For example, in what may be the youngest example of a child being restrained in this way, in October 2014, a 4-year-old Virginia preschooler was handcuffed, leg shackled and transported to the sheriff’s office after reportedly throwing blocks and climbing on top of the furniture. School officials claim the restraints were necessary to protect the adults from injury.

In New York, “school safety agents” tied a 5-year-old ADHD student to a chair with Velcro straps as a punishment for throwing a tantrum in class. Police officers claim the straps were necessary because the boy had tried to bite one of the adults.

A 6-year-old kindergarten student in a Georgia public school was handcuffed, transported to the police station, and charged with simple battery of a schoolteacher and criminal damage to property for throwing a temper tantrum at school.

A second-grader in Arizona who suffers from ADHD was duct-taped to her chair after getting up to sharpen her pencil too often.

Kentucky school officials placed a 9-year-old autistic student in a duffel bag as a punishment acting up in class. Turns out, it wasn’t the first time the boy had been placed inside the “therapy bag.”

An 11-year-old special needs student had his hands cuffed behind his back and was driven home in a police car after refusing to come inside after recess and acting in an out of control manner by “passively” resisting police officers.

Unfortunately, these are far from isolated incidents.

According to a ProPublica investigative report, such harsh punishments are part of a widespread phenomenon plaguing school districts across the country.

Indeed, as investigative reporter Heather Vogell points out, this is a local story everywhere. It’s happening in my town. It’s happening in your town. It’s happening in every school district in America.

In 2012 alone, there were more than 267,000 attempts by school officials to restrain or lock up students using straps, bungee cords, and duct tape. The numbers are likely far greater when one accounts for the schools that underreport their use of such tactics.

Vogell found that “most [incidents] of restraints and seclusions happen to kids with disabilities—and are more likely to happen to kids with autism or emotional/behavioral problems.” Often due to their age, their emotional distress, or their disabilities, these young people are unable to tell their parents about the abusive treatment being meted out to them by school officials.

At least 500 students are placed in “Scream Rooms” every day (there were 104,000 reported uses of scream rooms in a given year). For those unfamiliar with the term, a “scream room” is an isolated, unmonitored, locked room—sometimes padded, often as small as four-feet-by-four-feet—which school officials use to place students in seclusion.

These scream rooms are a far cry from the tested and approved “time out,” which involves monitoring the child in a non-locked setting in order to calm him down. As psychiatrist Keith Albow points out, “Scream rooms are nothing but solitary confinement, and by extension, that makes every school that uses them a prison. They turn principals into wardens and make every student an inmate.”

Schools acting like prisons. School officials acting like wardens. Students treated like inmates and punished like hardened criminals.

This is the end product of all those so-called school “safety” policies, which run the gamut from zero tolerance policies that punish all infractions harshly to surveillance cameras, metal detectors, random searches, drug-sniffing dogs, school-wide lockdowns, active-shooter drills and militarized police officers.

Paradoxically, instead of making the schools safer, school officials have succeeded in creating an environment in which children are so traumatized that they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, anxiety, mistrust of adults in authority, as well as feelings of anger, depression, humiliation, despair and delusion.

Even in the face of parental outrage, lawsuits, legislative reforms, investigative reports and endless cases showing that these tactics are not working and “should never be used for punishment or discipline,” full-grown adults—police officers and teachers alike—insist that the reason they continue to handcuff, lock up and restrain little kids is because they fear for their safety and the safety of others.

“Fear for one’s safety” has become such a hackneyed and threadbare excuse for behavior that is inexcusable. Dig a little deeper and you’ll find that explanation covers a multitude of sins, whether it’s poorly trained police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, or school officials who are ill-equipped to deal with children who act like children, meaning they don’t always listen, they sometimes throw tantrums, and they have a hard time sitting still.

That’s not to say all schools are bad. In fact, there are a small but growing number of schools that are proactively switching to a policy of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), which relies on the use of “engaging instruction, combined with acknowledgement or feedback of positive student behavior,” in order to reduce the need for unnecessary discipline and promote a climate of greater productivity, safety, and learning.  One school in Pennsylvania for children with significant behavior challenges found that they were able to “reduce the use of physical restraint from approximately 1,000 incidents per year in 1998 to only three incidents total in 2012” after switching to a PBIS-oriented program. If exposed to this positive reinforcement early enough in school, by the time a student makes it to the third grade, little to no intervention is required.

Unfortunately, these schools are still in the minority in an age that values efficiency, expediency and conformity, where it’s often faster and easier to “lock down” a kid who won’t sit still, won’t follow orders, and won’t comply.

Certainly, this is a mindset we see all too often in the American police state.

So what’s the answer, not only for the here-and-now—the children growing up in these quasi-prisons—but for the future of this country? How do you convince a child who has been routinely handcuffed, shackled, tied down, locked up, and immobilized by government officials—all before he reaches the age of adulthood—that he has any rights at all, let alone the right to challenge wrongdoing, resist oppression and defend himself against injustice?

Most of all, as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, how do you persuade a fellow American that the government works for him when for most of his young life, he has been incarcerated in an institution that teaches young people to be obedient and compliant citizens who don’t talk back, don’t question and don’t challenge authority?

Peter Gray, a professor of psychology at Boston College, believes that school is a prison that is damaging our kids, and it’s hard to disagree, especially with the numbers of police officers being assigned to schools on the rise. What this means, notes Mother Jones, is greater police “involvement in routine discipline matters that principals and parents used to address without involvement from law enforcement officers.”

Students, in turn, are not only finding themselves subjected to police tactics such as handcuffs, leg shackles, tasers and excessive force for “acting up” but are also being ticketed, fined and sent to court for behavior perceived as defiant, disruptive or disorderly such as spraying perfume and writing on a desk.

Clearly, the pathology that characterizes the American police state has passed down to the schools. Now in addition to the government and its agents viewing the citizenry as suspects to be probed, poked, pinched, tasered, searched, seized, stripped and generally manhandled, all with the general blessing of the court, our children in the public schools are also fair game.

What can be done?

Without a doubt, change is needed, but that will mean taking on the teachers’ unions, the school unions, the educators’ associations, and the police unions, not to mention the politicians dependent on their votes and all of the corporations that profit mightily from an industrial school complex.

As we’ve seen with other issues, any significant reforms will have to start locally and trickle upwards. For a start, parents need to be vocal, visible and organized and demand that school officials 1) adopt a policy of positive reinforcement in dealing with behavior issues; 2) minimize the presence in the schools of police officers and cease involving them in student discipline; and 3) insist that all behavioral issues be addressed first and foremost with a child’s parents, before any other disciplinary tactics are attempted.

“Children are the messages we send to a time we will not see,” Professor Neil Postman once wrote. If we do not rein in the police state’s influence in the schools, the future to which we are sending our children will be characterized by a brutal, totalitarian regime.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

The real problem with this situation is the cowardly parents that allow it. Had my children been treated this way, there would have been bodies to bury. America has a severe lack of courage and sense of right and wrong. Land of the free, and the home of the brave!!!!!!!!!!?

MY ASS!

10 13 11 flagbar


Psychiatric police state notes from the underground

01/26/2015

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/psychiatric-police-state-notes-from-the-underground/

By Jon Rappoport

NoMoreFakeNews.com

These are wide-ranging quotes from my work-in-progress, The Underground. They take, as a starting point, the subject of psychiatry, the absurd pseudoscience licensed by the State.

“Whenever you come across a pseudoscience, you’re looking at a mask that covers an ideology. And that ideology intends to limit freedom, the free person, the free soul, the free mind, the free psyche, the free creative impulse.”

“Modern psychiatry is an updated version of the CIA’s MKULTRA mind-control program, adjusted for the masses.”

“Psychiatry is basically a mechanism to control people who are dissatisfied, disaffected, rebellious, independent, thoughtful, and then, secondarily, a mechanism to control those who just want to surrender their lives to an external authority and can’t believe in religion anymore. Instead of a priest and a church, they have drugs.”

“If Huxley’s Brave New World is the mountaintop of controlled society, with its genetic manipulations and laboratory births, psychiatry is its ancestor, rambling around in the foothills, pretending to define so-called mental disorders, handing out toxic drugs, giving people electric shocks, performing lobotomies. Psychiatry is the crazy grandfather.”

“Psychiatry is a system of arbitrary definitions. When you get past all the pseudo-technical nonsense, you’re looking at mind control—the attempt to make people believe consciousness is composed of about 300 disorders.”

“Psychiatry is a state-of-mind prison for society. You can have this state of mind or that one, and after we treat you, you can have a normal state of mind.”

“But, actually, consciousness is up for grabs. You can have any state of mind you want to. No labels. Does that sound frightening? You’re supposed to feel frightened and crawl back into a little hole. That’s the game.”

“Psychiatry is just another organized religion. Instead of a wafer and a sip of wine, they have drugs. Lots of drugs. Their cosmology is a picture they paint, the subject of which is Normal. Sane. Average. By their average definitions.”

“Psychiatry would like to be known as some kind of ultimate information theory. Information theory is what the loser in a poker game is left with. It’s all he’s got, so he has to go out on the street and try to sell it, hypnotize people with it. Pure scrubbed data, as empty and dead as the face of an old politician.”

“Today’s psychiatrists are playing around with brain signals. They have no idea what the mind is. No idea what consciousness is. No idea what freedom is. They have no idea how different individuals would be from one another if they broke out of the collective prison of The Normal.”

“The Wizard of Psychiatry is a hustler from way back. His job is to make Normal plausible.”

10 13 11 flagbar

 


The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

01/23/2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-globalization-of-war-americas-long-war-against-humanity/5426125

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research Publishers, Montreal 2015

Excerpt from Preface

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. The July-August 2014 attack on Gaza by Israeli forces was undertaken in close consultation with the United States and NATO. The actions in Ukraine and their timing coincided with the onslaught of the attack on Gaza.

In turn, military undertakings are closely coordinated with a process of economic warfare which consists not only in imposing sanctions on sovereign countries but also in deliberate acts of destabilization of financial and currencies markets, with a view to undermining the enemies’ national economies.

The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, U.S.and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Ukraine. U.S. military intervention under a humanitarian mandate is proceeding in sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. and its allies are threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to escalation.

The U.S. airstrikes initiated in September 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

The Western military alliance is in an advanced state of readiness. And so is Russia.

Russia is heralded as the “Aggressor”. U.S.-NATO military confrontation with Russia is contemplated.

Enabling legislation in the U.S. Senate under “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) has “set the U.S. on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.”

“Any U.S.-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the U.S. nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to pre-emptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.”

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) is the culmination of more than twenty years of U.S.-NATO war preparations,which consist in the military encirclement of both Russia and China:

“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. U.S. military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.”

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine –coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history. It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

REVIEWS:

“Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He is a model of integrity in analysis, his book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that U.S. hegemonic neoconservatism poses to life on earth.”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury

““The Globalization of War” comprises war on two fronts: those countries that can either be “bought” or destabilized. In other cases, insurrection, riots and wars are used to solicit U.S. military intervention. Michel Chossudovsky’s book is a must read for anyone who prefers peace and hope to perpetual war, death, dislocation and despair.”

Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defence

“Michel Chossudovsky describes globalization as a hegemonic weapon that empowers the financial elites and enslaves 99 percent of the world’s population.

“The Globalization of War” is diplomatic dynamite – and the fuse is burning rapidly.”

Michael Carmichael, President, the Planetary Movement

 

**Pre-publication Special Offer

The Globalization of War

America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Global Research Publishers, Montreal, 2015

List Price: US$22.95

Special Pre-Publication Price: US$14.00

Click here to order directly from Global Research

Pre-publication orders will be sent be sent out in mid-February

The Globalization of War

America’s “Long War” against Humanity

List Price: $22.95

Special Pre- Publication Price: $14.00

Click here to buy!

The book will be sent to you in mid-February

 Copyright © 2015 Global Research

10 13 11 flagbar


The Dire State of Our Nation: (What You Wont Hear from the Politicians)

01/22/2015

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82887b643445&id=482e1be43c&e=84f74f6a6a

By John W. Whitehead

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.” ― Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

No matter what the politicians say about how great America is and how we, as a people, will always triumph, the fact is that the nation seems to be imploding.

Despite the dire state of our nation, however, you can rest assured that none of the problems that continue to plague our lives and undermine our freedoms will be addressed by our so-called elected representatives in any credible, helpful way, and certainly not during a State of the Union address.

Consider the following facts:

Our government is massively in debt. Currently, the national debt is somewhere in the vicinity of $18 trillion. More than a third of our debt is owned by foreign countries, namely China and Japan.

Our education system is abysmal. Despite the fact that we spend more than most of the world on education($115,000 per student), we rank 36th in the world when it comes to math, reading and science, far below most of our Asian counterparts. Even so, we continue to insist on standardized programs such as Common Core, which teach students to be test-takers rather than thinkers.

Our homes provide little protection against government intrusions. Police agencies, already empowered to crash through your door if they suspect you’re up to no good, now have radars that allow them to “see” through the walls of your home.

Our prisons, housing the largest number of inmates in the world and still growing, have become money-making enterprises for private corporations that rely on the inmates for cheap labor.

We are no longer a representative republic. The U.S. has become a corporate oligarchy. As a recent survey indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen.

We’ve got the most expensive, least effective health care system in the world compared to other western, industrialized nations.

The air pollution levels are dangerously high for almost half of the U.S. population, putting Americans at greater risk of premature death, aggravated asthma, difficulty breathing and future cardiovascular problems.

Despite outlandish amounts of money being spent on the nation’s “infrastructure,” there are more than 63,000 bridges—one out of every 10 bridges in the country—in urgent need of repair. Some of these bridges are used 250 million times a day by trucks, school buses, passenger cars and other vehicles.

Americans know little to nothing about their rights or how the government is supposed to operate. This includes educators and politicians. For example, 27 percent of elected officials cannot name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, while54 percent do not know the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.

Nearly one out of every three American children live in poverty, ranking us among the worst in the developed world.

Patrolled by police, our schools have become little more than quasi-prisons in which kids as young as age 4 are being handcuffed for “acting up,” subjected to body searches and lockdowns, and suspended for childish behavior.

We’re no longer innocent until proven guilty. In our present surveillance state, that burden of proof has now been shifted so that we are all suspects to be spied on, searched, scanned, frisked, monitored, tracked and treated as if we’re potentially guilty of some wrongdoing or other.

Parents, no longer viewed as having an inherent right to raise their children as they see fit, are increasingly being arrested for letting their kids walk to the playground alone, or play outside alone. Similarly, parents who challenge a doctor’s finding or request a second opinion regarding their children’s health care needs are being charged with medical child abuse and, in a growing number of cases, losing custody of their children to the government.

Private property means little at a time when SWAT teams and other government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

Court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, forcibly take our DNA, strip search us, and probe us intimately. Accounts are on the rise of individuals—men and women alike—being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. The courts were established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet the courts increasingly march in lockstep with the police state, while concerned themselves primarily with advancing the government’s agenda, no matter how unjust or illegal.

Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. What is increasingly common, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands.

If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, or bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities. Rubbing salt in the wound, even monetary awards in lawsuits against government officials who are found guilty of wrongdoing are paid by the taxpayer.

Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, government agents were not permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And citizens could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant. Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons would be nothing short of suicidal. Moreover, as police forces across the country continue to be transformed into extensions of the military, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield.

Now these are not problems that you can just throw money at, as most politicians are inclined to do. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, these are problems that will continue to plague our nation unless and until Americans wake up to the fact that we’re the only ones who can change things.

For starters, we’ll need to actually pay attention to what’s going on around us, and I don’t mean by turning on the TV news, which is little more than government propaganda. Pay attention to what your local city councils are enacting. Pay attention to what your school officials are teaching and not teaching. Pay attention to whom your elected officials are allowing to wine and dine them.

Most of all, stop acting like it really matters whether you vote for a Republican or Democrat, because it doesn’t, and start acting like citizens who expect the government to work for them, rather than the other way around.

While that bloated beast called the federal government may not listen to you, you can have a great impact on your local governing bodies. This will mean gathering together with your friends and neighbors and, for example, forcing your local city council to start opposing state and federal programs that are ripping you off. And if need be, your local city council can refuse to abide by the dictates that continue to flow from Washington, DC.

All of the signs point to something nasty up ahead. The time to act is now.

10 13 11 flagbar

 


Rickards: Gold Is Being Manipulated for China’s Benefit

01/21/2015

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36015/Rickards-Gold-Is-Being-Manipulated-for-Chinas-Benefit/?uuid=6F80FACC-5056-9627-3C224900D5600C65

By Jim Rickards and Daily Bell

The Fix is In: Why Gold Price Manipulation is Now a Global Effort … A lot of people think about gold as a percentage of total reserves. So countries have reserves. What percentage of your reserves consist of gold? For example, a lot of people are surprised to learn that the United States has 70 percent of its reserves in gold. China has about 1 percent of its reserves in gold. So people look at that and think that’s the imbalance. But that’s not a very meaningful figure in my view … So the price is being suppressed until China gets the gold that they need. Once China gets the right amount of gold, then you can take the cap off. If it doesn’t matter where gold is because all the countries will be in the same boat. But, right now, they’re not, so Chinese has this catch-up. – Jim Rickards/Daily Reckoning

Dominant Social Theme: Gold is not manipulated and is increasingly irrelevant.

Free-Market Analysis: Jim Rickards’s column, excerpted above, has created a stir among alternative media commentators. GATA’s Chris Powell posted a column of his own, commenting on it favorably. Of course, GATA has devoted many years to exposing gold (and silver) manipulation, so Rickards’s column at Daily Reckoning supports GATA’s thesis.

In the column, Rickards to a degree is reprising a larger theme that his 2014 book, The Death of Money, relates. We would tend to agree with this theme, which is that the world’s monetary economy has become so unstable that some sort of global “reset” is necessary.

