Obama Was Hand-Picked, Was NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Congress Knew It, and Tried to Protect Him

03/31/2015

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/03/29/obama-was-hand-picked-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen-congress-knew-it-and-tried-to-protect-him/

3-31-2015 11-46-29 AM

by Dean Garrison

The further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is corrupt on both sides of the aisle. If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you’d rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straight jacket.

Do they still do that?

Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.

Welcome to my world.

In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the “natural born citizen” constitutional requirement to become President.

Why is that important?

Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.

Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who currently sits in the People’s House.

I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, “If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?”

There are multiple links to official congressional documents throughout, contained in the research below, so I would urge you to draw your own conclusions.

But from my point of view this research either strongly, or at least partly, validates the following conclusions:

  1. Barack Obama was hand-pickedto be President.
  2. Some members of Congress, on both sides, understoodthat Obama was not “natural born” and tried to pass laws to pave the way for his arrival.
  3. In the end they used a deflection tactic to shine light on John McCain’s eligibility status, hoping that Obama’s own status would not be brought into question.

It appears to have worked.

Below is a lengthy excerpt from “Article II Facts” hosted on the site of the Article II Political Action Committee. If you like what you read, I would encourage you to consider a donation to their cause.

Let’s take a trip back through recent history:

Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment underH.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 underH.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

  1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introducedH.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
  2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
  3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act– Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
  4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”  – No co-sponsors.
  5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
  6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 inH.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
  7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
  8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued inCongressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.

Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.

The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.

The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]

There you have it. Make of this what you will.

It brings about many questions for me.

Would people like Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton really come to John McCain’s aid if they did not have an ulterior motive?

Why were people like InhofeIssa, and Rohrabacher either sponsoring or co-sponsoring these pieces of legislation? After all, these men have been three of Obama’s biggest critics. We have heard lots of threats and promises from them but have seen no results. Could it be that these men are just more shining examples of “all bark and no bite”? (See Definition of “Smoke and Mirrors“)

If it is true that the definition of “natural born citizen” only involves having one citizen parent then why all the fuss?

Obama, questionable Hawaii birth certificate and all, met the requirement of one American citizen parent. Maybe the truth is that it takes more than that and Congress knows it.

So why was nothing ever done?

Keep searching and settle for nothing less than the truth.

Don’t forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

HE CAME FROM HELL AND WILL RETURN THERE WITH THE DULL AND IGNORANT!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


A World In Change Shanghai Cooperation Organization

03/30/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/03/a-world-in-change-shanghai-cooperation.html

3-30-2015 10-46-52 AM

Rory Hall
Activist Post

We present a comprehensive review of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, including the members, the economics, the resources involved and the people. We show how this global organization is going to impact every person, business and country worldwide.

The US Dollar hegemony is dying. The Eastern countries are preparing for what is coming next. We hope you will heed the warning and begin doing your on research and plan accordingly. Everything is going to change and tomorrow will not look, nor operate, as it does today.

Alasdair Macleod from GoldMoney.com and FinanceandEconomics.org begins by introducing who is currently involved and how they relate to one another economically. Craig Hemke fromTFMetalsReport.com introduces us to the economics, currency swaps and the possibility of a gold-backed currency. Dave Kranzler from InvestmentResearchDynamics.com introduces us to some of the history and comprehensive look at the members list and explains how China may be “playing along” with the IMF regarding the SDR (Special Drawing Rights) fiat currency.

If you need to have a task completed you usually need people involved. The SCO will encompass approximately 3 billion people. That is not a typo, 3 billion people. This represents approximately half the global population. Twenty years ago most of these people were considered “poor” and from a “third world country.” Today, their wealth is growing and the countries in which they reside are becoming economic powerhouses. When the United States decided in the 1990s that we no longer wanted to be bothered with manufacturing, we shipped all those good-paying, prosperous jobs to these “third world countries” because they had lots of people willing to work for a lot less money.

This is to say nothing of the overbearing regulations that spew from Washington DC and strangle American business. Want to open a new business? Well, you had better be prepared to meet with the EPA, OSHA and Codes Administration before you begin pursuing your desire to provide for yourself, your family and your community. All of these “third world countries” are not strapped with regulations on top of regulations.

China and Russia have both opened their form of the SWIFT system. The SWIFT system is a currency clearing system that allows countries to conduct business with one another. Prior to January 2015 all currencies, the world over, were forced to use the US SWIFT. The US abused this privilege in 2012 when Iran was shut out and could not conduct business on a global scale. Their currency immediately experienced a 40% devaluation and Iran went into hyperinflation. Russia stepped in and began trading gold for oil. China quickly followed suit. Iran and Russia have been global enemies ever since.

What currency will we use to conduct business? Will it be a gold-backed currency? Will the US Dollar be around forever? Will China, Russia and the other US creditor nations continue funding the US credit card? While some of these questions seem obvious, they are not as easily answered as you may think. The US Dollar is dying. The Renminbi is rising in prominence and being used in trade all over the world. There are Renminbi/Yuan currency hubs in Vancouver, Los Angeles and The City of London, just to name some of the larger cities where one can easily conduct business, including everyday transactions, in Chinese Renminbi/Yuan. Times are changing and changing very rapidly.