Here’s more from the column:

Gold never went away. It was officially demonetized by the IMF in 1975. The U.S. ended the convertibility of gold in 1971. So gold disappeared officially in stages in the mid-1970s. But the gold never went away.

The US has about 8,000 tons. We haven’t sold a significant amount of gold since 1980. We dumped a lot of gold in the late ’70s to suppress the price, but none after that. We’ve held onto the gold. So one of my questions for central bankers is, if it’s such a ridiculous thing to have, why are we hanging onto it? But that’s a separate question.

So the point is, China does not have enough gold to have a seat at the table right now. Think of it as a game of Texas Hold’em. What do want in a poker game? You want a big pile of chips. Gold are gonna be your chips. It doesn’t mean that you automatically have a gold standard, but the gold that you have will kind of give you your voice at the table.

For example, Russia has one-eighth the gold of the United States. It sounds like they’re a small gold power, but their economy’s only one-eighth as big. So they have about the right amount of gold. The U.S. gold reserve at the market is about 2.7 percent of GDP. That number varies because the price of gold varies, but it’s about 2.7 percent. For Russia, it’s about 2.7 percent. But Europe, it’s even higher. It’s over 4 percent. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been very bullish on the euro and continue to be.

China, that number’s 0.7 percent officially. Unofficially, if you give them credit for having, let’s say, 4,000 tons, it gets it up to the US-Russia level, but they want to actually get higher than that because their economy is growing.

So here’s the problem: If you took the lid off and ended the gold price manipulation and let gold find its level, China would be left in the dust.

All of this is quite specific – and such specificity provides more room for misdiagnoses. Of course, we’re attracted to Rickards’s larger set of ideas because we see the same signs he does.

There is reportedly something like a thousand trillion dollars in derivatives in force now and we’re supposed to believe that these instruments are impermeable to a “meltdown.” But the history of modern finance – of any finance – shows us this simply isn’t true.

There is no financial instrument in the world that has not disappeared over time (with the exception of gold and silver) and usually catastrophically. This massive derivatives market receives little coverage in the mainstream media, mostly because the absurd number of notional derivatives, if considered seriously, would lead one to conclude that the current system is finished.

And Rickards accepts that, as GATA does – along with many others – and has come up with a theory as to how this catastrophe is going to occur and why gold will once again be the dominant form of money.

Many would argue that gold is the dominant form of money anyway. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, the larger banking establishment has preferred to promote a free-floating fiat standard that gives bankers a good deal more monetary latitude.

Rickards and many others see this regime as coming to an end. It has been marked by extreme profligacy and the ascent of the US dollar. But as this latest fiat standard subsides, it is Rickards’s contention (not alone) that the dollar will fail as well.

In its place some sort of gold standard may return. We’ve speculated similarly; however, we simply don’t believe that a global currency will necessarily be restricted to gold. The most likely or at least reasonable alternative seems to be a basket of fiat currencies that may include gold.

We’re sympathetic to Rickards’s larger hypothesis in the most general sense because we have also come to the conclusion that the world’s financial officials at the topmost levels are more apt to work together than not.

The Bank for International Settlements supervises all the major central banks from what we can tell, and the idea behind the BIS is that monetary policy ought to be coordinated. It is not therefore rash to conclude that monetary policy IS coordinated among the world’s largest central banks.

And this means that some sort of plan is in force. One doesn’t coordinate without a plan.

But just like the derivatives markets, people can’t seem to conceive that the world’s financial markets are subject to planning. But according to quite widely disseminated literature from the BIS and elsewhere, they are …

We’re not sure if gold is being divvied up deliberately according to some preconceived agreement that has never been reported on. But we’ve noted in the past that BRICs economies have done considerably better in the past decade than Western economies.

We’ve questioned ourselves if that is a coincidence or if the world’s nation-states are in a sense being “leveled out” industrially so that closer and closer global cooperation can be achieved.

None of this seems farfetched to us given the manipulation (overt and covert) of financial markets and instruments in the modern era, especially after World War II.

We’re not prepared to comment on the accuracy of Rickards’s analysis or predictions except to say that like him we see gold (and silver) as being abiding factors in any future economic plan or design.

From a monetary standpoint, gold and silver have never gone away, as Rickards himself points out. Their value reoccurs even as other forms of money diminish and disappear. We would therefore expect rationally that any future monetary system would make allowances for gold and silver, especially gold.

One way or another, precious metals will continue to be factors in the global economy. As for the rest of it, we’re not clearer about the timing than you are, dear reader. In fact, this is why we’ve paid special attention to the Wall Street Party that could diminish this year, or continue onward and upwards for several years more.

Conclusion: 

As always, the timing is difficult to analyze, but the larger pattern seems clear.


 

Gold price manipulation is now a global effort to appease China

 By Jim Rickards

Gold price manipulation is now a global effort to appease China

Submitted by cpowell on 12:03PM ET Tuesday, January 20, 2015. Section: Daily Dispatches 3:28p ET Tuesday, January 20, 2015

In May 2006 the economist R. Peter W. Millar of Value-Trac Research in Scotland published a study, “The Relevance and Importance of Gold in the World Monetary System,” arguing that central banks would need to revalue gold upward by from seven to 20 times “to raise the monetary value of the world monetary base and hence reduce the burden of debt” and avert a deflationary depression. GATA published that study here:

http://www.gata.org/node/4843

In May 2012 the U.S. economists and fund managers Paul Brodsky and Lee Quaintance postulated that central banks were suppressing the gold price while surreptitiously redistributing the world’s gold among themselves in preparation for a resetting of the world financial system and a substantial upward revaluation of the monetary metal.

Brodsky and Quaintance wrote: “The key to a successful transition is a credible monetary reset. Gold is the default collateral for money because it has a long and established precedent in this role.

 “All that would be needed would be a fairly equitable distribution of gold among global monetary authorities (taking place now?), and an agreed-upon exchange rate vis-a-vis baseless paper. It would have to be an exchange rate at which central banks could successfully monetize assets by tendering for physical gold with newly manufactured paper money, an exchange rate high enough to attract enough gold to cover unreserved credit held in the banking system. It’s a high figure.

“The relative cost of holding physical gold today is minimal (above-ground bullion or in-ground bullion through mining shares), against the negative real returns offered by the preponderance of financial assets in float.

 “We suggest that one keep identities straight; invest with central banks, not against them; and consider as a gift the hollow rhetoric of the establishment that may temporarily suppress gold’s paper price. They are working for physical gold holders, not against them.”

GATA published the Brodsky-Quaintance study here:

http://www.gata.org/node/11373

In November 2013 your secretary/treasurer speculated that China and the United States were probably working together to control the gold price so China could gradually hedge its insane U.S. dollar surplus against the dollar’s inevitable devaluation, and that China was almost certainly complicit in the gold price smash of April 2013:

http://www.gata.org/node/13256

Now investment banker and geopolitical strategist James G. Rickards, writing for the Daily Reckoning, comes to a similar conclusion as he promotes his new financial letter, “Strategic Intelligence.”

Rickards writes: “If you took the lid off and ended the gold price manipulation and let gold find its level, China would be left in the dust. It wouldn’t have enough gold relative to the other countries, and because their economy is growing faster and because the price of gold would be skyrocketing, they could never acquire it fast enough. They could never catch up. All the other countries would be on the bus. The Chinese would be off the bus. …

 “So the global effort is to keep the lid on the price through manipulation, which is very obvious. I tell people, if I were running the manipulation, I’d be embarrassed because it’s so obvious at this point.

 “So the price is being suppressed until China gets the gold they need. Once China gets the right amount of gold, then you can take the cap off. It doesn’t matter where gold is because all the countries will be in the same boat. But right now they’re not, so China has this catch-up.”

Rickards’ commentary is headlined “Gold Price Manipulation Is Now a Global Effort” and it’s posted at the Daily Reckoning here:

http://dailyreckoning.com/fix-gold-price-manipulation-now-global-effort/

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer

Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 


Crisis Point: Putin, The West, and the Game Being Played

01/20/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/crisis-point-putin-west-and-game-being.html#more

1-20-2015 11-41-31 AM

Anthony Freda Art

James Holbrooks Activist Post

I picture him in a shadowy room, stretched out in a plush leather chair with a cup of steaming coffee on the table next to him. His hands are steepled at his mouth as he studies in meditative silence the bank of muted screens before him. Flickering across those screens are pundits, press conferences, and live reports from war correspondents. He killed the sound a minute before. He doesn’t need to hear the words. He understands the message all too well.

The West is closing in.

I’ve heard Vladimir Putin referred to as The Chessmaster. I’ve never sat at the board with the man so I can’t say for certain this is apt. But it does seem like the Russian leader’s moves of late have been carefully thought-out and even more carefully executed.

In September of 2013, as the United States war machine was pressing for military intervention in Syria in the wake of a chemical gas attack on that country’s people, Russia swooped in with an offerto oversee the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons. In the face of such blatant sanity, the American warmongers had no choice but to agree to the proposal.

Just a few months later, in December, Russia offered its struggling neighbor and former Soviet fellow Ukraine a $15 billion bailout if it would reverse its march toward the European Union. This forced the war architects’ hand. By February of the following year a Western-backed coup had ousted the democratically elected Ukrainian president, and a pro-Western puppet by the name of Poroshenko was installed in June.

Now, after another year of Western provocations including everything from military exercises to accusations that it helped blow an airplane out of the sky, Russia has finally struck. On Wednesday Europeans received a jarring wakeup call when Putin ordered state-run energy giant Gazprom to cutits flow of natural gas to Ukraine—and through Ukraine, much of Europe—due to nonpayment. Hence forth, says Putin, the gas will flow through a planned pipeline toward Turkey. If Europe wants to tap into that pipe they’ll need to build the infrastructure needed to link up. End of discussion. Bam.

The effects were felt immediately and the whole situation highlights the type of game being played here. The American-led West charges forward in show after show of brute strength, only to be rebuffed at each turn by a calculated move from the Russian president.
Chessmaster? I can’t say. But he’s putting up an impressive defense.

Not that the Gazprom move was breathtakingly insightful or anything. The EU’s dependence on Russian gas was a soft spot Putin could’ve hit blindfolded. The EU as a whole, in fact, has become a sizable weakness in the Western armor. And perhaps some of its member nations are beginning to realize this. Wasn’t it the French leader a couple weeks back who was suggesting it may be time to end the EU sanctions against Russia? I’d ask Hollande, but he’s busy dealing with a bout of terrorism right now. Funny timing, that.

The sheer recklessness of the Western assault can be seen in what’s happening to the price of oil. In a move meant to hurt the Russian economy, American ally Saudi Arabia began flooding the oil market toward the tail end of 2014 in order to slash the price of crude. The idea was that Russia, heavily dependent upon oil exports, would suffer. What the geniuses crafting US strategy apparently failed to consider, however, was that China, the world’s number one oil importer—and Russia’s strongest ally—would reap huge savings in the process. Not to mention the fact that lowering prices have had a devastating effect on the once-booming shale oil industry here in the states.

None of this is news to anyone even half-assedly paying attention to geopolitics. But here’s the thing…

They can’t stop.

The West needs war. It’s doomed without it. The central banking scam upon which its power is rooted has reached its absolute limit. And with Russia and the other BRICS nations’ New Development Bank emerging as a serious threat to their global dominance, the solution has been nail-bitingly clear to Western oligarchs for quite some time. War—in particular, a world war with those countries who would dare turn from the dollar—would reset the books.

The problem, as earlier stated, is that The Chessmaster sees this as clearly as anyone. He’s studied the board and is three moves ahead of his enemy. The West is simply outclassed, and they know it. But they can’t stop. War is an imperative. And so they inevitably resort to the method employed by thieves and liars throughout the ages—they cheat.

The downing of MH17 in July, which US officials immediately blamed on Russian-backed rebels, was soundly proven to have been pulled off by the American-backed junta in Kiev. Remember all the screaming from those same officials about how the Russian military was building up along the Ukrainian border? Well, teams of international inspectors who repeatedly visited that borderreported that, yeah, not so much. And does anyone recall that Russian aid convoy purported to have been smuggling military personnel into Ukraine last August? Turns out the trucks were full of things like medicine, baby food and sleeping bags—the type of stuff Russia had been claiming was in the trucks all along—meant for the war-torn people of eastern Ukraine.

And through it all the Western corporate media was there to toe the line. Thing is, we’re a bit too savvy these days. You know, the global political awakening and all that jazz.

And yet, they can’t stop. War is an imperative.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is the same one the architects have been asking, I suspect, for a while now…

What is it gonna take?

They can no longer lie us into war, but they can no longer survive without it. So what’s to be done? Unfortunately for…well, everyone…history has shown us that nothing—absolutely nothing—is beyond the will of the cabal of psychopaths that’ve gripped the planetary reins for centuries now. Not even world leaders are off the table for these people.

They tried to take out Andrew Jackson after he was re-elected on the slogan of “Jackson and No Bank.” They succeeded in popping Lincoln when he refused their loans during the War of Northern Aggression. They took out Franz Ferdinand to kick off the First World War. Then there’s JFK and his heretical monetary ideas. And do we need to go through the list of Middle Eastern and African leaders that’ve been, shall we say, replaced?

America needs war, and they need it now. Nothing they’ve tried thus far has gained traction. They need to go bigger. And in most American minds it doesn’t get any bigger than the Oval Office. So the question I’m asking now is…

Are they desperate enough to assassinate a sitting president of the United States?

As insane as that may be to read, believe me, it was just as insane to write. But I think it’s a question worth considering. Look at the hyper-nationalism that took hold after the September 11 attacks. That’s what they need: a citizenry so traumatized and enraged that the warmongers can point to something, anything (such as a certain Eurasian country), as the culprit. Maybe, just maybe, they think taking out a president would finally get us to go along.

It’s the Petraeus thing that did it. Just doesn’t wash. You want me to believe they’re trying to bring the hammer down on the former Director of the CIA for the egregious crime of having pillow talk with his girlfriend? I don’t buy it.

And something else occurs to me. Remember Obama’spurge of top military brass in 2013? At the time, speculation as to motive ran wild, from something as frightening as a conspiracy involving nuclear weapons to something as relatively benign as Obama simply feeling the axed weren’t politically correct enough. Whatever the case, it was clear that the boss wasn’t happy and had no qualms about making a scene. But don’t worry. I’m sure the sweethearts of the military-industrial complex were cool with that whole deal.

Look at history. Look at half the plots in military science fiction novels. It isn’t exactly a foreign concept. First comes the purge from the paranoid leader, then comes the coup from the disrespected commanders.

And that leads me to this…

I see striking parallels between the situation with Petraeus, a four-star general and one of the most highly decorated military figures in America, and that of Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, who at the time of his death in 1940 was the most decorated marine in United States history.

In 1934 Butler testified before a special committee of the House of Representatives. He claimed he’d been approached by a group of powerful businessmen about leading a military coup against Franklin Roosevelt with the end result being the installation of a fascist dictatorship. All of the accused denied the charges and Butler’s account was ridiculed in the media, though the committee’s final report suggested there was much truth to the war hero’s story. Indeed, the fact that the two-time Medal of Honor award winner isn’t a household name on par with Eisenhower and Patton speaks volumes.

Petraeus isn’t squawking about some grand conspiracy, of course. At least, not that we know of. But think about it. If the call was yours to make, who would you get to lead a coup against the president in a climate of endless war, spying, intelligence gathering and blackmail? At a minimum, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency—and, up until an ugly scandal, an honored military man—would be on a very short list of names for the job.

Blackmail. Now there’s a thought. Could that be what these pending charges against Petraeus are really about? Are they using the threat of the cage to remind him to keep his mouth shut? This man was masterminding military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan before he ascended to the helm of the CIA. Can you imagine the secrets stored away in his head? Does he know what was truly behind Obama’s military purge? Was he approached about leading a coup against the president? Is he being hung out to dry now because he refused the offer? And if so, why now? The affair with his biographer was made public back in 2012. Why the threat of charges here in 2015? Is something about to happen?

I know what you’re thinking. I’m thinking it, too. Crazy, right? But let’s be honest, it’s happened before. There’s no reason to think it couldn’t happen again, especially considering the crisis point at which the power junkies appear to have found themselves. And at the end of the day, can we really put it past them to try such a move?

And there’s something else. Another potential gain that could’ve been factored into the cost-benefit analysis regarding the assassination of Barack Obama…division.

It’s clear they want a race war in America. They want the lines to be drawn between colors, and they want us to draw those lines ourselves. It’s the strategy of divide and conquer, and at the moment their tool of choice seems to be law enforcement. Through racially-sensitive cases such as that of Mike Brown and Eric Garner, they’re working to make us believe police abuse is solely about skin pigment. It was recently revealed that liberal billionaire and oft-accused globalist conspirator George Soros bankrolled dozens of different groups of Ferguson, Missouri demonstrators, to the tune of $33 million, so as to push the national debate about institutional racism.

Imagine now, in the midst of this orchestrated racial hysteria, that the first mixed-race president of these “united” states is assassinated. Imagine, if you dare, how they might use such an event.

This is just one guy talking out loud, of course. Just someone making observations. And in truth, I hope I’m wrong. About all of it. The world would be a much safer place if that were the case. But ultimately, it doesn’t really matter what I think. It does, however, matter what The Chessmaster thinks. And I wonder…

How many moves ahead is he in the game? Does he see the threat of being tied to a presidential assassination, and if so, what type of action is he planning to counter it?

I believe these questions matter. Because, when you strip away the nonsense, the most important relationship to the health of the planet is the one between the United States and Russia. There’s simply no way around that. And here’s something else there’s no way around…

Vladimir Putin is a thug. He’s a monster like all the rest. The fact that he’s a far more cunning and intelligent monster is no reason to celebrate him. That would be a mistake on our part. I focus on him here only as a means to shed light on a deadly situation. But we should never forget that given the chance, Putin would be every bit the dictator that John McCain dreams about being every night.

How does the saying go? Those who seek power are those least worthy of it?

It’s something like that. I swear.

James Holbrooks is a professional writer and editor. You can find his work or hire him at HolbrooksWordsmithing.com where this article first appeared. Follow James on Twitter.

10 13 11 flagbar

 


Bank CEOs are the New Drug Lords

01/19/2015

http://smartknowledgeu.com/blog/

Why I Would Work For Pablo Escobar Before I Would Work For Jamie Dimon

1-19-2015 11-32-59 AM

By JS Kim

Bank CEOs are the New Drug Lords. Here is a list of some of the banks managed by Bank CEOs, aka the new Drug Lords, that were fined billions of dollars for fixing LIBOR rates and stealing money from clients: Lloyds Bank, RP Martin, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Société Générale, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Barclays, United Bank of Switzerland and Rabobank. Here is a list of some of the banks in which the Bank Lords fixed FX rates and are currently negotiating fine amounts with the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Citigroup, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays, JP Morgan and United Bank of Switzerland. HSBC had to pay nearly $2B in fines after its Bank CEO was allegedly caught overseeing the laundering of $7B in drug money for the notoriously violent and ruthless Sinaloa drug cartel among other Mexican drug cartels and committing a wide array of other crimes like laundering $290MM from Russian mobsters that told HSBC bankers that their vast profits came from a “used car business”. I say “allegedly caught”, because every time this happens, the bank CEO, in this case, HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver, inevitably denies ever knowing that the cartel he was overseeing was laundering dirty blood money. The Bank Lords issue these ridiculous denials despite the fact that every independent investigator not on a Bank’s payroll that investigates banks’ money laundering schemes arrive at the same conclusion as Jose Luis Marmolejo, the former head of the Mexican attorney general’s financial crimes unit: “[The money laundering] went on too long and [the bank CEOS] made too much money not to have known.” And what about HSBC’s $2B assessed fine for laundering this blood money? In response to meaningless fines like this that never change banker behavior, Martin Woods, former senior anti-money laundering officer at Wachovia bank, implored, “What does the settlement do to fight the cartels? Nothing – it doesn’t make the job of law enforcement easier and it encourages the cartels and anyone who wants to make money by laundering their blood dollars. Where’s the risk? There is none. That is why HSBC is not the only cartel that houses bankers who have been caught laundering blood money in recent years. Wachovia Bank, Citigroup, Banco Santander, and Bank of America bankers have all been caught leading their banks in participation of this dirty deed as well. According to Paul Campo, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s financial crimes unit, drug traffickers used Bank of America to finance their drug smuggling operations for 10 tons of cocaine and laundered drug money through Bank of America accounts in Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, and Brownsville, TX from 2002 to 2009.

So how do Bank Lords get away with their dirty deeds scot-free? This month,  explosive evidence contained in 47.5 hours of secret recordings from Goldman Sachs whistleblower and former New York Federal Reserve employee Carmen Segarra provides the answers we already knew. Bank Lords have been buying off judges and regulators after already buying off cops (JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon “Gifts” Largest Donation Ever to NYPD of $4.6MM). When Fed regulators asked Segarra to alter minutes of meetings in which Goldman Sachs bankers’ immoral behavior was discussed in order to cover up the truth and to lie about the content of these meetings, Segarra decided to secretly record her meetings with her bosses. Below are some of the revelations contained in the transcripts of those secret recordings:

In one meeting Segarra attended, a Goldman employee expressed the view that “once clients are wealthy enough, certain consumer laws don’t apply to them.”

After that meeting, Segarra turned to a fellow Fed regulator and expressed how surprised she was by that statement — to which the regulator replied, “You didn’t hear that.”

When Segarra discovered multiple conflicts of interest in Goldman Sachs deals between Goldman Sachs bankers and their clients that led to deals being struck that would be the equivalent of  insider trading in the stock market and consequently discovered Goldman Sachs had no “conflict of interest” policy, her boss harassed her and demanded of Segarra, “Why do you have to say there’s no policy?”

When Segarra complained to her legal and compliance manager, Jonathon Kim, of how her discoveries were being handled and told Kim that “even when I explain to [my superiors at the New York Federal Reserve] what my evidence is, they won’t even listen”, Kim reacted in an equally morally bankrupt manner as Segarra’s superiors, advising Segarra “to be patient” and to “bite her tongue.”

So now that we know that Bank Lords buy out morally-challenged regulators, cops and judges in return for carte-blanche to continue committing crimes, rig markets to collect undeserved and unearned kickbacks, and launder drug cartel money from violent cartels that murder 10,000 people a year (the Sinaloa drug cartel), is there really even a line in the sand that separates Bank Lords and Drug Lords, or have Bank Lords become the new Drug Lords?

1-19-2015 11-34-03 AM

Let’s take a closer look into the increasingly similar worlds of drug cartel and bank cartels. The last market bubble will not be the Chinese or Thai real estate bubble, the US stock market, the US student loan bubble or the Social Media bubble. If we take a look at the political cartoon to the left, drawn more than a century ago in 1907, we find that Bank CEOs have been engaging in the same nefarious deeds ever since they were able to put the global banking system on the fractional reserve banking platform. Banker immorality, having multiplied and grown for over a century, will be the last bubble to pop. To illustrate what I am talking about, let me pose this singular question: “Is it possible to prove that a notoriously violent Drug Lord provided more positive value to society during his reign of terror than criminal Bank Lords like Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein & Stuart Gulliver are providing during theirs?”  If we can make a strong case for a Drug Lord providing more social value and benefits than the largest Bank CEOs in the world, all else being equal, then this is the point when we know our future is dire, especially if we refuse to collectively revolt right now against the very banking system that enslaves us.

At first you may think that my aforementioned question is a ludicrous question. After all, how can the positive social benefits provided by a violent, murderous Drug Lord possibly exceed the social benefits, as non-existent as they may be, provided by the heads of the largest bank crime syndicates? Before we dismiss this question, let’s seriously explore it and see what conclusions we may draw from this exercise.

Every large drug cartel in the world, whether it was Pablo Escobar’s infamous Colombian Medellín cartel in the 1980s or El Chapo Guzman’s notorious Mexican Sinaloa cartel of today, has required the logistical support of a sophisticated banking division not just to survive, but to truly thrive. In fact, without the support of a large global Bank CEO, the largest drug cartels in the world would quickly crash and burn and the Drug Lords would disappear. As we explain in the next section, it is simple to conclude that without the consent and help of global Bank CEOs, the world’s largest drug cartels would not be viable. In the 1980s through the early 1990s, Pablo Escobar chose the Italian Banco Ambrosiano and allegedly the Vatican Bank as well to launder billions of his dirty money, while in more contemporary times, El Chapo Guzman handpicked HSBC Bank USA as his preferred bank to launder his billions.

Murder and Crime: Drug Cartels v. Global Banks

During his reign of terror, Pablo Escobar ordered the murder of an estimated 4,000 people, including hundreds of police officers, judges, lawyers, journalists and anyone that dared to oppose his violent drug cartel. Escobar even allegedly tortured his own associates that proved to be disloyal to him. However, of the thousands of murders committed by Pablo’s cartel, it was likely that he did not commit the murders himself. Drug Lords are notoriously careful about committing homicidal acts that would provide the evidence prosecuting attorneys need to put them behind bars for a very long time. It is more than likely that a man like Pablo Escobar paid others to carry out his murders for him. However, Banco Ambrosiano and Vatican Bank executives, if they did indeed knowingly launder Pablo’s billions as has been alleged, share a significant measure of complicity in Pablo’s murders. Without having a bank to launder his money, there would have been no reason for Escobar to continue operating his cocaine cartel and murdering the people that opposed him. Likewise, one can successfully argue that HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver and top HSBC bankers enabled many more murders than even Escobar. The Mexican drug cartels, whose money HSBC laundered, have murdered an estimated 80,000 people since 2006 (10,000 murders between 2008 and 2012 by the Sinaloa drug cartel alone), far more murders than Escobar’s empire ever carried out. Even though Banco Ambrosiano and HSBC Bank CEOs were not directly giving the orders to murder people, you must connect the dots between the Bank CEOs that launder drug cartel money and the crimes committed by these drug cartels because the dots can NOT be separated. Both actions are inextricably linked to one another, and without the services of money laundering willingly provided by the bank CEOs, the 80,000 murders committed by the Mexican drug cartel criminals would not occur.

Former anti-money laundering officer Martin Woods wholly supports the above argument: “Is it in the interest of the American people to encourage both the drug cartels and the banks in this way? Is it in the interest of the Mexican people? It’s simple: if you don’t see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 30,000 people killed in Mexico (actually, 80,000 people have been killed in the Mexican drug wars since 2006), you’re missing the point.” After presenting evidence to Wachovia bank executives of their employees willingly laundering drug traffickers’ blood money, to which Wachovia bank executives responded by telling him to shut up and by trying to get him fired, Woods understandably quit his position with Wachovia in disgust, stating, “It’s the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy.”

Here is a list of complaints Woods filed with the UK House of Commons, including accusations that the very regulatory agency that was supposed to aid his investigations to uncover truth, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA), worked more against him than with him to clean up the crimes of the banking industry.

The only redeeming excuse that HSBC, Citigroup, Wachovia, and other Bank CEOs may have (that have collectively laundered billions upon billions of drug cartel blood money) is a proven ignorance of these activities occurring within their banking operations. However, as I previously stated, this excuse as a legitimate one is extremely unlikely. An abundance of journalists and law enforcement agencies that have studied internal bank documents to understand the complexity of drug laundering operations of big global banks always reach the same conclusion. US Customs Agent Robert Mazur and Mexican journalist Anabel Hernández, after years of meticulous research, both concluded that bankers at the highest levels of the drug-laundering bank – the CEOs, COOs, and CFOs – all know about these operations beyond any reasonable doubt and that ignorance of these immoral and illegal activities is nearly impossible. When I worked as a Private Banker for a large global banking firm many years ago, the top policy that was always stressed for all accounts, but in particular, any account that involved a steady stream of large and frequent cash deposits, was KYC, or Know Your Client. It was absolutely incumbent upon the banker to visit the operations, and “kick the tires” per se, of any account that generated large cash deposits to confirm the legitimacy of the cash flow. If the source of these large cash deposits could not be determined, then all such accounts were to be immediately terminated. Thus when men like HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver profess complete ignorance of laundering billions of cash for drug cartels, I have to concur with Mazur and Hernández’s assessment, as the top experts in money laundering schemes, that it would have been nearly impossible for Gulliver not to know.

In conclusion, I would place Escobar in the category of “violence inflicted upon society”,  just slightly above global Bank CEOs because the drug lords are the ones giving the direct orders to murder tens of thousands while Bank CEOs are only enabling these murders through their drug laundering operations. However, banks must receive a black mark for willingly participating in extremely profitable, criminal drug laundering operations that leave a trail of tears and misery, as people like Martin Woods, Robert Mazur and Anabel Hernánde have all made it crystal clear through their work that it is near impossible for a Bank CEO not to willingly approve these types of extremely profitable operations that create tens of thousands of homicides. Furthermore, the comparison between Bank Lords and Drug Lords is made even more apropos when we examine some of the “turf wars” Bank Lords engage in when committing their crimes. Drugs never leave a drug-infested neighborhood when a corner dealer or even a regional distributor is murdered. Rather, a competing Drug Lord will fill the void left by a competitor’s demise and opportunistically expand his criminal empire by providing product distribution in regions where a void may develop. Likewise, when Deutsche Bank was recently forced to vacate one of the 12 seats in the gold & silver rigging game in London,Citigroup swooped in and took control over Deutsche Bank’s vacated turf.

Quality of Life/Social Contributions: Drug Cartels v. Global Banks

Cocaine cartel Drug Lord Pablo Escobar, at the height of his cartel, was believed to have supplied an astounding 75% of the entire world’s cocaine, as strong a monopoly on cocaine as is the US military-protected Afghan poppy fields that recently supplied between 95% to 98% of all heroin distribution today. Pablo’s cocaine empire was so far reaching that Roberto Escobar, one of Pablo’s closest brothers, estimated Pablo’s annual profits to be in the range of $20 billion a year. According to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, in 1982, cocaine usage peaked in the United States at about 10.5 million users. Historically, the US has accounted for roughly 40% of all global cocaine users. Using these figures, we can roughly estimate total global recreational cocaine use at 26.25 million users at the height of cocaine’s popularity in the early 1980s. Now let’s factor in the worst possible case scenario for every single one of these 26.25 million cocaine users. Let’s assume, in the worst possible case scenario, that not a single one of them was a functional recreational cocaine user and that every single one of these global cocaine users caused stress and trouble for at least 10 other family members and friends, so that 26.25 million X 10, or 262 million people were adversely affected in some social manner by cocaine users. Since Escobar supplied 75% of all cocaine users at the peak of his operations, in a worst possible case scenario with ludicrous worst possible case assumptions, one would conclude that Escobar had a negative social impact on 75% of 262 million, or 196 million people, in this world. Now you may think to yourself, “Wow, that is a lot of people for one cartel to negatively affect” and you would be correct.

But yet, if we compare the negative social value of Pablo Escobar’s drug cartel versus that of the criminal Central Bank cartel, it simply pales in both magnitude and lasting effect. In 1982, during the peak years of Escobar’s operations, the global population was about 4.6 billion people. The decisions that the Central Banking cartel made back then negatively affected not 196 million people as did Pablo’s empire under a worst-case scenario, but exceeded this worst-case scenario by 4,404,000,000 people. Why does the negative reach of the Central Banking cartel extend so much further than that of a drug cartel? To begin, the Central Banking cartel’s fractional reserve banking policies drain the purchasing power from the savings of every single person on on the planet – fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, and grandfathers. Ever since their existence, Central Bankers have created massive amounts of new money through a process called fractional reserve banking that has created annual inflation rates that far exceed any annual cost of living adjustments (COLA) that any nation’s citizens receive from their employers. Thus every year, the Central Banking cartel robs the wealth of every single man, woman and child on earth and deliberately makes every single human being’s life on this planet less enjoyable and more difficult. To compare apples to apples, we simply use the 4.6 billion global population figure that existed at the height of Escobar’s drug empire to estimate the negative-reach of the Central Banking cartel. Fractional reserve banking policies employed by every global commercial banker on earth makes it impossible for large percentages of people that dwell in poverty to ever move out of poverty, and these policies adopted systemically by Bank CEOs in the global banking system cause millions of people worldwide to lose homes, jobs, and emotional stability.

Most people don’t understand the above facts about fractional reserve banking policies because governments release bogus “official” inflation statistics through the banker-owned press and media. For example, in the US, the official government rate of inflation in September 2013 was 1.5% and was reported by the US government to be 1.6% for the entire 2013 fiscal year. However, the inflation rate in the US is only so low because, as ludicrous as this sounds, bankers literally have stripped out the largest components of inflation from the equation they use to calculate inflation. A comparable lie would be if you stripped out all components of heat from a heat index and reported that it was -30 Celsius at noon in the Saharan dessert during the hottest month of the year. If you take an honest equation for inflation, as others like John Williams of shadowstats.com have done, then we know inflation rates were more than 9%, or more than 6 times higher than the “official” US government inflation rate of 1.5%. In 2002, none other than the Chairman of the US Central Bank, Alan Greenspan, stated, “The price level in 1929 was not much different, on net, from what it had been in 1800. But in the two decades following the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933, the consumer price index in the United States nearly doubled. And in the four decades after that, prices quintupled. Monetary policy, unleashed from the constraint of domestic gold convertibility, had allowed a persistent over issuance of money.” In essence, Greenspan stated that in just 60 years, prices had increased by 10 times due to fraud committed by Central Bankers and their deliberate “persistent over issuance of money”  – fraud that negatively affected every human being on Planet Earth.

If you were a 20-year-old young adult that had just graduated college with a starting $30,000 a year salary in 1933, by 1993, just 60 years later, you would have to be earning an annual salary of $300,000 just for your salary to have the SAME purchasing power as your 1933 salary. In other words, you would have had no better a quality of life in terms of purchasing power, earning $300,000 a year in 1993 than you would have had earning just $30,000 a year in 1933 due to the Central Bank cartel’s destruction of currencies. Furthermore, since Alan Greenspan was using the bogus US government “official” rates of inflation to make his calculations, the above example I’ve provided actually UNDER-ESTIMATES the reality of the negative social impact of the Central Banking cartel as $300,000 1993 dollars would actually have LESS purchasing power than $30,000 1933 dollars. Of course, other tangibles such as better technology in 1993 versus 1933 would grant one a better overall quality of life, but technological advances that create improvements in quality of life are certainly not attributable to bankers.

If you’re old enough to remember growing up in a time where your father was the sole breadwinner of your household, your mother stayed at home and raised you, you had 2, 3, or even 4 other siblings, and no one was ever without food or clothes and you were considered middle class, that “middle class” life today has all but vanished and has become extinct thanks to the global scam of fractional reserve banking. And we can all thank the criminal Central Bank cartel, as well as their shills and misinformation agents such as Warren Buffet, Charlie Munger, Bill Gates, Jamie Dimon, etc. for this new, much more miserable reality. It amazes me that even when ex-bankers like Greenspan make admissions of their criminal negative impact upon society, that those working within the banking industry still refuse to process the inherently immoral nature of the crime syndicate for whom they work, such is the utter success of bankers’ centuries-old propaganda campaigns.