According to Voxeu.org the Renminbi (RMB) is rising quickly on the global stage:

According to the Triennial Central Bank Survey (2013) in 2007, just prior to the eruption of the US subprime crisis and two years before the emergence of the Greek sovereign debt crisis, forex deals with the US dollar on one side of the transaction represented 85.6% of total average daily foreign exchange market turnover, making it the most widely traded currency in the world.1 The comparable figure for the euro was 37%, putting it in a distant second place after the dollar. By contrast, the same metric indicates that with a meager share of 0.5%, the renminbi (RMB) was ranked in the 20th slot. In April 2013, the share of the USD had gone up to 87% that of the euro, down to 33.4%, and that of the RMB up to 2,2% of total average daily forex turnover.

Although the euro lost (and the dollar gained) some ground during the six years between 2007 and 2013, the USD and the euro maintained their first and second ranks, respectively. However, the RMB climbed from the 20th to the 9th slot. Although its share is still very modest, the rate of growth of transactions involving it is very large. If as some economists believe this trend persists, the RMB may match the Japanese yen and the British pound and achieve the status of a key currency within the next decade.

What about war? History has shown time and again when there is a major monetary change there is war. The current regime does not want to relinquish power and wealth. We are hopeful this will change with the current situation. Russia, believe it or not, is actually the wild card. The East is only concerned with doing business. The Chinese are traveling the world over to insure the Yuan/Renminbi is on a steady pace to replace the US Dollar regardless of what happens.

We hope you give this a listen, allow it digest and then listen again. Above all, we hope you are aware that tomorrow will not look like yesterday. Everything is changing. Are you ready for your world to function differently?

If you do not do anything else today

WATCH THIS VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ48v1TY0I8

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Congress Pushes Obuma backed National Biometric ID for Americans

03/29/2015

http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=31614

3-29-2015 11-50-50 AM

Reprinted with permission from The New American

After largely failing to prod state governments into developing a national identification system known as “REAL ID,” Republican lawmakers in Congress are once again pushing an Obama-backed scheme that would force every American to have a national ID card containing sensitive biometric data. The controversial plan, embedded in an immigration-enforcement bill, has been in the works for years, but has consistently been met with stiff opposition from liberty-minded grassroots organizations and activists. While the plan has failed in previous Congresses thanks to a groundswell of opposition, critics of the measure say that without prompt action, the unconstitutional scheme could soon become a reality.

The legislation, officially dubbed the “Legal Workforce Act” (H.R. 1147), is ostensibly aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs in the United States. Among the most troubling elements highlighted by critics, though, is that the bill would purport to mandate a national ID card for every American as a condition of working. It would also force every employer in America to purchase and use so-called “E-Verify technology” to check with Washington, D.C., as to whether potential employees have government permission to work. Finally, it would create a massive federal database containing sensitive data on virtually every person in the country — a database that could easily be expanded to include even more information.

While establishment lawmakers on both sides of the aisle seem fond of the measure, critics are sounding the alarm about the bill and its implications for liberty. In an e-mail to supporters urging them to help crush the unconstitutional legislation, for example, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), in his capacity as chairman of Campaign for Liberty, warned that the national ID scheme would be a nightmare. Among other concerns, the two-time GOP presidential contender noted that it would allow federal bureaucrats to include biometric information — potentially including fingerprints, retinal scans, and more — that could and likely would be eventually used as a tracking device. It would also make it illegal for anyone to work in the United States without obtaining the national ID.

“Every time any citizen applies for a job, the government would know — and you can bet its only a matter of time until ‘ID scans’ will be required to make even routine purchases, as well,” Dr. Paul warned, adding that “statists in both parties have been fighting to ram their radical national ID-database scheme into law” for years. “In fact, this scheme was a key portion of the infamous so-called ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform’ bills both parties have tried to ram through.” Now, Paul said, the statists believe they have found a way to impose their national ID: Drop the amnesty provisions and focus on immigration “security.”

According to Dr. Paul, a constitutionalist who served in Congress for more than 20 years, the term “security” is being used as “nothing more than a buzzword meant to trick Americans from all over the country into thinking that Congress is finally going to seal our southern border.” In reality, though, it means something much different. “The ‘security’ members of both parties in the U.S. House want doesn’t target any U.S. border,” Paul added. “Instead, it’s meant to create an all-out police state within them.”

Paul also warned that the national database required for the ID regime could easily expand to include information on gun ownership, medical records, political affiliation, and “virtually anything else at the stroke of a President’s pen.” In fact, the stakes are so high, he said, that this type of battle is often decisive in “whether a country remains free or continues sliding toward tyranny.” Existing abuses such as lawless NSA spying, IRS harassment, and more offer further evidence that the feds cannot be trusted with such Orwellian tools to track, monitor, and ultimately control Americans.

Despite the dangers, the legislation has already been passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, getting a vote just three days after it was introduced — and the markup took place before the text of the bill was even available online. “The speed with which this bill was rushed through Committee means the House leadership is very serious about passing this bill into law as soon as possible,” warned Paul, urging Americans to fight back immediately to prevent the bill from passing. He also warned about potential “bipartisan compromises” that could be even worse than the original.

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who has a dismal 54 percent in the Freedom Index, a tool provided by this magazine that scores lawmakers’ votes based on adherence to the U.S. Constitution they all swore to uphold. The controversial bill already has dozens of co-sponsors in the House, too. It is being publicly touted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who claimed it would bring the “nation’s employment eligibility system into the 21st century,” as well as chief sponsor Smith.