Economic/GDP Contributions, Drug Cartels v. Global Banks

Let’s assume that the creation of debt has a net negative overall affect on society (as debt creation drains the wealth of individuals) while the creation of GDP has a net positive affect on society. In the past 15 years, G7 Central Bankers created $7 of debt for every $1 of GDP that they contributed to society, resulting in a net negative [-$6] contribution. In the late 1980s through the early 1990s, drug lord Pablo Escobar “came to control 75 percent of the global [cocaine] market, with [drug] revenues from trafficking equivalent to [a positive] +5 percent share of the country’s GDP.” (Source: Garcio -Bario, Constance. “U.S. War on Drugs in Colombia is Ravaging Farmers and Land”, 2 March 2004. Common Dreams Newscenter). In fact, Pablo Escobar always declared, at every opportunity afforded him, his belief that he was helping Colombia’s economy more than he was hurting it: “The entire economy benefits from drug money; those who traffic and those who do not. If a drug trafficker builds a house, the peasant who cuts the wood for it benefits from that.”  Unfortunately, it is exactly this flawed belief of Escobar’s that valued money over all other factors, including morality, that the vast majority of today’s global Bank CEOs have embraced. Though there is no honor in the above statement, whether you agree with it or not, in regards to economic contributions to society, it is obvious that Escobar’s drug cartel produced far more value in terms of GDP for society than bank cartels.

Goodwill, Drug Cartels V. Global Banks

Pablo Escobar, during the height of his drug cartel’s success, was credited with being directly responsible for pulling thousands of his countrymen out of poverty and providing them with jobs. With his billions of drug cartel money, Escobar built schools, hospitals, fútbol fields, and churches and even sponsored many little-league community fútbol teams. Escobar even built housing developments with his blood money and gave thousands of units to poor people rent-free. Of course, these actions were not all altruistic by any means as Pablo’s dealers also were known for widely distributing cocaine in the same housing developments that Escobar built for the poor. Thus, by giving away these apartments, Escobar was ensuring himself of a steady supply of customers.  Despite these obvious contradictions, for all the goodwill that Pablo generated in Colombia, he was revered by thousands in his country as a saint during the height of his empire and still is today. However, to many others, he was and still is a monster.

While I am sure that Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Brian Moynihan, Stuart Gulliver, Michael Corbat, Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Peter Zöllner, Christine Lagarde, Mario Draghi, and Mark Carney have all made sizeable donations in their communities at some point and to civic-minded organizations like hospitals and schools and the arts, their more prominent donations seem to be to the police state that can ensure that their rule of corruption will continue. JP MorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon’s well–publicized 2011 $4.6 million payoff to the New York Police Department coincided with a violent police crackdown on Occupy Wall Street protests of Wall Street’s biggest and most corrupt banks, including JP Morgan. Never in a thousand years would hundreds of thousands of the poorest people in any community anywhere in the world call Bernanke, Saint Ben, Blankfein, Saint Lloyd, Moynihan ,Saint Brian, or Dimon, Saint Jamie. Exploring this topic exposes the ludicrous nature of the inseparable relationship between Drug Lords and Bank Lords. If Bank CEOs did not launder Pablo’s money, Pablo would not have been able to build his schools, churches, medical facilities, homes and community recreational centers. Thus, are Bank CEOs contributing to society because they enable Drug Lords to provide thousands of jobs in their communities?

Global Wars: Drug Cartels v. Global Banks

In the category of war and war crimes, who inflicts more harm upon humanity – Drug Lords or Bank CEOs? Though we know that Drug Cartels are drains on the financial resources and budgets of many governments worldwide due to the “War on Drugs” that governments wage upon them, these wars are limited in scope and finances, and are just a drop of water in the ocean when compared to the wars that are financed by Central Banks. Furthermore, the “War on Drugs” is a false war whose true purpose is not to eradicate drugs from neighborhoods but to enrich various parties involved in executing the War on Drugs, namely the military industrial complex, government officials and bankers. Criminal bank cartels are the first enablers of every major war in world history, and other than defense contractors, the largest war profiteers of any global industry. In some instances, the Central Bankers are even alleged to have instigated and encouraged wars to fulfill their own political agendas.

In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley, a Professor of History at Georgetown University, and US President Bill Clinton’s mentor, wrote:

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the Central Banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”

Dr. Quigley stated that the key to the Banking Cartel’s success was to control and manipulate the currency supply of a nation while lying to and informing the public that their government was in control of the currency supply. Thus it is no coincidence that five countries the US has invaded in the last decade – Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Sudan – all are not member states of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the Central Bank of Central Banks – while a sixth the US attempted to invade before being rebuffed by Russia’s Putin, Syria, is also NOT a member state of the BIS.

Although many American children have falsely been taught in schools that the Revolutionary War started with a protest against prohibitive taxes on tea and stamps known as the Boston Tea Party, Benjamin Franklin correctly explained that it was the inability of the Colonists to get the power to issue their own money, permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers, that was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.  However Ben Franklin was incorrect about his perceived success of the American Revolutionary War, because the Rothschild banking families still maintained control over America’s currency supply after the so-called “revolutionary” war ended.

French leader Napoleon Bonaparte stated: “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” In response to Napoleon’s rich understanding of the nefarious objectives of powerful banking families, the Rothschild banking cartel funded the Franco-Prussian war to allegedly put an end to Napoleon’s rule of France.

During the Civil War, US President Abraham Lincoln stated: “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.” President Lincoln was murdered on April 14, 1865, less than two months before the Civil War ended.

35th US President John F. Kennedy was intent on shutting down the US Federal Reserve and the IRS due to the same realizations of his predecessors that the Central Banking cartel was nothing more than a crime syndicate posing as a legitimate entity and signed Executive Order 1110 on June 4, 1963 that stopped the creation of US Federal Reserve Notes, removed the power of the Rockefellers, JP Morgan, Rothschilds, Warburgs, et al from creating currency in the United States, and returned the power of coining currency to the US Treasury, with the intent of forever retiring criminal fractional reserve currency from use inside the United States. Just five months later, JFK was murdered and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, immediately cancelled Executive Order 1110 and reinstated criminal fractional reserve banking in the United States.

To this day, the private banking families that own the US Federal Reserve are the principal financiers of all modern wars, including wars in Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. , providing the war appropriation funding to governments for which governments must pay these bankers interest. When estimates of the US-Iraq War alone have been in the $2 trillion range, it is self-evident that bankers are making out like bandits from funding such wars. Furthermore, as Central Bankers create massive amounts of money (debt) out of thin air to fund major wars, it is self-evident that the creation of 2 trillion new dollars just to fund the Iraqi War has a hugely negative impact upon world citizens as it destroys the purchasing power of all existing dollars in circulation. In other words, every major war leaves the citizens of the nations involved in that war, as well as all global holders of the two currencies used in the warring nations, poorer and in a worse economic state. Though it is beyond the scope of this article, if you research current global geopolitical tensions between Russia, China and the US by following the trail of money, you will discover that this too has originated from disputes over the desire of Federal Reserve bankers to maintain US dollar hegemony and to prevent the petro-Yuan from replacing the petro-dollar  in international trade.

Furthermore though we have informed you earlier in this article that Pablo Escobar was believed to have been responsible for over 4,000 murders whereas El Chapo Guzman was believed to have been responsible for over 80,000 murders, these despicable inhumane statistics still pale in comparison to the more than 4,486 US soldiers killed, more than 1 million Iraqis killed, 3.5 to 5 million refugees, and 15 million Iraqis living in poverty,created from the singular US-Iraq War (Source: http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/). Since Drug Wars to bring down Pablo Escobar don’t come anywhere close to creating the massive level of debt from just one war that Central Banks fund, nor do they come close to the numbers of murders that intense political wars cause, it is apparent that not even Drug Lords can compete with Bank Lords when it comes to spreading misery through the vehicle of global war.

Just a hundred years ago, it was common knowledge among the people that any war in which their leaders entangled them was going to cheapen the currency held in their savings, and consequently, the majority of people always fiercely contested every war and insisted on diplomacy over war whenever possible. Today, it is a sad state of affairs when bankers, through the vehicle of nationalism, have been able to convince people to cheer for their own economic demise, as state announcements of war against other nations are often met with zombie-conditioned, nationalistic chants of “[insert country name here]” versus the thoughtful intelligent protests over currency devaluations that used to meet every single build-up to war just a couple of generations ago.

In conclusion, we have summed up the societal value of a drug cartel like Pablo Escobar’s cocaine empire versus the societal value of Global Banking/ Central Banking Crime Syndicates in the below chart.

1-19-2015 11-35-23 AM

In every category above, the Drug Lord causes less damage to humanity than Bank Lords. When the negative social value of a violent murderous Drug Lord can be successfully argued to be far less than the negative social value created by a sociopathic Bank Lord, we have truly reached the crossroads to determine our future. Either we all stand united and take action starting today to topple the current immoral and misanthropic global banking system, or we resign ourselves, our children and our grandchildren to another century of slavery and tyranny. The collective choice is ours to make.

If you really care about the future of this world and the future of your children and grandchildren, I implore you to please send this article to every single person you know that works for a large global bank to enlighten them about the atrocious, horrific crimes that are being committed by their leaders. Robert Mazur, an anti-money laundering expert that works closely with US law enforcement agencies is on record as stating that the only thing that will make the [bank CEOs] properly vigilant to what is happening is when they hear the rattle of handcuffs in the boardroom.” As there could not have possibly been a stronger, air-tight case made in the favor of pre-meditation and prior knowledge of money laundering against HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver and other top executive HSBC bankers, and even this “can’t fail” case failed to jail any HSBC banker, it is obvious that the only way to stop the crimes of the new Bank Lords is through grass-roots activism.

As I have repeatedly stated in this article, when the Bank CEOs know that there is zero risk of going to jail, even after they are caught, or of suffering any negative repercussions from continuing to bathe in blood money, they will never cease engaging in the types of crimes that drags the world further into darkness. And even if Nanex’s Eric Scott Hunsader did say tongue-in-cheek that he would “put everything he had in Goldman Sachs because these guys can do whatever they want” after listening to the secret tapes whistleblower Carmen Segarra made of her conversations with her bosses and between her colleagues and Goldman Sachs executives, there are surely a lot of people that will act on such knowledge to help these Bank CEOs become even more powerful and wealthy (i.e. buying their stock instead of divesting, closing deals with them, etc.). In fact, today’s Bank Lords enjoy a level of special immunity from prosecution against their crimes that no Drug Lord in history ever was able to secure, and this makes the Bank Lords even more powerful than the Drug Lords they are replacing in the global crime syndicate. And this is why only we can really force significant change and stop the transformation of the big bank CEOs into the next Pablo Escobars and El Chapo Guzmans. Please participate in raising awareness about this extremely important issue and help us to light up the darkness by sending this article to every friend or acquaintance you know that works for a large global bank and ask them to follow their consciousness and morality.

About the author: JS Kim is the Managing Director of SmartKnowledgeU, a fiercely independent investment research, consulting and education firm. Learn how to combat banking corruption with targeted wealth preservation strategies and read our SmartWealth fact sheet to learn how you can win a free membership to our newest service, the SmartKnowledgeU SmartWealth Progra  (an alternative educational program that breaks down how global capital markets really operate), coming soon. Follow us on Twitter, subscribe to ourYouTube Channel and join our LinkedIn group.

 10 13 11 flagbar


The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

01/17/2015

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

Folks,

There is a major push taking place in America to further pollute what the Founding Father set forth.  We have had 6+ years of a FRAUD occupying OUR White House and the GOP is intending to make use of the FAILURE to dislodge that FRAUD by setting forth more of the same under the GOP label.  Ted CRUZ – Marco RUBIO – Bobby JINDAL.  Neither of those men are eligible to run for or serve as President of America.

These men KNOW that and the FACT that they IGNORE that rule tells me they are NOT HONEST, ETHICAL, or MORAL men because if they were, they were decline any mention of them running for President and they would state the WHY of declining that option.  To not so state tells me they are LIARS – DECEIVERS.  How does that make them any different than Obama?

Please read the following and keep it handy to share with others who may promote one of those three for President.

Jackie Juntti
WGEN   idzrus@earthlink.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

 By Publius Huldah.

We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence is qualified to be President:

Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.

Human Events claims that anyone  born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.

Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present.  After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]

“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]

But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!

The four writers don’t know what they are talking about.  But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.

Word Definitions:

Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time.  “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.

Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

So!  In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it.  Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

So!  Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used?  Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.

The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.

What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles1 already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work.  I’ll prove it.

How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “ pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”

Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence.  In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

So!  Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3

Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens.  Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213:  Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization.  In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law.  And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Do you see?  The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subject-ship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”.  But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787.  John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

“…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4

According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” [boldface added]

In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5

Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States – not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.

And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. Black people born here did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

So!  Do you see?  If Our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.

David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship:

David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the Continental Congress  [REMEMBER: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, just after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:

“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” [Modernized spelling & emphasis are mine]

Do you see?  Ramsay’s Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens.  And we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776.

Now, let us look at the First Congress.

How the First Congress followed Vattel and our Framers:

Article I, §8, cl. 4 delegates to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.6 Pursuant to that power, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790.  Here is the text, which you can find at 1 Stat. at Large, 103:

“SECTION1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.   And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.” 7

So!  This Act of the First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:

  • A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
  • Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.

Our Framers rejected the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a Country naturalizes the children of a foreigner. 8

The distinction written into Our Constitution and implemented by the Naturalization Act of 1790 is between someone who is born a citizen, by being born of parents who are already Citizens, and someone who becomes a citizen after birth by naturalization. Only the former are eligible to be President.

So!  Original Intent?  Or Whatever the People with the Power want it to Mean?

I have proved the original intent of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 – it is one who is born of parents who are citizens. We may not lawfully change that definition except by Amendment to the Constitution.  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not change the definition because the 14th Amendment defines “citizens” of the United States (which includes naturalized citizens) and not “natural born Citizen”.

Some Democrats no longer pretend that the glib, handsome & black Obama (who, following the condition of his putative father, was born a subject of the British Crown) is “a natural born Citizen”. They now assert that the Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever they choose to run for president, including someone who is not qualified for the office. [See pages 3 & 4 of the linked Court Order.]

The school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy our sovereignty. Once we accept that our President need not be a “natural born Citizen”, we will have made a major step towards submission to global government. Because then, anybody can be President. PH.

Endnotes:

1 Monarchies have subjects. Republics are formed by citizens.  We broke from a monarchy under which we were subjects; and with our War for Independence, were transformed into citizens!

The common law of England recognizes only subjects of the Crown. England has never had citizens.  Her feudal doctrine of “natural born subjects” is set forth in Book I, Ch. 10, of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (I modernized the spelling):

“THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the … allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie … which binds the subject to the king …” [emphasis mine]

Under feudalism, people are possessions who belong to the Land in which they were born. So they are “naturally” subject to whoever owns the Land. They were born as subjects to the owner of the land [ultimately, the King] on which they were born.

With our War for Independence, We repudiated the notion of natural born subjects. As Citizens, We ordained and established Our Constitution wherein We created a federal government which was subject to us!

Jake Walker doesn’t seem to know the difference between being “a subject of a King” and “a citizen of a Republic”, as he equates the feudal concept of “natural born subject” with the Republican concept of “natural born Citizen”.

Chet Arthur and Human Events tell us the “original intent” of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 is given by an Amendment defining “citizen” [not “natural born citizen”] ratified 80 years later!

And Bret Baier seems unaware that the methods for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V; and that Congress may not amend the Constitution by making a law which redefines terms set forth in the Constitution!

These four amateurs would do well to study Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny, by Professor Edward J. Erler. Erler addresses the distinctions between “citizenship” and “subjectship”; and the concept of “citizenship” at §1 of the 14th Amendment. He proves that not everyone born here is a “citizen”: Only those whose parents are “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” are citizens. Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders whose allegiance is to the Country they left.  Foreign diplomats stationed here are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. Thus, children born here of these aliens are not citizens!

2 The 1916 ed. of Law of Nations with Lapradelle’s introduction is a Google digitized book. If you download it, you get an easily readable text.

3 Many thanks to my friend, David J. Edwards, who provided me with Evidence of Vattel’s profound influence on our Founders & Framers.

4 The hyperlink contains another link where you can see Jay’s handwritten letter!

5 Note that Art. I, §2, cl. 2, permits naturalized citizens to serve as Representatives; and Art. I, §3, cl. 3, permits them to serve as Senators.

6 “Naturalization” is the process, established by law, by which foreigners become citizens.

7 Note that in §§ 215, 216 & 217, Vattel says that children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. He goes on to say that by the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.  But he doesn’t expressly say they are “natural born citizens”. The italicized words at the end of the 1790 Act correct that and make it clear that children of citizens of the United States are “natural born citizens” wherever they are born.

8 The 14th Amendment doesn’t change this one whit! READ Prof. Erler’s paper, linked above.

NOTICE! To all who strain to find something I “failed to mention”: I didn’t quote Minor v. Happersett because Minor merely paraphrases, in dicta, a portion of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the text of which is set forth above.

July 19, 2012

POST SCRIPT added July 25, 2012:

The following valuable  comment was posted by Political Junkie Too  at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2908140/posts?page=18
From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 ­ Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:

If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.

In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.

But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.

The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.

Yes, Paine did use the term “native of the country.” Does this mean “native born” instead of “natural born?” We have to look at the following statements to answer that question. Paine refers to English examples in order to define this. Paine cites “foreigner” and “half a foreigner” as the opposite to “full natural” connection to the country. So, what is “half a foreigner?”

It seems to me that “half a foreigner” is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have a “full natural… connection with the country.”

Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want “half-foreigners” to be president, and why only people with a “full natural… connection with the country” were allowed to become President.

Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.

Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.

About Publius Huldah

 Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah

Website: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com

10 13 11 flagbar


AMERICAN MATRIX HOW WE LOST OUR CONSTITUTION PART 2

01/16/2015

http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn206.htm

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 16, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

COLORABLE MONEY, COLORABLE LAW, COLORABLE LIBERTY

Before providing you with the following information, I must state that I am not an attorney and have not studied the law. I’m a retired banker who has done a lot of research on this subject.

What we learned in Part I is that federal, state, county and city governments and most of the departments and divisions that are part of them are incorporated. We learned that corporations function under Articles of Incorporation, not a Constitution and that’s how we lost our constitutional rights and courts that support them.

We learned that corporations are governed by business laws having to do with Maritime Law (also called Law of the Seas or Admiralty Law both of which are historically very old) and the Uniform Commercial Code. We learned that Constitutional Law is based on Common Law (which is based on substance and the will of the people — the Will of God, too, many people say). For example, under Common Law we are provided the alternative of not testifying against ourselves; that is not part of Maritime Law.

To understand the damage that has been done to our nation, we need to define the word “colorable” – its meaning, its impact on our currency, our courts, and our constitutional liberties and the limits the Constitution places on government. It is from the meaning of the word “colorable” that the virus of death infecting our nation breeds and keeps breeding… like Ebola, it dissolves every major life-giving organ in its path until death ensues.

COLORABLE MONEY – COLORABLE COURTS

To be “colorable,” is for something to appear to be what it is not. It looks real, you are told by your government that it is real and, in the example of currency, it is used or behaves as if it’s real, but it is not. Take what you are told is a dollar bill from your billfold. It looks like a dollar bill. You can spend it like a dollar bill. But it is not a dollar bill. It is a Federal Reserve Note. It says so, right on the face of it – at the top, above George Washington’s picture.

In the world of banking, what is a note? Answer: It is a loan. It is credit. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, fiat money has no value in and of itself, but it can be exchanged… like Monopoly money. A direct quote from the Minneapolis Fed: …(fiat currency can be exchanged) “for goods and services… because (the people) are confident it will be honored when they buy goods and services.”

Money and currency are not the same. We used to have money in America but when the dollar was no longer backed by gold or silver our “money” became a fiat currency. These things called a “Federal Reserve Note” became colorable currency, something that behaved like money because people could use it to buy groceries, cars, electronics, etc., and also pay for services like health care and life insurance. But it was not money. It was colorable… it just serves as a paper currency. Money is something of substance – like gold or silver. For Common Law to exist, money of substance must exist.

If a (colorable) Federal Reserve Note becomes part of a contract, the contract also becomes colorable. Colorable contracts, in turn, must be adjudicated under a “colorable” jurisdiction (system of justice – our courts). So when the colorable currency called Federal Reserve Notes was created, the government had to create a jurisdiction (court system) to cover colorable contracts. The incorporated governments called this new form of jurisdiction Statutory Law because though it was based on the Uniform Commercial Code which is based on Admiralty Law, “Statutory” is neither. Thus, Statutory Jurisdiction is colorable.

It sounds complicated, but if you think about it for a few minutes, it is really quite simple. Public Law was used in Common Law courts; Public Policy is used in Statutory courts… and that’s what gave bureaucrats control of our courtrooms. That’s what gave them the ability to prosecute members of the public because a regulation passed by a government agency rather than a law passed by Congress or your State Legislature, was violated.

So our courts have changed… how many times in the past years have you heard the term “The Petitioner does not have Standing to file this case… dismissed!” We have been unable to file cases against our government even when clear abuses of power exist. How many juries have been given rules they are told they must follow in determining a verdict, leaving them no choice other than “guilty” or “not guilty” regardless of what the evidence indicates? How many judges have withheld evidence from a jury? It has brought topics like “Nullification” to the forefront of the politically active. Nullification deals with a jury’s right to dismiss from its decision of guilt or innocence the judge’s directions as to what the jury may or may not consider in reaching its decision. Juries are empowered to nullify the judge’s directions if they feel it is justified.

All of this and more has been caused by the change from Common to a colorable form of Maritime Law called Statutory Law… a form of law required when our various governments incorporated — which, in turn, was required when the Federal Reserve System presented us with a “colorable currency.”

What have we Americans been taught by our government-subsidized education about the cause of our Revolutionary War? Mostly we were told about the Boston Tea Party, the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, and other nice stories.

Many people say the Revolution began because of the Crown’s Declaratory Act which taxed tea, taxed stamps, forced colonists to quarter in their homes members of the English military, etc. No. It began because of the Rothschilds and their central bank system which, in today’s world, has driven us to the brink of another world war.

It’s true that all those things were great irritants, but the real core problem involved central banking – the Bank of England. The colonists were forced by England’s King to use a paper currency issued by the Bank of England which demanded we use it – and we were to cede our colonial banking and monetary systems and pay interest to the Bank of England for using their paper money.

It sounds eerily like the way the Federal Reserve System in America works today, doesn’t it? It is, in fact, quite similar. So we must start with the assumption that what made our ancestors go to war in the 1700s is quite acceptable to Americans today because we have embraced what they were willing to die to prevent: Central banks and a fiat currency.

The Rothschilds were around when America was a colony of Great Britain and the fact that we were founded on the basis of Common Law troubled them. Why? Common Law is based on substance and rejects “colorable money” and “colorable courts.” Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution describes for you what “substance” relative to Common Law means: “Gold and silver,” not a meaningless fiat currency that has nothing backing it. That is a currency with no substance and violates Common Law.

Prior to the forming of the Federal Reserve System, America’s Constitutional Republic required the nation to pay its debts in gold or silver and Rothschild banks did not loan gold or silver. Thus they did not like our newly-formed government which rejected a fiat currency with nothing backing it (what we have today). As described above, the Rothschilds allowed the King of England to borrow paper money from them and got repaid in gold and silver.

Our Constitution declared gold and silver as the official currency of the United States of America and that’s why the Rothschilds financed the War of 1812. They wanted America as part of the United Kingdom so they could expand into the New World their Bank of England scam. They of course lost the War of 1812 and began seeking other ways to further their “we’ll loan you paper and you pay us back in gold and silver” scheme and began working on what we now have as a central banking system, the Federal Reserve, founded on December 23, 1913, 100 years after the War of 1812. And how legitimate is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Not very. Read the history.

Our ancestors in North America began to revolt against the Brits but we had Common Law in the Colonies at the time. When the King’s tax collectors made their rounds, however, they imposed Admiralty Law on the people. It enabled them to arrest and quickly try people, denying to what were mostly Englishmen and women the common rights due them as citizens of the Crown. That is what caused the Revolutionary War.

Perhaps the most interesting part of our history is that almost exactly the same thing has happened to us once again. What’s the old saying about what happens if we don’t learn from history? By incorporating federal, state, and county governments (because of the Federal Reserve’s colorable currency), the U.S. Government made it possible to remove the Common Law supported by our U.S. Constitution and implement a prostituted form of Maritime (or Admiralty) Law called Statutory Law. Our ancestors refused to tolerate it and it will be interesting to see if today’s society which seems more motivated by security and comfort than by right and wrong and liberty will accept the Law of the Seas.

To make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s start with some definitions and let them guide you to an understanding of how we got in our current mess. Only if we understand the history behind these massive problems will we be able to solve them.

To explain how the loss of Common Law robbed us of our independence and our Republic and how incorporating federal, state, and county governments made it possible, we need some definitions. You’re about to get a graduate school crash course in business and finance (and a little law):

JURISDICTION: 1. The right of a court to hear a particular case, based on the scope of its authority over the type of case and the parties to the case. 2. Authority or control. 3. The extent of authority or control. 4. The territorial range of authority or control.

While researching the jurisdiction of our courts, I came upon an article that was so well done, so easy for a non-lawyer to understand, I decided to reprint portions of it here. One of the difficult things about writing both Parts I and II of this article is stating things in a way that can be understood by non-bankers and non-lawyers. Since I’m not a lawyer, I particularly appreciated this article and recommend that you read it in its entirety HERE. I am not publishing the entire article below, just those parts that apply to this topic.

The article is a condensed story about a man named Howard Freeman and is based on a seminar Freeman gave in 1990. The article is written in ham and eggs English and is not filled with legal terminology that forces you to look every-other-word up in a legal dictionary. The following definition about Common Law, Equity Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Courts of Contract, Colorable Money and Colorable Courts, and the Uniform Commercial Code is taken from that seminar and the article written about it.

The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:

COMMON LAW

Common Law is based on God’s law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over the state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, ” BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS – IT’S THE LAW. ” This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

EQUITY LAW

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action – not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws Equity Laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract. (BARNEWALL NOTE: You may have signed an insurance contract agreeing to always wear your seat belts or otherwise obey all traffic laws and, of course, your state requires automobile insurance coverage.)

ADMIRALTY/MARITIME LAW

This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (all traffic codes, etc) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.

However, the courts don’t want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdictions, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case (Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, Supreme Court, 1938) – that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

COURTS OF CONTRACT

You must ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn’t the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand the Constitution, in Article I, § 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced – Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts.

CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. This is characteristic: It must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house,” etc. That was a valid contract – the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, “For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house….” And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a “colorable” dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law Jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

COLORABLE MONEY – COLORABLE COURTS

Colorable: That which exists in appearance only, and not in reality; not what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned have the appearance of truth. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.” Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let’s see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

The government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the “colorable” currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely “colorable” from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is “colorable” law, and it is used in all the courts.

(End of text from Howard Freeman’s seminar.)

Do you see how the Federal Reserve Notes were the basic cause of the problems we now see in our courts, our financial system, our Republic, our Independence as a people? They created a fiat currency backed by nothing. Keep in mind, the word “Note” means “Loan.” It is “colorable currency.”

The Common Law, as embodied in the US Constitution, for the protection and security of persons and property, is Substantive Common Law – [substantive right: a right {as of life, liberty, property, or reputation} held to exist for its own sake and to constitute part of the normal legal order of society] – the intention of the Founding Fathers being the assurance of access to this law by the people.

The most important thing we the people can work to achieve is Constitutional Counties. This system was imposed on us from the top down and must be unwound from the bottom up.

As I said in Part I of this article, corporations can be dissolved – and we need to do that. It’s not difficult to achieve… get enough signatures on a petition to get the initiative on your county ballot and vote the corporations out of existence.

It is, however, more difficult than it sounds. It requires extensive planning because you must remember how we got from a Constitutional Republic to Crony Capitalism. Here’s what I think happened.

The Federal Reserve came into being in 1913. Our money was turned into a fiat currency when President Nixon took us off of the gold standard. The U.S. Government was based on Common Law which made colorable money (money lacking substance – Common Law is based on substance) and that made it impossible for it to continue issuing Federal Reserve Notes. So the federal government incorporated itself which made it possible for them to continue with the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes. It became clear that the states could not accept colorable money from an incorporated federal government unless they, too, were incorporated – and the same thing happened to our counties. To gain access to a colorable currency, an entire system had to be created. How much simpler our lives would be if the Treasury Department had taken over America’s monetary system rather than build this octopus so the Federal Reserve System could be maintained! This attests to the power of the Rothschild central banking system. We might want to keep in mind that one of the primary problems in the Middle East is that Islam does not allow loan usury (interest) and not all of the nations in the Middle East have central banks. Libya didn’t have one – until Muammar Gaddafi was removed from office and killed. Libya now has a central bank. (The Stylebook at the Washington Post spells it “Gaddafi.” The Stylebook at the Associated Press spells it “Gadhafi.”)

Though it is not difficult to dissolve the corporations if it is the will of the people to regain their constitutional rights, a great deal of thought must go into how a county that dissolves its corporations will survive without federal and state dollars. Some of the questions that arise are:

  1. If Common Law is returned to our court system and our governing bodies, it requires a currency that has substance and contracts based on that substance. Fiat currency – Federal Reserve Notes – has no substance. How can those people being paid by the federal, state, or county governments get paid in a currency of substance? How about people receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits? How about veterans receiving retirement and VA benefits? They are being paid in Federal Reserve Notes (as we all are) which, since they are not redeemable in gold or silver, are deemed as having no substance and contracts with no substance are rejected by Common Law. This part of problem resolution is complex – but with good planning it can be done.
  2. Can fiat currency be used at all in a Constitutional County?
    3. Is there a way to reject the colorable Statutory Laws created by federal and state governments and build a bridge between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Equity Law, etc.?

There are many other questions, but to ask and answer them requires a book, not an article. The purpose of this two-part article has been to explain to you what I believe happened and what I believe the solution to be. It will not be easy. Nor will it be free.

Liberty is never free. How much you value it will determine the price you are willing to pay to regain it.

[The book: The Coming Battle, published in 1899, documents how the politicians of that period didn’t want the debt to be paid off. They wanted the debt to be rolled over from generation to generation. It continues to this day. It’s a must read.]

Click here for part —–> 1,

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who of American Women, Who’s Who in Finance and Business, and Who’s Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

E-Mail: marilynwrites@bresnan.net

 10 13 11 flagbar


What Will You Do When Government Tyranny And Terrorism Work Hand In Hand?

01/15/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/what-will-you-do-when-government.html

1-15-2015 1-10-55 PM

Brandon Smith
Activist Post
I was in the middle of working on an article covering real U.S. economic stats versus manipulated statistics when the Charlie Hebdo shootings took place. And though I knew the implications of the event would be far-reaching, I was originally undeterred from my financial subject matter. I had already covered in previous articles the inevitability of ISIS attacks on Europe and America, including the “warnings” of Saudi Arabia in August of last year that jihadists would target the EU within months and the U.S. a month later.

In September of last year, ISIS publicly urged attacks on French and U.S. citizens.

I have also published extensive analysis on the covert funding and training of ISIS militants by Saudi Arabia and Western intelligence agencies, including my article “The Time Is Ripe For A False Flag Attack On American Soil.” 

The bottom line is the Paris attack was not surprising in the slightest. I have no doubt whatsoever that such attacks are going to increase in frequency, that the U.S. will be hit soon, and that our government will do little to nothing to stop such tragedies. However, a Reuters article titled “White House to hold global security summit Feb (sic) 18: U.S. official” caught my eye. And after reading it, I’m afraid I have to set aside my financial piece until next week and break down the insanity that is now taking place in the world of geopolitics.

It is clear by the language being used by the political elite that the “global summit” called in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks is about far more than radical Islamic terrorism. Set aside the fact that our government essentially created ISIS in order to destabilize Syria. Set aside the fact that globalist middlemen like John McCain and “former” covert ops goons like Gen. Paul Vallely have met directly with groups like the Nusra Front that are providing support for ISIS. Set aside the fact that Saudi Arabia has been openly funneling cash and arms to Syrian terrorist factions tied to ISIS, and realize that the mere existence of ISIS, regardless of its origins, is being used as a rationale for the erasure of civil liberties and the establishment of martial law on both sides of the Atlantic. Such federalized reactions CANNOT be allowed to continue, regardless of the threats each nation faces.

As far as the Reuters article is concerned, one does not need to read very far between the lines to see the true message being conveyed.

First, the focus of the summit is not necessarily indicated as “Islamic terrorism.” In fact, the word “terrorism” is barely mentioned. Now politicos are shifting their language to the term “extremism,”which is far broader in its implications. It should be noted that while the terrorist label has been bandied about rather liberally by both the Bush and Obama administrations, “extremism” offers greater cover for governments to persecute or attack political opponents. A terrorist is generally someone who initiates or at least plans a large-scale attack designed to illicit a fear response in a population. An extremist, on the other hand, could literally be anyone who holds views or initiates activism outside acceptable forms of mainstream thought. Attorney General Eric Holder did not use the words “terrorism” or “jihadist” in his announcement of the global summit in February; he used the phrase “violent extremism”:

We will bring together all of our allies to discuss ways in which we can counteract this violent extremism that exists around the world…

Throughout history, “violence,” according to governments, is often attributed to ideas as well as actions. The point is the change in vocabulary over to the extremist label is not accidental or coincidental. The establishment is conditioning the public to think in broad terms and to identify numerous groups as the enemy, rather than focusing on radical Islam.  As I have said for years, Islamic terror is nothing but an advantageous excuse for governments to make war on all of us.  Do not forget, constitutionalists are often referred to in the mainstream media and by Orwellian institutions like the Department of Homeland Security as “extremists.” How long before we are artificially linked as being suspect? How long before Charlie Hebdo-style attacks come to the U.S.? How long before the liberty minded are categorized as accessories to terrorism due to our anti-corrupt-government philosophies?

It is disturbing to witness the lack of conviction in principles in the average person. Self-proclaimed leftists railed against the degeneration of civil liberties and constitutional protections under George W. Bush, but rallied in support of the same weakening of freedoms under Barack Obama.

Self-proclaimed conservatives today are shocked and infuriated by the trampling of the Constitution through executive orders displayed by the Obama administration. Yet, I suspect that many of them will willingly jump on the fascist bandwagon in the event of “Islamic” attacks on American soil. Neither side seems to grasp the reality that the disruptions of liberty we enact in the name of stopping jihadists today will eventually fall back on the rest of us tomorrow.

The lockdown of the populace is already ramping up.  The EU is currently discussing the creation of a European Passenger Name Record database (national ID database), meaning officials hope to create a centralized database with a file on every single citizen. Think the no-fly list is a terrifying concept? Wait until it becomes publicly accepted for all Web comments, Facebook posts, and blog posts to be added to an ongoing record that determines whether you are allowed to travel. Wait until it becomes a mainstream notion that every travel destination you visit is tracked, recorded on permanent record, and scrutinized by some pencil-necked bureaucrat who then determines whether or not you are suspect.  Apparently, French officials are supportive of the idea. And given the proclamations of “unity” surrounding the upcoming summit, I suspect actions undertaken in Europe will eventually be exported to the United States. Reuters reports:

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said after the meeting that European interior ministers had agreed to boost cooperation in an effort to thwart further jihadist attacks.

“We all agree that we need to put in place better control on certain passengers, on the basis of objective criteria and with respect for fundamental liberties and without disrupting cross-border travel,” he said.

He said Europe needed urgent progress in establishing a European Passenger Name Record database, which would facilitate the exchange of data about passengers between member states.