“The Legal Workforce Act turns off the jobs magnet that attracts so many illegal immigrants to the United States,” Rep. Smith said in a statement promoting the measure, ignoring the fact that amnesty and the porous borders have been crucial in encouraging illegal immigration. “The bill expands the E-Verify system and applies it to all U.S. employers. Equally important, the American people support E-Verify,” Smith argued, citing polls showing that Americans overwhelmingly support stronger laws to stop businesses from hiring illegal immigrants. “This bill is a common-sense approach that will reduce illegal immigration and save jobs for legal workers. It deserves the support of everyone who wants to put the interests of American workers first.”

The bill also has the support of several major lobbying powerhouses — including some, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that are infamous for their support of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Other organizations backing the bill include immigration enforcement-focused Numbers USA, the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, and several others. However, in the past, similar national-ID schemes have met with major opposition from groups including Downsize DC, the Rutherford Institute, the American Policy Center, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, Conservative Republican Women, and many more.

In a letter to lawmakers about the same legislation in the 112th Congress (2011-2012), that broad coalition of organizations blasted the bill as an affront to freedom and the Constitution. Among other concerns, they said it “violates individual civil liberties such as the right to work and free speech; mandates a costly job-killing regulatory burden that cripples small business; requires employers to become enforcement agents of the federal government; and encourages identify theft of law-abiding citizens.” The bill should never have even left committee, according to opponents.

“It is anathema to limited government, the right to privacy, free enterprise and prosperity,” the coalition said in the letter to members of Congress. “It violates the philosophy of the Constitution and intent of the Framers by subordinating the liberty of citizens to the administrative convenience of government. And the Founding Fathers would have rebelled against such a staggering Federal intrusion into every workplace in the nation and our personal civil liberties.”

As The New American reported as far back as 2010, the same plot to impose a national ID on America has been pushed before by some of the leading Big Government-mongers in Congress. The “bipartisan” amnesty-national ID legislation pushed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and backed by Obama in 2010 eventually failed due to a massive uprising against legalizing illegal immigrants. Back then, though, promoters of the biometric national ID scheme were boasting about their machinations.

“Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here,” wrote Graham and Schumer in a joint op-ed promoting their legislation. “We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card.” At the time, Obama called the proposal “a promising, bipartisan framework which can and should be the basis for moving forward.”

With the amnesty provision now out of the more recent bill — Obama is using executive decrees funded by the GOP Congress in a bid to provide amnesty anyway — analysts say the national ID plot stands a much greater chance of coming to fruition. In addition to being unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that the Constitution grants no power over identification systems to the federal government, history shows that national ID schemes are dangerous and very often abused by authorities. Considering the U.S. government’s track record, Americans can be sure that, if the plot becomes law, the ID regime will be eventually be abused as well.

If solving the illegal immigration crisis is truly the goal, there is a much simpler solution. Rather than foisting an unconstitutional national ID scheme on Americans and building a massive database, Congress could stop funding Obama’s amnesty decrees and ensure that the borders are secure. For that to happen, though, Americans who value liberty and the Constitution must get involved.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Dear Mr. Congresscritter:

According to the lies my generation were told when growing up, the Constitution was composed to protect American’s from assholes like you. For whatever reason, we believed the lies with our whole being all of our life, and now we are supposed to accept all the bullshit you are forcing down our throat as though it never existed. Please take this to the bank, we are not going to live out our lives being told which hand to use, and which direction to wipe our ass. You will pay for your treason one way or another. You will have to live out your lives underground and surrounded by armed guards, and if you become over-confident and emerge from your hole some hot head will end your miserable existence with a Malakoff Cocktail, or a well aimed brick. I am not saying it will be me because I am too old and feeble, but I assure you when I read about it I will have an orgasm that beats anything ever experienced from copulation. If there is any chance that you have just a thimble full of intelligence left, may I suggest that you start enforcing the Constitution for your own protection. And, if it’s possible you have family that you love, please consider what some out of control nasty S.O.B. might do to them. Real American’s have shed their blood and loved one’s for their freedoms, so don’t make the mistake of thinking they will lay down and be exterminated with no resistance. They are not afraid of dying and will persevere with or without guns, knives or ball bats. Can you say the same for yourself? I doubt it! You were born cowards, and will die the same way. America will never die! Olddog said that, and if you don’t like it, go piss up a rope, or OBUMAS ass.

3-7-2015 2-56-31 PM

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


The Real Reason the American Dream is Unraveling

03/28/2015

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion/2015/03/the-real-reason-

the-american-dream-is-unraveling-2452824.html

3-28-2015 10-19-28 PM

 By Jim Quinn / The Burning Platform

Marketwatch posted an article this week titled Why the American Dream is Unraveling, in 4 charts. As usual, the MSM journalist and the liberal Harvard academic can create charts that reveal a huge problem, but they completely misdiagnose the causes and offer the typical wrong solution of taking more money from producers and handing it to the poor, with no strings attached. This has been the standard operating procedure since LBJ began his War on Poverty 50 years ago. Do these control freaks ever step back and assess how that war is going?

The poverty rate had plunged from 34% in 1950 to below 20% before LBJ ever declared war. It continued down to 15% just as the welfare programs began to be implemented. The percentage of people living in poverty hasn’t budged from the 15% range since the war began. This war has been just as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. Any time a politician declares war on something, expect a huge price tag and more of the “problem” they are declaring war upon.

3-28-2015 10-19-03 PM

The Federal government runs over 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Over 100 million Americans received benefits from at least one of these programs. Federal and state governments spent $943 billion in 2013 on these programs at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient (not including Social Security & Medicare). That is 27% of the total Federal budget. Welfare spending as a percentage of the Federal budget was less than 2% prior to the launch of the War on Poverty.

In the 50 years since this war started, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. In terms of LBJ’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has utterly failed. In fact, a large proportion of the population is now completely dependent upon government handouts, incapable of self-sufficiency, and enslaved in a welfare mentality that has destroyed their communities.

The primary cause of their poverty and dependency on government are the policies implemented by liberal politicians which have destroyed the family unit, promoted deviant behavior, encouraged the production of bastard children, eliminated the need for personal responsibility, provided no consequences for bad life choices, and bankrupted the nation. The rise of the welfare state has coincided with the decline of the American state. The proliferation of welfare programs has broken down the behaviors, social norms and cultural standards that lead to self-reliance, generating a pattern of growing inter-generational reliance upon government handouts. By undermining productive social norms, welfare creates a need for even greater succor in the future.

So let’s get to the four charts that supposedly reveal why the American dream is unraveling. The Marketwatch article makes the following claim:

The upper-middle-class families Putnam profiles separate themselves into affluent suburbs, with separate public schools and social spheres from those of their poorer counterparts. As a result, the poorer children not only face greater hardships, but they also lack good models of what is possible. They are effectively cut off from opportunity.

The faux journalist makes the laughable argument the reason poor children don’t succeed in life is because people who have studied hard, graduated college, succeeded in life, and moved out of poor neighborhoods have left the poor children to face hardship and lack of opportunity. This is a classic liberal storyline. Blame those who have succeeded through their own blood, sweat and tears for the failure of those who languish in poverty due to their own life choices, lack of respect for education, and lack of work ethic. Chart number one reveals one thing to the Harvard academic Robert Putnam and another to me. He believes kids of people who have a college education have some sort of unfair advantage over kids of lesser educated parents:

“The most important thing about the experience of being young and poor in America is that these kids are really isolated, and really don’t have close ties with anybody. They are completely clueless about the kinds of skills and savvy and connections needed to get ahead.”

Why are poor kids isolated, with no ties with anybody? Isolated from whom? They don’t have ties to their family? That is a ludicrous contention, supported with no facts. All kids are completely clueless. You don’t get ahead in life through savvy and connections. You have the best chance to get ahead in life through opening a book, studying hard, and getting good grades, all with the support of concerned involved parents. There are no guarantees in life, but education, involved parents, and working hard dramatically increase your odds of success. It’s not a secret formula. Putnam believes the chart below reveals that kids in households with college educated parents have an unfair advantage over kids in households without college educated parents. To me it reveals the complete and utter failure of LBJ’s Great Society programs and the feminist mantra that men aren’t necessary to raise children.

3-28-2015 10-18-34 PM

The percentage of children living in single parent households with a college educated parent is virtually the same today as it was in the early 1960’s, just under 10%. The percentage of children living in single parent households with a high school educated parent in the early 1960’s was 20%. Today that number has risen to 65%. Liberals purposely misdiagnose the problem because admitting the true cause of this disastrous trend would destroy their credibility and reveal the failure of their beloved welfare programs. The key point is that prior to LBJ’s War on Poverty less than 10% of ALL children grew up in a single parent households. Today, that number is 33%. The lesson is you get more of what you encourage and incentivize. The liberal academic solution is for college educated households to give more of their money to the high school or less educated households. Academics with an agenda never ask why their solutions haven’t worked in 50 years.

The number of households in the U.S. in 1960 totaled 53 million and there were 24 million traditional married couple with children households, or 45%. There were 3 million single parent households with children, or 6%. Today the total number of households in the U.S. is approximately 122 million and there are only 25 million with traditional married couple with children households, or 20%. Meanwhile single parent families with children households have skyrocketed to 13 million, or 11%. The war on traditional two parent families by the government, liberal mainstream media, Hollywood, feminists, and academics has been far more successful than the War on Poverty.

The drastic increase in households with fatherless children, especially in the black community, is the primary reason the poverty rate hasn’t dropped over the last 50 years. It is the primary reason poor children remain poor. It is the primary reason why every urban enclave in America continues to degenerate into dangerous, filthy, lawless ghettos.  The statistics tell the story of decline, depravity, failure, and an endless loop of poverty.

  • An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father.
  • Of students in grades 1 through 12, 39% (17.7 million) live in homes absent their biological fathers.
  • 6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.
  • Among children who were part of the “post-war generation,” 87.7% grew up with two biological parents who were married to each other. Today only 68.1% will spend their entire childhood in an intact family.

Annual divorce rates are only marginally higher today than they were in the early 1960’s. So that does not account for the drastic increase in fatherless households. But, the differences among races is dramatic. Blacks divorce at a rate twice as high as whites and three times as high as Asians.

3-28-2015 10-18-00 PM

Marriage rates of Asians are almost three times higher than marriage rates of blacks. Marriage rates of whites are two times higher than marriage rates of blacks. Is it really surprising that Asian children score the highest on all educational achievement tests?

3-28-2015 10-17-31 PM

The facts prove that people (no matter what race) who marry and stay married offer their children a tremendously better opportunity to succeed academically, thereby giving them a much higher chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder. This doesn’t mean that children from a single parent household can’t succeed. It just means they have a better chance with two parents. It’s just simple math. Two adults working together can provide higher income, more help with school work, and offer a more stable environment for the child. The liberal media and those with a social agenda scorn the traditional family as if it precludes people from living however they choose. The results of the war on families can be seen in the chart below.