“We are convinced of the need for such a tool, to follow those who travel to terrorist operating theaters or who return from there,” he said, adding that this database would also be useful in the fight against other serious crimes.

Unfortunately, travel is the least of our concerns. Free speech is a primary target for the elites, and the Internet is clearly outlined as a threat by politicians claiming concern for public safety. This comes in the form of one of the oldest rationalizations for tyranny – the trade-off between freedom and security. The French argue that while free speech is important, some “exceptions” must be made in order to thwart extremist ideas:

Cazeneuve said the Internet needs to remain a space for free expression, but that Europe should fight against abusive use of the web (sic) to spread hate speech, anti-Semitic messages and the recruiting vulnerable young people for violence.

“We need to work more closely with Internet companies to guarantee the reporting and if possible removal of all content that amounts to an apology of terrorism or calls for violence and hatred,” he said.

Who gets to determine what speech amounts to an “apology of terrorism?” Who is the all-benevolent and wise sage who gets to decide what we can and cannot say? Will he be fair and just? Or will he use the power of censorship to attack any and all websites critical of the establishment? What do you think the most likely outcome of such legal precedence would be?

Again, how long before websites like the one you are reading now are vilified by the extremist label? How long before liberty-minded speech is categorized as violent speech or hate speech?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the White House are now kindly warning the public that terrorist “sleeper cells” have been activated and that some are present in the United States. On CNN, Feinstein said:

So I think this calls for vigilance. It calls for seeing that the national security organizations of our country, the intelligence community is funded fully, is directed ably, is cooperating with whether it be British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence, as we do.

And the French are good at it, and so are the British and the Germans. So, we can even be more active in terms of doing those things which enable us to find terrorists, to see who they’re communicating with in this country, and to track that.

She means mass Internet and phone surveillance, the same National Security Agency surveillance exposed by Edward Snowden, which now has a convenient justification in the form of an ever-present fear of terrorism.

Finally, it is only a matter of time before a militarized response is activated in the U.S., just as it has been in France. One shooting event has led to the fielding of over 10,000 French troops on French soil, as well as an extra 5,000 heavily armed police.

Frankly, this is where I — and many people like me — draw the line. Martial law is not acceptable under any circumstances. I don’t care if we one day see a mushroom cloud over an American city, there is no measure of government security (false security) that is worth the degradation of essential liberties. I suspect the loss of liberty, usurping of the Constitution and the deployment of the military on U.S. soil would trigger revolution — a revolution I’m sure the establishment would attempt to marginalize as mere terrorism. Ultimately, though, there is no other option.

As I have been discussing constantly over the past several months, community preparation and organization comprise the only action plan worth the effort and energy at this time. The French are disarmed and utterly socialized. Millions of them march in Paris in a display of solidarity, but solidarity behind what solution? Even more government; the same government that created the problem in the first place? Even more centralization? The globalization of despotic security policies? The French have dug their grave, and now they are going to have to lie down in it.

Americans do not have to follow the same path.

We do not need more government. We do not need more surveillance, more police militarization or more troops on the streets. What we need is to take back responsibility for own defense. The French government could not or would not protect the staff of Charlie Hebdo, and the U.S. government will not protect you. That means you must train to protect yourself and those you care about. Whether we face a false flag attack or a legitimate terrorist action, the response is the same: Fight back. It is times like these that separate the courageous from the cowardly; those with principles and conscience versus the treacherous and self-serving. Make no mistake; as I wrote in my last article, many illusions are about to be shattered. You can be caught up in the storm as a helpless spectator and victim or you can become a barrier, a wall of defense against the dangerous riptides. These are your choices. Choose wisely.

REMINDER: Alt-Market’s winter donation drive is now underway! If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.

You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market, where this first appeared. You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

10 13 11 flagbar


CIA Flashback: “We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False.”

01/14/2015

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2015/01/14/cia-flashback-well-know-our-disinformation-program-is-complete-when-everything-the-american-public-believes-is-false/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

 By Editor

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

That creepy quote above has been widely attributed to Former CIA Director William Casey.

1-14-2015 4-33-09 PMCasey was the 13th CIA Director from 1981 until he left in January 1987. He died not long after of a brain tumor in May 1987. Dead men tell no tales, as they say. But did William Casey really say this quote?

The quote itself has been passed around extensively on the Internet, and some people claim Casey never really said it because the only main source it traces back to is late political researcher and radio show host Mae Brussell.

Brussell was the host of the radio show Dialogue: Conspiracy. She got her start when, as a radio show guest, she questioned the official JFK assassination story and the Warren Commission Hearings by suggesting that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only person involved in Kennedy’s murder. Perhaps the propagandized label of “conspiracy theorist” is the reason why people question the quote Brussell often repeated.

However, Brussell is not the only person that can be attributed to this sharing quote.

Someone posted this meme on Quora back in 2013 with the note, “A disclaimer: I just like Quorans debunking or showing the stupidity behind some of the worst FB memes.”

1-14-2015 4-34-50 PM

This is a new trend lately, people trying to debunk old (and most especially, establishment damaging) quotes.

This time, however, someone who claims to have been there when Casey said it showed up to validate the quote:

“I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration. The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines. As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.”

Barbara Honegger

Not only does Honegger claim he said it, but apparently he said it in response to what he saw as his goal as CIA Director!

This statement was further backed by an email posted by Quora user Greg Smith from Honegger regarding the quote which is consistent and apparently prompted her to tell the story above:

“Seriously — I personally was the Source for that William Casey quote. He said it at an early Feb. 1981 meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House which I attended, and I immediately told my close friend and political godmother Senior White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who then went public with it without naming the source… “

So there you go. Guess it boils down to he said she said, except when she says it, it’s because she was actually there…

The year 1981 was an interesting one for Director Casey. He just so happened to be under investigation and fighting to keep his new job over various seedy dealings that came to light; among them were claims he approved a plan to overthrow Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi to instill a shadow government. (Oh I know, our government would never do that, would they?)

The agency’s plan, according to an article in the July 27, 1981 Gettysburg Times, involved toppling Qaddafi via what else?

Disinformation:

1-14-2015 4-36-29 PM

“Newsweek Magazine reported the covert operation was designed to overthrow Khadafy through a ‘disinformation’ campaign to embarrass him, creation of a counter government to challenge his leadership and a paramilitary campaign.”

(Wow. A lot of that sounds eerily familiar…, 2011, anyone?)

That same year, investigative journalist Jack Anderson published this piece in the September 22, 1981 Santa Cruz Sentinel discussing the troubling CIA disinformation campaign being waged against Americans:

1-14-2015 4-37-59 PM

Anderson points out the CIA’s “triple assault on the public’s right to know” included 1) trying to shut off channels of information to the electorate, 2) seeking criminal penalties against reporters whose stories might identify CIA operatives, and the third which Anderson called most troubling, 3) spreading “disinformation” to news agencies.

And who else does Anderson specifically call out in this disinfo campaign but new CIA Director William Casey:

“Now along comes Bill Casey, the doddering CIA director, with the argument that the government has the right to mislead the public by planting phony stories in the press.”

Oh really? So the good director not only talked about his disinformation campaign but actually argued for the government’s right to wage it against the American people?

The plan involved getting around the ban on CIA operations on domestic soil by planting disinformation stories in foreign news outlets that were routinely picked up by American mainstream media agencies. Anderson also points out the various rumors and false stories going around surrounding the goings on in Libya at the time…

The bottom line here is, if anyone in our government was going to make the above disinformation statement and specifically in 1981, all available evidence points to no better person who would have likely said it than Casey.

Finally on an aside, there seems to be this mission lately to memory hole quotes or muddy the water about who said what and change history.

In this particular instance, someone who was there when William Casey said the line in question and claims to have literally heard the words come out of the man’s mouth with her own ears as he said it is vouching that this quote is true.

Then again, this is the same agency on record behind the government’s  MKUltra mind control program, an illegal project in which the CIA experimented on Americans for over two decades (that we know about) to manipulate mental states and brain function with everything from drugs to microwaves — the kind of stuff DARPA is openly working on today — all of which makes the piddle quote in question here seem like mere child’s play by comparison.

Even so, people still went into the Quora thread afterwards to claim — with absolutely no evidence whatsoever as they were not personally there — the quote is false.

So, in a bitter twist of the saddest irony possible, it would seem the contents of the quote itself are also true

 10 13 11 flagbar


AMERICAN MATRIX HOW WE LOST OUR CONSTITUTION PART 1

01/13/2015

http://newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn205.htm

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 13, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

Do you want your Constitutional Republic back? If so, this article provides you with information that will help you achieve that objective. It won’t come through Constitutional Conventions, Conventions of the States, or memorizing the Constitution and going to court with constitutional arguments in a court system the jurisdiction for which functions under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and Maritime Law.

Your Constitutions (national and state) have been put in hibernation and are brought out like the good silver… only when needed to make an impression or to be used in self defense for crimes committed against the people by those in government who are supposed to serve us.
Some questions for you:

  1. Are you aware that the United States is incorporated? No, this article isn’t about Strawmen or your name being in CAPITAL letters on all legal documents like your birth certificate, driver’s license, Social Security Card, Passport, etc. There is the United States of America and there is the United States of America, Inc. There is a good reason for what happened and it does not involve the bankruptcy of this nation.
  2. Are you aware that the state in which you live is incorporated? All 50 states are incorporated. Read on and I’ll provide you with absolute evidence… not opinion, but evidence.
  3. Are you aware that your county is incorporated?
  4. Are you aware that your city (or township) is incorporated? (Most of us are aware of city incorporations.)
  5. Are you aware that most departments within your city and county are incorporated? Yes, I mean the Sheriff’s Department, the Police Department, the City and County and State Courts (even your State Supreme Court), the Public Library, the Public Works Department, the Department of Education and the County Clerk? Almost every department in your city and county is incorporated. I must admit, this disclosure surprised me more than the others. Even more interesting, most people who staff these departments – including county commissioners, sheriffs, librarians, police chiefs, and other department heads – appear, as I was, unaware of the corporate status of their “departments.”

Here’s a link to my County Sheriff’s office. Notice that it is registered as a “privately held company.” The name listed, Stan Hilkey, was the Sheriff of Mesa County at the time I downloaded the information a couple of months ago. Look your own county Sheriff up on Manta.com and see if your law enforcement is incorporated. My county courts are also incorporated. Are yours? To prove it’s not just a Colorado thing, here’s a link to Alabama’s courts as listed at Manta.com. Look yours up… my bet is that they are also incorporated.

6. Are you aware that corporations are run under the jurisdiction of Statutory Law, not Constitutional or Common Law? Are you aware that Articles of Incorporation based on the policies and regulations in place in all 50 States are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code and/or Maritime Law which are the basis of Statutory Law?

In other words, when wearing their corporate hats (which is whenever it is to their advantage to do so), our federal, state, county, and city governments and the departments contained within them must comply with the policies of the Uniform Commercial Code, not with the Constitution of the United States or your State Constitution. The courts, too, are incorporated. No wonder we see so little Constitutional or Common Law in our courts! No wonder administrative law judges can make the law up as a trial proceeds (or so it appears to those thinking the jurisdiction under which courts function is Constitutional or Common Law)!

This information should answer the questions of many Americans who wander around shaking their heads trying to figure out why our courts are making the insane, unconstitutional decisions that spew out of them like the Devil’s bad breath. The Courts are incorporated and comply with the requirements of Statutory Law based on the policies and procedures dictated by the Uniform Commercial Code or Maritime Law, not the United States Constitution or your State’s Constitution.

People look at their small town police departments being equipped as if they are General Patton in the 1940’s powering his way through Germany and wonder why Humvees and SWAT teams are needed to protect them. Who – or what – are they really protecting?

And it goes beyond our police departments and sheriffs’ offices to our courts and schools and property taxes… and everything else.

You need to know whether what I’m saying is true or false. Go to Manta.com and look up your own state, county and city. Especially look at the departments within your city and county… your fire, sheriff and police departments, your county clerk, the State and County Courts, etc.

Why is this information critical if we are to understand why America is in many cases functioning in a way designed to destroy Her? Why is it “dangerous” information?

The answer is direct and simple: CORPORATIONS (INCLUDING GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS) DO NOT FUNCTION UNDER A CONSTITUTION. THEY FUNCTION UNDER ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO BUSINESS LAWS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE AND MARITIME LAW, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, CORPORATIONS CAN BE DISSOLVED! THAT IS THE BIGGEST DANGER OF THE PEOPLE BECOMING AWARE OF THIS INFORMATION. THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE THEY HAVE BUILT TO REMOVE OUR ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW IN OUR COURTS CAN, LIKE ANY CORPORATION, BE DISSOLVED. IT IS, PERHAPS, THEIR ACHILLES HEEL – their greatest weakness! We, the People, CAN DISSOLVE THEM!

The corporations cannot be dissolved by the government employees who work for them; they must be dissolved by the people. How? County by county. These corporations were imposed from the top down and the only way to disassemble them is from the bottom up. Carry a petition. Get the required number of signatures and get it on your county ballot next election. The initiative should say something like  “No government entity in _____ County shall incorporate or be incorporated. All government agencies, divisions and departments must function under the legal jurisdiction of the Constitution of the State of _____ and be subject to the limits imposed on government by the Constitution of the United States and the State of _______.” I’m not a lawyer and I’m sure you can get a stronger statement from an attorney experienced at writing ballot initiatives.

As I will point out in Part II of this article, liberty is not free and if you want your constitutional rights restored, it will require some long-term planning and changes in the way county costs are defined and financed… but it can be done! If you would rather our cost of liberty and constitutional rights be paid via budgeting and taxation instead of young men and women being unnecessarily killed and maimed in unlawful, unconstitutional wars, you will help dissolve the government corporations that help make such tragedies possible.

I must admit, I am surprised this material has been around as long as it has and none of the many lawyers who have been exposed to it had a light go off in their heads saying “Corporations do not function under Constitutional Law which is why Americans are being abused by their courts — and corporations can be dissolved, SO LET’S DISSOLVE THEM!.”

You can logically assume that if your city/township, county, state, and federal governments are incorporated, they do not function under the aegis (protection) of a Constitution of any kind. They function under the rules and regulations of the Uniform Commercial Code. The law and how we lost the jurisdictional protection of Common and Constitutional law is the topic of Part II of this article.

Do you now understand why your courts and law enforcement officials do not act in accordance with the limits placed on government by the United States Constitution – or, even more important, your State’s Constitution?

In the past month, I’ve been to two meetings about jurisdictional law given by experts on Constitutional law. Both were very good… both speakers were quick to point out the rights God grants each of us and the limits on government guaranteed under the Constitution. Neither realized that the constitutional rights of the people are being badly abused because of the corporate status of federal, state, county, city governments and most of the departments that function under those entities and thus do not answer to Federal and State Constitutions. Neither speaker realized that corporations are under the jurisdiction of Statutory or business law – the Uniform Commercial Code/Maritime Law. It raises a difficult question for constitutional experts: If the various governments, including our courts, function under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code rather than the Constitution, how important is a Constitution that has been hi-jacked?

Before moving on to Part II of this article which will explain the kinds of jurisdictional law being practiced in American courts, I want to provide you what I promised. Evidence.

It’s time to stop speculating about issues, wondering (what a waste of time) if this crisis or that one is a false flag. “They” rely on chaos to keep you off balance because only by keeping you off balance can they take their next unlawful step designed to eliminate the asset singly responsible for preventing socialism or communism in America’s capitalist economy: The middle class. They throw one issue after another at you… from amnesty to police brutality; from shopping center shootings to elementary school shootings to shootings of police officers sitting innocently in their car. They take you from one false flag to another. They throw one war after another at you… or threaten a new war. As the manipulation of gold was used to cause the Great Depression of the early 1900’s, they use the new gold – oil – to manipulate this even Greater Depression.

They can call it a recession all they want, but the only reason people are not standing in food lines as they did in the 1930s is food stamps. They called the job creation programs of the Great Depression the Work(s) Progress Administration (WPA). In the 30s, cities all over the country got new parks and recreation facilities, bridges were built as were schools and highways… the work of the WPA. It provided jobs for the unemployed. For this current Greater Depression it is called “shovel ready jobs.”

When they hire a new government employee, it depletes the tax base rather than adding to it, so new government hires cannot be categorized as “new jobs” produced by the economy. But the Obama Administration needs to look like it is doing SOMETHING right, so they “create” new jobs by funding them via private sector contractor work projects. Then they can be counted as new jobs… just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did with WPA jobs – but government, not a thriving free marketplace, is paying for these “new jobs.” Regardless of stock market ups and downs, the marketplace is not thriving. It is being manipulated.

I believe the core problem centers on the incorporation of every federal, state, and county and all of the departments within each and the resulting system that had to be built to support itself. Logic tells me that if we get rid of the corporations, we remove their ability to manipulate our courts and all government offices with no personal accountability. I believe if we take action while we still can, we can retrieve our nation from what the international central banking system has thrown in the trash bin of history without first ensuring the corpse is dead.

If I’m correct, this is not only the most important article I’ve ever written for any news publication, it is also one of the most important articles you will ever read. It’s also the most dangerous… for me, at least – and for Paul Walter, the publisher of NewsWithViews.com.

Why is it dangerous? Because it offers a solution to the conundrum (unsolvable puzzle) “they” have created. Over a long period of time (it began in the late 1800s), “they” created the conundrum to give them sufficient time to globally enslave all but the elitists. The same techniques if not the same programs are being used around the world. The objective? Global government composed of oligarchies (an elite class and a labor class – no middle class) worldwide.

Manta.com is a Web site that provides corporate information. It costs a few hundred dollars to be a member of Dunn & Bradstreet – and when I owned my own company, I was a member. I no longer am. So, I use Manta.com because it’s free. Manta provides the names of about 40 million for-profit private companies – including government.