3-28-2015 10-16-37 PM

The unwed birth rate stayed below 5% from 1945 through the early 1960’s. As soon as the government began incentivizing people to not get married and to have children out of wedlock, the rates skyrocketed. Today, four out of ten children are born out of wedlock. Seven out of ten black children are born out of wedlock. Only two out of ten black children were born out of wedlock in 1964. These births out of wedlock are not the result of dumb teenagers making a mistake. Almost 80% of these births are to mothers over the age of 20, with 40% of the births to mothers over the age of 25. And these horrific results are after the 55 million abortions since 1973. This didn’t happen because of women’s rights or women feeling empowered to raise children on their own. Knowledge about and access to contraceptives is not a reason for unwed pregnancies. Poor women and the men who impregnate them receive more welfare benefits by remaining unmarried and receive additional benefits by having more children out of wedlock.

3-28-2015 10-14-58 PM

So all of the data confirms the fact children who grow up in two parent households do better in school, are far less likely to be enslaved in poverty, and have a chance to succeed in life, not matter what the educational level of their parents. In the early 1960s there were very few households with college educated parents. My Dad was a truck driver and my mother was a stay at home mom until we were in high school. We were lower middle class, but all three of their children attained college degrees by studying hard, working part-time jobs to help pay for their education, and having the support of concerned parents. Could we have gotten college degrees if we had been raised by only my mother? I doubt it.

Harvard Professor Putnam prefers to ignore the politically incorrect fact that a return to traditional families would begin to reverse the 50 years of damage caused by the War on Poverty. He believes it is in the moral interest of wealthier families to help improve the economic prospects of poorer children. Liberals also don’t think the $13,000 spent per student per year is enough to educate them properly. He actually believes taking more money from producers and handing it to non-producers will boost the U.S. economy.

“The U.S. economy would get a major boost if the opportunity gap were closed. We cannot continue to live in our own bubbles, or compartments on a plate, without consequences. What I hope people take away is that helping poor kids, giving them more skills and more support would economically benefit their kids.”

The country has spent $22 trillion on the war on poverty and spends approximately $1 trillion per year, but liberal academics think if we just spend more, the complete and utter failure of their solutions will be reversed. They ignore the fact a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress instituted welfare reform in 1996 that temporarily stopped the increase in spending, halted the rise in unwed births, and put poor people back to work. Today only one welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), effectively promotes self-reliance. Reforms that created TANF in 1996 moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs. Those gains were reversed as the Obama administration and congressional leadership undid the employment and training requirements enacted 14 years ago. Liberals think it is cruel and inhumane to make poor people work.

Putnam’s final three charts just reinforce the fact traditional families, involved parents, and higher education lead to higher incomes and upward mobility for children in these settings. The reason children in households with college educated parents get more daily attention is because those households are far more likely to have two parents. The time was equal in the early 1970s when two parent families were more prevalent. Having strangers raise kids in government subsidized daycare centers as a substitute for fathers hasn’t worked out so well.

3-28-2015 10-07-32 PM

In another shocker, poor children, who are predominantly from single parent households, without a role model to replace their missing fathers, score far worse in tests that predict success in college. The key attribute to educational success is not the educational level of the parents, it’s the need for poor, middle class or wealthy households to have two parents invested in the future of their children.

3-28-2015 10-07-06 PM

Attributing obesity rates of children from non-college educated households to the parents’ education is quite a reach. In the early 1970’s the obesity rates were very close between high school educated households and college educated households. So why has it surged? The liberals claim the poor go hungry and don’t have enough food. Shouldn’t that lead to higher malnutrition rates and not higher obesity rates? Maybe the surging obesity rates are due to the government lunch programs, the fast food culture in urban ghettos, no fathers around to encourage outside activities, and using food stamps to buy junk food rather than healthier foods. Bad choices generally lead to bad outcomes. Obesity is a choice. Of course liberals now classify it as a disability which needs to be subsidized by the government.

3-28-2015 10-08-49 PM

The American dream has unraveled for many reasons. Not spending enough on welfare programs is not one of the reasons. The welfare/warfare state is bankrupt. We spend $1 trillion on welfare programs, $1.4 trillion on Social Security and Medicare, and over $1 trillion on the military/surveillance apparatus. It’s a bipartisan bankruptcy, as Republicans agree to increase the welfare state as long as the Democrats agree to increase the warfare state. The only thing sustaining this debt based house of cards is a Federal Reserve which provides zero interest financing and a never ending willingness to debase our currency to keep the status quo in power. The current rate of spending on the welfare/warfare state is unsustainable. We could voluntarily reduce the spending before the financial collapse or the spending will stop abruptly when our country undergoes a catastrophic financial implosion that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Voluntarily putting the country back on a path of self reliance could be done if there was a will to do so. Reversing the culture of dependency would require a major dose of tough love that would upend the entire ideology of liberalism. Able-bodied, non-elderly adult recipients in all federal welfare programs would be required to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job as a condition of receiving food stamps or housing assistance. This would promote personal responsibility and provide the recipients with some self respect.  Obama is a big proponent of national service, why not national service for recipients of welfare?

Anti-marriage penalties should be removed from welfare programs, and long-term steps should be taken to rebuild the family in lower-income communities. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The welfare system needs to be revamped to reduce these counterproductive incentives. The appeal of welfare programs as an alternative to work and marriage could be reduced by requiring able-bodied parents to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Today government advertises in an effort to get more people to sign up for food stamps and dozens of other welfare programs. Government should be promulgating the facts on how marriage prevents social ills – poverty, poor education, juvenile crime – associated with children born to unmarried women.

Lastly, we need to cutoff the illegal influx of low-skill immigrants from the South, whose children will receive far more in welfare benefits than they pay in taxes, if they pay any taxes. The country must reject blanket amnesty or “earned citizenship” for millions of illegal immigrants who then could access the welfare system. The welfare system is already unsustainable and adding millions of illegal’s into the system would be the tipping point.

Lyndon B. Johnson’s goal was not to create an ever increasing welfare state, but to give the poor a helping hand towards self-sufficiency. His idealistic aim was to cure and prevent poverty. But, once a program is put into the hands of politicians looking to get re-elected every two years, the unintended negative consequences expand exponentially. $22 trillion later the American Dream is virtually non-existent for the 47 million Americans languishing in poverty and the once prosperous middle class who have seen their real wages stagnate due to Federal Reserve created inflation and taxes increase to pay for the ever expanding welfare/warfare state. One chart provides a major explanation of why the American Dream has unraveled, but you won’t see Obama, liberals or the mainstream media talking about it. Traditional married, two parent families are the antidote to poverty, not government welfare programs.

3-28-2015 10-05-21 PM

The debate on how to help the poor has raged for centuries. A wise Founding Father told us how the war on poverty would unfold.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”  Benjamin Franklin

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Creepy, Calculating and Controlling: All the Ways Big Brother Is Watching You

03/27/2015
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b8288
7b643445&id=613d650c2b&e=84f74f6a6a

By John W. Whitehead
February 16, 2015

“You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”—George Orwell, 1984

None of us are perfect. All of us bend the rules occasionally. Even before the age of over-criminalization, when the most upstanding citizen could be counted on to break at least three laws a day without knowing it, most of us have knowingly flouted the law from time to time.

Indeed, there was a time when most Americans thought nothing of driving a few miles over the speed limit, pausing (rather than coming to a full stop) at a red light when making a right-hand turn if no one was around, jaywalking across the street, and letting their kid play hookie from school once in a while. Of course, that was before the era of speed cameras that ticket you for going even a mile over the posted limit, red light cameras that fine you for making safe “rolling stop” right-hand turns on red, surveillance cameras equipped with facial recognition software mounted on street corners, and school truancy laws that fine parents for “unexcused” absences.

My, how times have changed.

Today, there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence—especially not when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home. That’s because technology—specifically the technology employed by the government against the American citizenry—has upped the stakes dramatically so that there’s little we do that is not known by the government.

In such an environment, you’re either a paragon of virtue, or you’re a criminal.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, we’re all criminals. This is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: the very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, probation officer, Big Brother and Father Knows Best all rolled into one.

Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. As I point out in my book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, this doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

For example, police have been using Stingray devices mounted on their cruisers to intercept cell phone calls and text messages without court-issued search warrants. Thwarting efforts to learn how and when these devices are being used against an unsuspecting populace, the FBI is insisting that any inquiries about the use of the technology be routed to the agency“ in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to intervene to protect the equipment/technology and information from disclosure and potential compromise.”

Doppler radar devices, which can detect human breathing and movement within in a home, are already being employed by the police to deliver arrest warrants and are being challenged in court. One case in particular, United States v Denson, examines how the Fourth Amendment interacts with the government’s use of radar technology to peer inside a suspect’s home. As Judge Neil Gorsuch recognizes in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in the case, “New technologies bring with them not only new opportunities for law enforcement to catch criminals but also new risks for abuse and new ways to invade constitutional rights.”

License plate readers, yet another law enforcement spying device made possible through funding by the Department of Homeland Security, can record up to 1800 license plates per minute. However, it seems these surveillance cameras can also photograph those inside a moving car. Recent reports indicate that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been using the cameras in conjunction with facial recognition software to build a “vehicle surveillance database” of the nation’s cars, drivers and passengers.

Sidewalk and “public space” cameras, sold to gullible communities as a sure-fire means of fighting crime, is yet another DHS program that is blanketing small and large towns alike with government-funded and monitored surveillance cameras. It’s all part of a public-private partnership that gives government officials access to all manner of surveillance cameras, on sidewalks, on buildings, on buses, even those installed on private property.

Couple these surveillance cameras with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology and you have the makings of “pre-crime” cameras, which scan your mannerisms, compare you to pre-set parameters for “normal” behavior, and alert the police if you trigger any computerized alarms as being “suspicious.”

Capitalizing on a series of notorious abductions of college-aged students, several states are pushing to expand their biometric and DNA databases by requiring that anyone accused of a misdemeanor have their DNA collected and catalogued. However, technology is already available that allows the government to collect biometrics such as fingerprints from a distance, without a person’s cooperation or knowledge. One system can actually scan and identify a fingerprint from nearly 20 feet away.

Radar guns have long been the speed cop’s best friend, allowing him to hide out by the side of the road, identify speeding cars, and then radio ahead to a police car, which does the dirty work of pulling the driver over and issuing a ticket. Never mind that what this cop is really doing is using an electronic device to search your car without a search warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment and probable cause. Yet because it’s a cash cow for police and the governments they report to, it’s a practice that is not only allowed but encouraged. Indeed, developers are hard at work on a radar gun that can actually show if you or someone in your car is texting. No word yet on whether the technology will also be able to detect the contents of that text message.

It’s a sure bet that anything the government welcomes (and funds) too enthusiastically is bound to be a Trojan horse full of nasty surprises. Case in point: police body cameras. Hailed as the easy fix solution to police abuses, these body cameras—made possible by funding from the Department of Justice—will turn police officers into roving surveillance cameras. Of course, if you try to request access to that footage, you’ll find yourself being led a merry and costly chase through miles of red tape, bureaucratic footmen and unhelpful courts.