Here is a Manta.com copy of a listing for the State of Colorado.

1-13-2015 11-30-18 AM

If you look at the bottom of the Manta form, you’ll see that Democrat Governor Hickenlooper is referenced as Colorado’s CEO rather than the State’s Governor. Why? Just as corporations do not run on Constitutional law, neither do corporations have Governors. They have Chief Executive Officers. Or, they have Managers… check out California’s Governor, Jerry Brown. Manta.com lists him as California’s “Manager” and California is “A privately held company in Sacramento, CA.”

Here’s more evidence of the incorporation of America’s sovereign states and their cities and counties.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is, like Hickenlooper, listed as that state’s Chief Executive Officer. On the Walker link to Wisconsin’s Washington, D.C. Executive Office (why do Governors need offices in D.C.? – because their state is incorporated there and a corporation needs an office in the location of incorporation), scroll down and look at the Washington, D.C. Executive Office for the State of New York. Wisconsin and New York are on the same page. This particular link tells you that the State of New York is incorporated in the District of Columbia and that Derek Douglas is the Manager of the Washington, D.C. office, not the Governor. I researched Douglas, wondering why he is listed as the Washington, D.C.-based New York Governor’s Office Manager. I found a Press Release from the White House stating that Derek Douglas was an urban affairs special assistant to the President of the United States.

Maryland’s Executive Office D.C. listing shows its State of Incorporation as the District of Columbia. Does it surprise you to learn that Governors have Executive Offices located in the District of Columbia? New York is just one example. Go here to find the D.C. Executive Offices for Pennsylvania, Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Idaho, California, Delaware, and Oregon. This article provides too little space to list all 50, but they are there. Here’s the link for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I said our cities and counties have been incorporated. Here is the Manta.com listing for the City of Birmingham, Alabama. State of Incorporation is Alabama… the city IS incorporated. Most of us know that cities are incorporated. Most of us did not know that our counties are incorporated and that almost every department and division within our incorporated cities and counties are incorporated, too.

For many years, people have talked about government Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) and have tried to find where the CAFR funds are hidden. Where in the world could “they” be hiding them? The federal, state, county and city corporations would be a good guess. No one knows about them.

Did I mention that each of these entities has two identities? There is, for example, the State of Colorado – and there is the State of Colorado, Inc. There is a County of Denver – and there is a Denver County, Inc., etc. They cannot drop the Constitutional identity because if they do, they lose “We, the People…” who didn’t volunteer to be part of their corporation. Thus, it appears every government, no matter how large or how small, in the country has dual identities, one incorporated and one unincorporated.

Here are some Manta.com links you can use to start doing your own research. When you find your Sheriff’s Department is incorporated, when you find your local Courts are incorporated, you might just want to start carrying a petition to get signatures demanding a vote of the people to dissolve all government corporations within your county and demand that they function under your State Constitution rather than under Statutory Jurisdiction which offers citizens no Constitutional protections from government usurpation of the power of individual citizens. It will surprise only a few to learn in Part II of this article that it all began with the Federal Reserve System.

Or you can contact any of the 374 veterans organizations listed as companies by the Federal Government. Now we know how they could withhold medical benefits from our veterans. We know why no one who participated in withholding the medical services from dying men and women entitled to those services was terminated from government payrolls: They were wearing their corporate hats.

Here are links to some Manta.com veterans’ listings (you usually have to scroll to the bottom of the page to get what you want… not all listings about veterans involve government agencies like the Veterans Administration; Manta lists private companies that deal with veterans, too).

Dunn & Bradstreet is the official organization that registers and keeps track of American business credit ratings. They assign DUNS code numbers so corporate credit ratings can be found by lenders or other creditors when companies apply for credit. Below, you will find the DUNS code number for your state and its largest city.

Below are the Dunn & Bradstreet numbers assigned to some federal government offices. After the federal government listings, every state and its largest population center DUNS data is provided. The DUNS numbers are not the result of my own research — the Manta.com material is data I have been personally researching since last summer. The DUNS numbers have been listed on the Internet since February 2013, but I have been unable to find the person who did all of this work. I will say the Louisiana and Tennessee numbers appear incorrect (all have 9 numbers assigned except these two). As a non Dunn & Bradstreet member, I have no way to go to the D&B site and verify them but hope they will be helpful to you.

1-13-2015 11-32-19 AM

This list creates a lot of interesting questions. For example, why does the U.S. Internal Revenue Service need a DUNs number – unless it is incorporated? Looking at the above list of departments within the U.S. Government, does it give you any insight to how “they” get away with the VA scandal, Fast and Furious guns across the border, Benghazi, the IRS discrimination against conservative groups applying for tax exempt status? Relative to the law, corporations are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (or the Law of the Seas – sometimes called Maritime Law). They have no obligation to protect anyone’s Constitutional rights when functioning under their corporate hats – and they keep the Constitutional hat available in case they get caught and need to declare their Constitutional rights to certain protections – like Lois Lerner’s use of the Fifth Amendment when she testified before Congress. Perhaps that explains the smirk on her face during that proceeding?

Remember the controversy about Lerner’s appearance before the Senate Committee before which she testified? “She can’t make a statement pronouncing her innocence and then declare her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid answering questions about her possible guilt! That’s against the law!” That’s what every constitutional law expert said… and had she been functioning under the Constitution, they would have been correct.

When she made her statement, she was wearing her corporate hat. When she declared her rights under the Constitution, she was wearing her constitutional hat. It is the best possible example I can give you about why they need to maintain their rights under BOTH the Constitution and the Corporations for which they work. The Constitution gives them protections from personal liability they would not otherwise have.

Here is the Dunn & Bradstreet listing of numbers assigned to cities and states:

1-13-2015 11-34-09 AM

1-13-2015 11-35-02 AM

1-13-2015 11-36-00 AM

Part II of this article will explain how America’s laws morphed from Constitutional to Statutory law. It involves debt (and explains why Congress is so adamantly tied to ever increasing and ongoing debt). [The book: The Coming Battle, published in 1899, documents how the politicians of that period didn’t want the debt paid off. They wanted the debt to be rolled over from generation to generation. It continues to this day. It’s a must read.]

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who of American Women, Who’s Who in Finance and Business, and Who’s Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

E-Mail: marilynwrites@bresnan.net

10 13 11 flagbar

 


Russia and China: The Dawning of a New Monetary System?

01/12/2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-and-china-the-dawning-of-a-new-monetary-system/5423637

By Peter Koenig

The statement by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on 22 December 2014:  “If the Russian side needs it, we will provide necessary assistance within our capacity” – is a clear testimony that Russia and China have entered into an economic alliance which will be stronger than the incessant ruble and petrol devaluation manipulations by Washington, aided by the European puppets. 

China, leading member of the BRICS, is lining up the bloc of the BRICS and that of the SCO – and their currencies – to support Russia in need. Currency swaps between Russia (ruble) and China (yuan) for an initial US$ 25 billion equivalent have already been implemented, to allow direct transactions between the two countries. Similar swaps are under way between China and Russia with other countries, primarily the BRICS and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) members – including the soon to become new members – Iran, Pakistan, India (also a BRICS member) and Mongolia – and possibly in some not too distant future also strategically located NATO member Turkey.

In other words, a large junk of hydrocarbons will as of immediately no longer be traded in US (petro) dollars, but in rubles and yuans and their partners respective local currencies. This will reduce worldwide demand for the petro dollar.

The US is able to maintain pressure on other currencies, currently the ruble, only as long as the petro dollar remains the major world reserve currency. This is the main reason why Washington gets away with a seven-fold indebted dollar (i.e. total outstanding and uncovered commitments are currently more than 7 times higher than the US GDP (US$ 17.6 trillion, 2014 est. – vs. US$ 128 trillion of unmet obligations); making the US worldwide the most indebted country – by far.

Once the demand for the (petro) dollar fades – as hydrocarbons are no longer dealt in dollars – the value of the dollar will decline and at worst may result in hyperinflation in the dollar economies, including those closely linked to the US economy.

In the meantime, Russia has nothing to fear, since the ruble is really not traded anywhere, except sold by western central banks to go along with Washington’s criminal scheme of attempting to destroy the Russian economy by flooding an imaginary ‘market’ with the Russian currency – which they will not achieve.

The Russian central bank is basically not interfering. Why? – Because Russia eventually will need rubles for its new trading alliance – and will buy the rubles back from the flooded market at rock-bottom prices, for artificially boosted dollars and euros and other western linked currencies. In a future Russia-China based monetary system these currencies would at least initially be of secondary or tertiary importance.

Letting the ruble ‘collapse’ is a superb strategy by the Maestro Chess player, Vladimir Putin. Western investors in Russian shares, mainly but not exclusively of hydrocarbon corporations, dropped also. Western investors became afraid and released their shares on the market – Russia’s treasury bought them back at low market prices, increasing their value instantly and – and on top of it Russia reaped the dividends of the newly Russian owned shares. According to a Spiegel Online article, Russia made at least 20 billion dollars’ worth of profit with this little gambit alone, plus she repatriated about 30% of foreign-held Russian petroleum shares.

Russia has foreign exchange reserves of close to half a trillion dollars equivalent, more than two times the rubles in circulation. Russia’s economy shows a pristine balance sheet with only about 15% debt to GDP, whereas the EU’s debt-GDP ratio is close to 100%.

Here comes the link to the US-Saudi manipulated oil price. It just fell to below US$ 50 / barrel, less than half of what it was in June 2014 (US$ 105 – WTI Crude). This criminal act of attempting to destroy sovereign nations’ economies is foremost directed at Russia, but is also meant to ‘punishes’ other non-aligned oil producers, like Venezuela and Iran. ‘Aligned’ oil producers’ suffering might be written off by the empire as collateral damage.

But not only. That’s perhaps where Obama miscalculated by shooting his own foot. At these prices domestic unemployment will soar especially in petrol producing states, like Texas and North Dakota. Hardest hit will be Texas. Last week, JPMorgan Chief Economist Michael Feroli, predicted, “We think Texas will, at the least, have a rough 2015 ahead, and is at risk of slipping into a regional recession.”

According to Zero Hedge, the US hydrocarbon industry and its nationwide ramification produce almost US$ 1.2 trillion of GDP (7%) and generates more than 9.3 million well-paying permanent jobs throughout the nation. Most affected by the free fall of petrol prices will be the higher cost shale production – the new source that gave the impetus to the oil renaissance 5 years ago. Texas and North Dakota will be the main losers, in terms of job losses and recession. But repercussions will be felt countrywide, as almost all industries are linked to hydrocarbon energy.

Obama may feel that the hike in unemployment may be a small collateral price to pay for ruining other economies around the world. Besides, overall the US economy may profit from lower prices – letting the rich get richer and the poor – well, we know that.

However, there is another element that Obama’s and his cronies’ shortsightedness did not foresee. The petro-dollar is highly dependent on trading hydrocarbons in dollars – following the 40-year old agreement with the Saudis as head of OPEC in turn for US military security and protection. This alone, the constant demand for US dollars by all nations who needed to trade hydrocarbons, propelled the dollar into a ‘permanent’ reserve currency – allowing Washington to print dollars at will and to become a financial hegemon.

No longer. These times are gone. Washington’s evil attempt to destroy all those who ‘are not with us’, catalyzed the transition. More than a year ago, Russia started selling her hydrocarbons in rubles and local currencies of her trading partners, like China and other BRICS countries. Today Russia is selling her hydrocarbon in gold – yes, in physical gold. The west did not count with the quick analytical thinking of Mr. Putin’s. He will accept artificially inflated dollars and then immediately exchange them for gold, thereby increasing Russia’s gold reserves dramatically. Already today, the ruble is backed by gold – a reality the west with its casino currencies is quiet about.

By artificially boosting the value of the dollar against the Euro and lowering the price of gold, the FED and its Wall Street mobsters intend to make the dollar more attractive, say, as the euro which, after all its MSM propagated economic mediocrity, is backed by a much more solid and stable economy than is that of the United States; especially in view of its huge potential to be able to deal with the east – Russia and the Xi Jinping’s announced new economic Silk Road, all the way from Frankfurt to Shanghai. – But this would be Europe’s call; a sovereign call by a sovereign union and by new leaders with backbone and common sense.

This is still an open decision. Although, it looks like – or should logically appear – that Europe is waking up. Even the most stubborn stooges of Washington are gradually seeing the light. Hungary and Poland, historically not great friends of Russia, are wondering whether they might not be better off with the east, rather than licking Obama’s boots. German business is angry about Merkel’s obsessiveness with Washington imposed ‘sanctions’. They see Russia as the trading partner of the future, as it has been until Washington didn’t succeed in Ukraine – today an almost hopeless but still murderous basket case – and wanted to crush Vladimir Putin and his country. Even the spine and brainless Hollande is responding to France’s business – ‘sanctions’ – enough is enough.

Where does that leave Washington? – One move away from checkmate. Washington’s criminal attempt to destroy Russia’s economy has been largely irrelevant and self-destructive. In the meantime and as Russia’s gold reserves increase, Russia has established an alternative SWIFT system. It is currently being tested internally but could go global within a few months – so that any country wanting to avoid the corrupt dollar casino scheme could use the new system for international monetary exchanges.

That combined with ever more countries willing and daring to trade their hydrocarbons in their own currencies or currencies other than the dollar, will further lower demand on the petro-dollar. In addition, under their economic alliance, Russia and China may soon launch a new currency, a basket of currencies that could be joined by other nations ready and willing to abandon the fraudulent western fiat scheme. Immediate candidates would be the other BRICS and the countries of the SCO.

The system could function in the same way as did the Euro at the beginning – as a basket of currencies each valued according to some key indicators of its national economy. – Initially the new monetary system might be gold based – as opposed to the current fiat money with no backing whatsoever. In the long run, however, gold is not a stable or sustainable back-up for any currency. The intrinsic value of gold is only its industrial worth, currently less than 20% of its use. The combined economic output of the nations behind the joint currency – to a lesser degree the numerical growth oriented GDP, but rather social indicators such as public health, standard of education and environmental concerns, capacity of conflict resolution, of living in peace and harmony – might be more indicative of the strength of a sovereign’s currency than just gold or a straight GDP.

Such a new monetary system may soon cover 25% to one third of the world economy, thereby becoming fully autonomous. The petro-dollar would further lose its stature as world reserve. Ten years ago 90% of world reserves consisted of dollar-nominated securities. Today that ratio has shrunk to a mere 60%, as currencies like the Yuan is rapidly gaining ground as reserve money, especially in Asia. Even Australia has recently declared it will increase its Yuan holding.

The drop of the dollar as the world’s major reserve currency is Washington’s biggest nightmare, and has been for the last 15-20 years, when first Iran and then Iraq (Iraq’s oil for food program) and Venezuela threatened to sell their hydrocarbon in Euros. At that time this economically strategic move was not so much meant as an affront to the US, but rather a measure of security for their own economies, as worldwide trust in the US dollar was waning then and now.

This is considered one of the major reasons for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – securing the petro dollar as trading currency – and the ensuing war, to take over all of Iraq’s hydrocarbon wells – and privatize them. It was also the key reason for Washington’s false flag accusation of Iran’s plans for manufacturing nuclear weapons. In the meantime this has been proven umpteen times as a lie, including by the 16 major US intelligent agencies.

Washington’s relentless aggression on Russia is of course part of the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century), to achieve full world hegemony, but at the same time Washington is desperate not to lose its dollar supremacy. The US is in a terminal quagmire. There is no way out. Washington is acting like a wild beast in its last throbs of live. The empire may be capable of destroying the world – including itself – just so that nobody may survive outside of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe.

The emergence of a new ‘eastern’, dollar detached monetary scheme is therefore becoming increasingly urgent. One might ask, why hasn’t it happened before?

The reasons’ might be manifold. The key players’ – Russia and China – banking and exchange infrastructure might not have been ready. But more likely, to reduce to the extent possible the collateral economic damage a new monetary system may entail to the rest of the world. After all, fair trading among sovereign nations is a noble objective for global peace.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik News, the Voice of Russia / Ria Novosti, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.

 10 13 11 flagbar


PRAY FOR AMERICA

01/10/2015

ROLLS REPORT 2015 

The Road To War With Russia -We’re Not Only On It; We’ve Already Arrived

 Chris Martenson

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2015/01/the-road-to-war-with-russia-were-not-only-on-it-weve-already-arrived-2455268.html

Will 2015 Be A Year Of Economic Disaster? 11 Perspectives

Michael Synder

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/will-2015-be-a-year-of-economic-disaster-11-perspectives-2689320.html

Sayonara Global Economy

Jim Quinn

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/sayonara-global-economy-2-2688710.html

The Four Things You Can Count On Following the Collapse of the Dollar

Dave Hodges

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/the-four-things-you-can-count-on-following-the-collapse-of-the-dollar-2688022.html

There Is No Recovery From America’s Economic Extinction Level Event

Dave Hodges

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/there-is-no-recovery-from-americas-economic-extinction-level-event-2688208.html

$100 Trillion Reason Why Central Banks Are Terrified of Debt Deflation

Phoenix Capital Research

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/100-trillion-reason-why-central-banks-are-terrified-of-debt-deflation-2690010.html

Oil Derivatives Explosion Double 2008 Sub-Prime Crisis

David Morgan & Greg Hunter Video

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/oil-derivatives-explosion-double-2008-sub-prime-crisis-david-morgan-greg-hunter-2689330.html

Oil Derivatives Explode in Early 2015

Rob Kirby & Greg Hunter Video

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/oil-derivatives-explode-in-early-2015-rob-kirby-greg-hunter-video-2688582.html

How Plunging Oil Prices Could Lead to World War III

Dave Hodges

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2015/01/how-plunging-oil-prices-could-lead-to-world-war-iii-2455252.html

Gold Will Be Seized! Ten Reasons Why The Fed Will Take Your Gold 1/8/2014 (Video)

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/01/gold-will-be-seized-ten-reasons-why-the-fed-will-take-your-gold-182014-video-3089382.html

Euro In Free-Fall: Deflation Now–Chaos & Collapse Ahead

Martin Armstrong

http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2015/01/euro-in-free-fall-deflation-now-chaos-collapse-ahead-2575966.html

Euro Crisis Entering New, Highly Dangerous Phase. The Euro Has Blown Past The 2012 Low Today

And Is Now Trading At The Weakest Level Since The 2010 Eurozone Debt Crisis. $1.2015.