The “internet of things” refers to the growing number of “smart” appliances and electronic devices now connected to the internet and capable of interacting with each other and being controlled remotely. These range from thermostats and coffee makers to cars and TVs. Of course, there’s a price to pay for such easy control and access. That price amounts to relinquishing ultimate control of and access to your home to the government and its corporate partners. For example, while Samsung’s Smart TVs are capable of “listening” to what you say, thereby allow users to control the TV using voice commands, it also records everything you say and relays it to a third party.

Then again, the government doesn’t really need to spy on you using your smart TV when the FBI can remotely activate the microphone on your cellphone and record your conversations. The FBI can also do the same thing to laptop computers without the owner knowing any better.

Government surveillance of social media such as Twitter and Facebook is on the rise. Americans have become so accustomed to the government overstepping its limits that most don’t even seem all that bothered anymore about the fact that the government is spying on our emails and listening in on our phone calls.

Drones, which will begin to take to the skies en masse this year, will be the converging point for all of the weapons and technology already available to law enforcement agencies. This means drones that can listen in on your phone calls, see through the walls of your home, scan your biometrics, photograph you and track your movements, and even corral you with sophisticated weaponry.

And then there’s the Internet and cell phone kill switch, which enables the government to shut down Internet and cell phone communications without Americans being given any warning. It’s a practice that has been used before in the U.S., albeit in a limited fashion. In 2005, cell service was disabled in four major New York tunnels (reportedly to avert potential bomb detonations via cell phone). In 2009, those attending President Obama’s inauguration had their cell signals blocked (again, same rationale). And in 2011, San Francisco commuters had their cell phone signals shut down (this time, to thwart any possible protests over a police shooting of a homeless man).

It’s a given that the government’s tactics are always more advanced than we know, so there’s no knowing what new technologies are already being deployed against without our knowledge. Certainly, by the time we learn about a particular method of surveillance or new technological gadget, it’s a sure bet that the government has been using it covertly for years already. And if other governments are using a particular technology, you can bet that our government used it first. For instance, back in 2011, it was reported that the government of Tunisia was not only monitoring the emails of its citizens but was actually altering the contents of those emails in order to thwart dissidents. How much do you want to bet that government agents have already employed such tactics in the U.S.?

Apart from the obvious dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, we’re approaching a time in which we will be forced to choose between obeying the dictates of the government—i.e., the law, or whatever a government officials deems the law to be—and maintaining our individuality, integrity and independence.

When people talk about privacy, they mistakenly assume it protects only that which is hidden behind a wall or under one’s clothing. The courts have fostered this misunderstanding with their constantly shifting delineation of what constitutes an “expectation of privacy.” And technology has furthered muddied the waters.

However, privacy is so much more than what you do or say behind locked doors. It is a way of living one’s life firm in the belief that you are the master of your life, and barring any immediate danger to another person (which is far different from the carefully crafted threats to national security the government uses to justify its actions), it’s no one’s business what you read, what you say, where you go, whom you spend your time with, and how you spend your money.

Unfortunately, privacy as we once knew it is dead.

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers. This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us on a daily basis.

Thus, to be an individual today, to not conform, to have even a shred of privacy, and to live beyond the reach of the government’s roaming eyes and technological spies, one must not only be a rebel but rebel.

Even when you rebel and take your stand, there is rarely a happy ending awaiting you. You are rendered an outlaw. This is the message in almost every dystopian work of fiction, from classic writers such as George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Philip K. Dick and Ray Bradbury to more contemporary voices such as Margaret Atwood, Lois Lowry and Suzanne Collins.

How do you survive in the American police state?

We’re running out of options. As Philip K. Dick, the visionary who gave us Minority Report and Blade Runner, advised:

“If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.”

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Please read the other article

HOUSE BILL SEEKS TO ABOLISH PATRIOT ACT”

AND CALL OR WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND ASK [ IT ] TO SUPPORT THIS BILL!

The Surveillance State Repeal Act, H.R. 1466 [PDF],

Representatives can be identified and contacted here.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

2-12-2015 9-29-40 AM


Blood Money These Companies and People Make Billions of Dollars From War

03/26/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/03/blood-money-these-companies-and-people.html

3-26-2015 7-07-27 AM

Lily Dane
Activist Post

War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it. –George Orwell

The late United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler is perhaps most famous for his post-retirement speech titled “War is a Racket.” In the early 1930s, Butler presented the speech on a nationwide tour. It was so popular that he wrote a longer version as a small book that was published in 1935.

Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidized by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.

The work is divided into five chapters:

  1. War is a racket
  2. Who makes the profits?
  3. Who pays the bills?
  4. How to smash this racket!
  5. To hell with war!

It contains this summary:

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people.

Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

What Butler was candidly describing was later referred to as the “military-industrial complex”by Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned Americans of its existence in his farewell address in 1961:

Butler went on to say…

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Butler also exposed the Business Plot, an alleged plan to overthrow the U.S. government. In 1933, Butler told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialist businessmen (including individuals from General Motors, Prescott Bush, grandfather of George Bush Jr., J.P. Morgan, and the Rockefeller dynasty) were planning a military coup to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler selected to lead a march of veterans to become dictator, similar to other Fascist regimes at that time. The individuals involved all denied the existence of a plot, and the media ridiculed the allegations, calling them a “gigantic hoax.”