Investment Watch Blog

http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2015/01/euro-crisis-entering-a-new-highly-dangerous-phase-the-euro-has-blown-past-the-2012-low-today-and-is-now-trading-at-the-weakest-level-since-the-2010-eurozone-debt-crisis-1-2015-2575766.html

On The Verge Of The Next Economic Crisis, 62 Percent Of Americans Are Living Paycheck To Paycheck

Michael Synder

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/on-the-verge-of-the-next-economic-crisis-62-percent-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-2689604.html

Currency Markets Are Flashing Red Alert

Graham Summers

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/the-currency-markets-are-flashing-red-alert-2-2689184.html

“If Oil Drops To $40 The Geopolitical Consequences Could Be Terrifying”

Jeff Gundlach

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/if-oil-drops-to-40-the-geopolitical-consequences-could-be-terrifying-jeff-gundlach-2688808.html

Who Is Behind The Oil War, & How Low Will The Price Of Crude Go In 2015?

Michael Synder

http://beforeitsnews.com/economics-and-politics/2015/01/who-is-behind-the-oil-war-how-low-will-the-price-of-crude-go-in-2015-2472200.html

Will We Never Learn? BO Explains How FHA’s 3%-Down Mortgages Are Great For America – Live Feed Video

ZeroHedg

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2015/01/will-we-never-learn-bo-explains-how-fhas-3-down-mortgages-are-great-for-america-live-feed-video-2469518.html

Hidden World of Derivatives Sparked 2007 Crisis.

Now, the 280-TRILLION Dollar Derivative Market is Set to Inflict in 2015 + Video

Investment Watch Blog

http://beforeitsnews.com/business/2014/12/hidden-world-of-derivatives-sparked-2007-crisis-now-the-280-trillion-dollar-derivative-market-is-set-to-inflict-in-2015-video-2677160.html

US Debt Soars By $100 Billion On Last Day Of 2014, Hits Record $18.14 Trillion

ZeroHedge

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2015/01/us-debt-soars-by-100-billion-on-last-day-of-2014-hits-record-18-14-trillion-2688368.html

Peter Schiff: State of the Gold Market 2015 (Exclusive Forecast & Charts) – Video

Gold Seek

http://beforeitsnews.com/gold-and-precious-metals/2015/01/peter-schiff-state-of-the-gold-market-2015-exclusive-forecast-charts-video-2626278.html

BO Economic Record is Even Worse than You Realize

Chad Stafko

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2015/01/bo-economic-record-is-even-worse-than-you-realize-2469430.html

BO Promises To Veto Legislation That Would Restore The 40 Hour Workweek

Peter Brown

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2015/01/bo-promises-to-veto-legislation-that-would-restore-the-40-hour-workweek-2469516.html

The Stunning One Trillion Dollar Obama Loan Bubble

DW Ulsterman

http://beforeitsnews.com/economics-and-politics/2015/01/the-stunning-one-trillion-dollar-obama-loan-bubble-2472106.html

EU Showdown: Greece Takes on the Vampire Squid

Ellen Brown

http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2015/01/eu-showdown-greece-takes-on-the-vampire-squid-2575926.html

Islam Kills Again

Alan Caruba

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2015/01/islam-kills-again-2455254.html

Allahu Akbar -We Reap What We Sow

Howard Galganov

http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/2015/01/allahu-akbar-we-reap-what-we-sow-2451850.html

Paris Proves PC on Islam A Real Danger

Cheryl Chumley

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/01/paris-proves-pc-on-islam-a-real-danger-2955992.html

“It’s A Butchery” -12 Killed In Terrorist Attack On French Satirical Magazine Charlie Hebdo: Live Webcast

ZeroHedge

http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/2015/01/its-a-butchery-12-killed-in-terrorist-attack-on-french-satirical-magazine-charlie-hebdo-live-webcast-2451862.html

Mosques on the Front Lines in the War Against America

Carol Brown

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2015/01/mosques-on-the-front-lines-in-the-war-against-america-2455264.html

A Revolutionary Speech Ignored by the MSM

Raymond Ibrahim

http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/2015/01/a-revolutionary-speech-ignored-by-the-msm-2464840.html

BO’s Identity Fraud & Mickey Mouse Media

-Exclusive: Diana West Blasts Press’ ‘Psychosis of Denial’ in Coverage of President

Diana West 

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2015/01/bos-identity-fraud-mickey-mouse-media-exclusive-diana-west-blasts-press-psychosis-of-denial-in-coverage-of-president-2469476.html

Challenging Obama’s Alleged Powers

Alan Caruba

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2015/01/challenging-obamas-alleged-powers-2469456.html

Army Times: Army Prepping for Battles in Megacities

http://beforeitsnews.com/military/2015/01/army-times-army-prepping-for-battles-in-megacities-2468100.html

Professional Perfidy

Dwight Kehoe

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/01/professional-perfidy-2954972.html

“Don’t Miss Him This Time!”

Bobby Blanton

http://beforeitsnews.com/spirit/2015/01/dont-miss-him-this-time-2491288.html

Avoiding the Lake of Fire

 Ron and Nathele Graham

http://beforeitsnews.com/spirit/2015/01/avoiding-the-lake-of-fire-2491274.html

 Major Prophetic Signs Of The Second Coming

Jack Kelley

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2015/01/7-major-prophetic-signs-of-the-second-coming-2466468.html

Fair Use Notice: This report may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

MORE ROLLS REPORT POSTS 7/24 HERE:

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/pages/19/358/stories.html

BeforeItNews:

http://beforeitsnews.com/

1-10-2015 8-15-04 AM

From the very beginning it has been my objective to show as many people as possible the overwhelming amount of things that is causing the destruction of everything America and her citizens was supposed to be. If you have scanned and hopefully read some articles contained in this report, you should have no more doubts about our future being wonderful, and stand up and fight back. Get involved and send this to everyone you know.

10 13 11 flagbar


Psychiatrists Now Say Non-Conformity is a Mental Illness: Only the Sheeple are “Sane”

01/09/2015

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/are-you-odd/

 By Jonathan Benson

Natural News

(NaturalNews) Modern psychiatry has become a hotbed of corruption, particularly the kind that seeks to demonize and declare mentally ill anyone who deviates from what is regarded as the norm. This is abundantly evident in the latest installment of the industry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which dubs people who do not conform to what those in charge declare to be normal as mentally insane.

The so-called “condition” for why a person might choose to resist conformity has been labeled by the psychiatric profession as “oppositional defiant disorder,” or ODD. The new DSM defines this made-up disease as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” and also lumps it in alongside attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, another made-up condition whose creator, Dr. Leon Eisenberg, admitted it to be phony on his death bed.

As you might suspect from this type of open-ended description, almost any personal behavior perceived by someone else to be undesirable or strange might be categorized as symptomatic of ODD. Children who throw temper tantrums or fight with their siblings, for instance, might be declared to have this supposed mental illness, as might children who express disagreement with their parents or teachers.

Disobedience and defiance are common behaviors among young children, and parents have long dealt with such behaviors by exercising proper discipline. At the same time, not all forms of disobedience and defiance are wrong, depending on the authority involved and the action petitioned. A child who is told by his teacher to keep his unpopular opinions to himself, for instance, and who resists this order might simply be exercising his freedom to express disagreement.

But that’s the problem with categorizing conditions like ODD so loosely, as virtually any uncommon behavior can be declared to be oppositional or defiant simply because it bucks the status quo. Famous minds of the past like Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell, for instance, whose unconventional ideas might have seemed crazy in their day, are the types of folks who today might be declared to have ODD or some other type of mental disease.

An even greater danger to using this subjective approach in the diagnosis of mental illness is that it threatens to curtail freedom of speech and political dissent. The federal government has already tried to declare those who oppose its tyrannical policies, or who simply question them, as having “political paranoia,” a type of mental illness.

Characterizing non-conformity as ‘mental illness’ a hallmark of totalitarian government

Such outlandish abuse of the medical system for controlling popular thought is nothing new. Many authoritarian governments, including the former USSR, implemented similar mental health programs that categorized dissenters as having chemical imbalances in need of a remedy. Today, that remedy is often mind-altering, psychotropic drugs with devastating side effects.

“Psychiatric incarceration of mentally healthy people is uniformly understood to be a particularly pernicious form of repression, because it uses the powerful modalities of medicine as tools of punishment, and it compounds a deep affront to human rights with deception and fraud,” explains a 2002 analysis and commentary on the abuse of psychiatry in both the Soviet Union and China that was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

“Doctors who allow themselves to be used in this way… betray the trust of society and breach their most basic ethical obligations as professionals.”

You can view this study, which has powerful implications for what the psychiatric profession is becoming today, here: http://jaapl.org.

Sources for this article include:

http://breakingdeception.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://rense.com

http://jaapl.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

Reprinted from Natural News.

 10 13 11 flagbar


Welcome to the Matrix: Enslaved by Technology and the Internet of Things

01/08/2015

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/welcome_to_the_matrix_enslaved_by_technology_and_the_internet_of_things

By John W. Whitehead

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me.’” ― Philip K. Dick

If ever Americans sell their birthright, it will be for the promise of expediency and comfort delivered by way of blazingly fast Internet, cell phone signals that never drop a call, thermostats that keep us at the perfect temperature without our having to raise a finger, and entertainment that can be simultaneously streamed to our TVs, tablets and cell phones.

Likewise, if ever we find ourselves in bondage, we will have only ourselves to blame for having forged the chains through our own lassitude, laziness and abject reliance on internet-connected gadgets and gizmos that render us wholly irrelevant.

Indeed, while most of us are consumed with our selfies and trying to keep up with what our so-called friends are posting on Facebook, the mega-corporation Google has been busily partnering with the National Security Agency (NSA), the Pentagon, and other governmental agencies to develop a new “human” species, so to speak.

In other words, Google—a neural network that approximates a global brain—is fusing with the human mind in a phenomenon that is called “singularity,” and they’ve hired trans-humanist scientist Ray Kurzweil to do just that. Google will know the answer to your question before you have asked it, Kurzweil said. “It will have read every email you will ever have written, every document, every idle thought you’ve ever tapped into a search-engine box. It will know you better than your intimate partner does. Better, perhaps, than even yourself.”

But here’s the catch: the NSA and all other government agencies will also know you better than yourself. As William Binney, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever emerge from the NSA said, “The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.”

Science fiction, thus, has become fact.

We’re fast approaching Philip K. Dick’s vision of the future as depicted in the film Minority Report. There, police agencies apprehend criminals before they can commit a crime, driverless cars populate the highways, and a person’s biometrics are constantly scanned and used to track their movements, target them for advertising, and keep them under perpetual surveillance.

Cue the dawning of the Age of the Internet of Things, in which internet-connected “things” will monitor your home, your health and your habits in order to keep your pantry stocked, your utilities regulated and your life under control and relatively worry-free.

The key word here, however, is control.

In the not-too-distant future, “just about every device you have — and even products like chairs, that you don’t normally expect to see technology in — will be connected and talking to each other.”

By 2018, it is estimated there will be 112 million wearable devices such as smart-watches, keeping users connected it real time to their phones, emails, text messages and the Internet. By 2020, there will be 152 million cars connected to the Internet and 100 million Internet-connected bulbs and lamps. By 2022, there will be 1.1 billion smart meters installed in homes, reporting real-time usage to utility companies and other interested parties.

This “connected” industry—estimated to add more than $14 trillion to the economy by 2020—is about to be the next big thing in terms of societal transformations, right up there with the Industrial Revolution, a watershed moment in technology and culture.

Between driverless cars that are completely lacking a steering wheel, accelerator, or brake pedal, and smart pills embedded with computer chips, sensors, cameras and robots, we are poised to outpace the imaginations of science fiction writers such as Philip K. Dick and Isaac Asimov. By the way, there is no such thing as a driverless car. Someone or something will be driving, but it won’t be you.

The 2015 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas is a glittering showcase for such Internet-connected techno gadgets as smart light bulbs that discourage burglars by making your house look occupied, smart thermostats that regulate the temperature of your home based on your activities, and smart doorbells that let you see who is at your front door without leaving the comfort of your couch.

Nest, Google’s $3 billion acquisition, has been at the forefront of the “connected” industry, with such technologically savvy conveniences as a smart lock that tells your thermostat who is home, what temperatures they like, and when your home is unoccupied; a home phone service system that interacts with your connected devices to “learn when you come and go” and alert you if your kids don’t come home; and a sleep system that will monitor when you fall asleep, when you wake up, and keep the house noises and temperature in a sleep-conducive state.

The aim of these internet-connected devices, as Nest proclaims, is to make “your house a more thoughtful and conscious home.” For example, your car can signal ahead that you’re on your way home, while Hue lights can flash on and off to get your attention if Nest Protect senses something’s wrong. Your coffeemaker, relying on data from fitness and sleep sensors, will brew a stronger pot of coffee for you if you’ve had a restless night.

It’s not just our homes that are being reordered and re-imagined in this connected age: it’s our workplaces, our health systems, our government and our very bodies that are being plugged into a matrix over which we have no real control.

Moreover, given the speed and trajectory at which these technologies are developing, it won’t be long before these devices are operating entirely independent of their human creators, which poses a whole new set of worries. As technology expert Nicholas Carr notes, “As soon as you allow robots, or software programs, to act freely in the world, they’re going to run up against ethically fraught situations and face hard choices that can’t be resolved through statistical models. That will be true of self-driving cars, self-flying drones, and battlefield robots, just as it’s already true, on a lesser scale, with automated vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers.”

For instance, just as the robotic vacuum, Roomba, “makes no distinction between a dust bunny and an insect,” weaponized drones—poised to take to the skies en masse this year—will be incapable of distinguishing between a fleeing criminal and someone merely jogging down a street. For that matter, how do you defend yourself against a robotic cop—such as the Atlas android being developed by the Pentagon—that has been programmed to respond to any perceived threat with violence?

Unfortunately, in our race to the future, we have failed to consider what such dependence on technology might mean for our humanity, not to mention our freedoms.

Ingestible or implantable chips are a good example of how unprepared we are, morally and otherwise, to navigate this uncharted terrain. Hailed as revolutionary for their ability to access, analyze and manipulate your body from the inside, these smart pills can remind you to take your medication, search for cancer, and even send an alert to your doctor warning of an impending heart attack.

Sure, the technology could save lives, but is that all we need to know? Have we done our due diligence in asking all the questions that need to be asked before unleashing such awesome technology on an unsuspecting populace?

For example, asks Washington Post reporter Ariana Eunjung Cha:

What kind of warnings should users receive about the risks of implanting chip technology inside a body, for instance? How will patients be assured that the technology won’t be used to compel them to take medications they don’t really want to take? Could law enforcement obtain data that would reveal which individuals abuse drugs or sell them on the black market? Could what started as a voluntary experiment be turned into a compulsory government identification program that could erode civil liberties?

Let me put it another way. If you were shocked by Edward Snowden’s revelations about how NSA agents have used surveillance to spy on Americans’ phone calls, emails and text messages, can you imagine what unscrupulous government agents could do with access to your internet-connected car, home and medications? Imagine what a SWAT team could do with the ability to access, monitor and control your internet-connected home—locking you in, turning off the lights, activating alarms, etc.

Thus far, the public response to concerns about government surveillance has amounted to a collective shrug. After all, who cares if the government can track your whereabouts on your GPS-enabled device so long as it helps you find the fastest route from Point A to Point B? Who cares if the NSA is listening in on your phone calls and downloading your emails so long as you can get your phone calls and emails on the go and get lightning fast Internet on the fly? Who cares if the government can monitor your activities in your home by tapping into your internet-connected devices—thermostat, water, lights—so long as you can control those things with the flick of a finger, whether you’re across the house or across the country?

As for those still reeling from a year of police shootings of unarmed citizens, SWAT team raids, and community uprisings, the menace of government surveillance can’t begin to compare to bullet-riddled bodies, devastated survivors and traumatized children. However, both approaches are just as lethal to our freedoms if left unchecked.

Control is the key here. As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, total control over every aspect of our lives, right down to our inner thoughts, is the objective of any totalitarian regime.

George Orwell understood this. His masterpiece, 1984, portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. And people are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or “Party,” is headed by Big Brother, who appears on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you.”

Make no mistake: the Internet of Things is just Big Brother in a more appealing disguise.

Even so, I’m not suggesting we all become Luddites. However, we need to be aware of how quickly a helpful device that makes our lives easier can become a harmful weapon that enslaves us.

This was the underlying lesson of The Matrix, the Wachowski brothers’ futuristic thriller about human beings enslaved by autonomous technological beings that call the shots. As Morpheus, one of the characters in The Matrix, explains:

The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

“What truth?” asks Neo.

Morpheus leans in closer to Neo: “That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.”

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

If this article does not give you the willy jillies, something bad is wrong with you. Consider how much has to be done to create enough jobs to manufacture all this technology, while at the same time they fully intend to eliminate billions of people. So, if their intentions are to create trillions of dollars in new sales, who the hell is going to have the money to buy the new products? Something has to change or living is going to be un-bearable. I had hopped I would not live long enough to be a part of this, but they are moving much faster than I thought possible. America! You better wake the hell up!

10 13 11 flagbar