A final report by a special House of Representatives Committee confirmed some of Butler’s testimony.

Despite warnings of its existence and imminent expansion, the military-industrial complex (or military-industrial-congressional complex) remains in operation today. It is an iron trianglethat comprises the policy and monetary relationships which exist between legislators, national armed forces, and the arms industry that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry.

It is a major reason we are stuck in a perpetual war.

****

In their article titled Companies Profiting the Most From War, Thomas C. Frohlich and Mark Lieberman listed the 10 companies profiting the most from war. To identify them, they examined the companies with the most arms sales based on information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Arms sales, including advisory, planes, vehicles, and weapons, were defined by sales to military customers as well as contracts to government militaries. Also considered were each company’s 2013 total sales and profits, the total number of employees at the company, as well as nation-level military spending, all provided by SIPRI.

From the article:

U.S. companies still dominate the arms market by a large margin, with six among the top 10 arms sellers. In the top 100 arms-producing companies, 39 are based in the United States, and U.S. companies accounted for more than 58% of total arms sales among the top 100. U.S. company arms sales in the top 10 alone made up 35% of total arms sales among the top 100. By contrast, Western European companies, which make up the rest of the top 10 arms producers, accounted for just 28% of the total top 100 arms sales.

Here are the top 10 war-profiteering companies and their political ties.

10. Thales Group (Paris)
Arm sales 2013: $10.4 billion, profit: $800 million

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS: $0
LOBBYING: $520,000 (2014), $460,000 (2013) (ranks 614 of 4,065 in 2014)

REVOLVING DOOR: 9 out of 10 Thales Group lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

For a list of bills Thales Group has lobbied, click here.

Chairman Henri Proglio’s salary is rumored to be $436,128 USD.

CEO Patrice Caine’s salary has not been published.

9. Finmeccanica S.p.A. (Italy)
Arm sales 2013: $10.6 billion, profit $100 million

Not only is this company a top war profiteer, it is a huge U.S. political campaign contributor.

From OpenSecrets.org:

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS: $446,850 (ranks 696 of 16,793)
LOBBYING: $1,754,000 (2014), $1,965,500 (2013) (ranks 303 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $342,550 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $18,100
Contributions to parties: $86,200
Contributions to 527 committees: $0
Contributions to outside spending groups: $0

For a list of bills Finmeccanica S.p.A. has lobbied, click here.

Here’s some additional information on this company:

The total of contributions to candidates from Finmeccanica SpA PACs is 24 times larger than contributions from individuals.

REVOLVING DOOR: 21 out of 34 Finmeccanica SpA lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

CEO Mauro Moretti’s “wage packet” is said to be $1.2 million USD.

8. United Technologies (U.S.)
Arm sales 2013: $11.9 billion, profit $5.7 billion

United Technologies might be the lowest ranking of the U.S. companies in this list, but don’t let that fool you.OpenSecrets bestowed the company with the label “heavy hitter”, which means it is “one of the 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since the 1990 election cycle, as compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.”

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS: $2,105,245 (ranks 124 of 16,793)
LOBBYING: $15,738,000 (2014), $13,900,373 (2013) (ranks 13 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $1,769,400 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $199,250
Contributions to parties: $124,470
Contributions to 527 committees: $10,625
Contributions to outside spending groups: $1,500

For a list of bills United Technologies has lobbied, click here.

Here’s some additional information on this company:

The total of contributions to candidates from United Technologies PACs is 19 times larger than contributions from individuals.

REVOLVING DOOR: 52 out of 70 United Technologies lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

24 Congressional members own United Technologies shares (for the list, click here).

CEO Gregory J. Hayes has a reported annual salary of $949,583 and an annual bonus of $1,600,00, for a total annual compensation of $2,549,583.

7. Airbus Group (France/Netherlands)
Arm sales 2013: $15.7 billion, profit $2 billion

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS:  $365,752 (ranks 855 of 16,793)
LOBBYING: $3,288,178 (2014), $3,749,750 (2013) (ranks 156 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $259,322 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $83,500
Contributions to parties: $22,930
Contributions to 527 committees: $0
Contributions to outside spending groups: $0

For a list of bills this company has lobbied, click here.

Additional information about Airbus Group:

The total of contributions to candidates from Airbus Group PACs is 4 times largerthan contributions from individuals.

REVOLVING DOOR: 42 out of 57 Airbus Group lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

  1. General Dynamics (U.S.)
    Arm sales 2013: $18.7 billion, profit $2.4 billion

    OpenSecretslabeled this company a “heavy hitter”, which means it is “one of the 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since the 1990 election cycle, as compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.”

General Dynamics is one of the nation’s top defense contractors, assembling virtually every type of military machinery engaged in modern combat. The company builds warships, nuclear submarines, tanks and combat jets, not to mention the command and control systems that link all of these technologies together. The company has lobbied hard to encourage lawmakers to step up appropriations for the Navy, one of the company’s biggest clients.

It has fought attempts to shrink the nation’s fleet of submarines and warships, thereby helping block Defense Department attempts to shift that money to other facets of the nation’s land and air defenses.

Details:

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS: $1,974,599 (ranks 140 of 16,793)
LOBBYING: $10,720,923 (2014), $11,066,974 (2013) (ranks 27 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $1,405,525 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $401,300
Contributions to parties: $162,974
Contributions to 527 committees: $4,350
Contributions to outside spending groups: $5,450

For a list of bills this company has lobbied, click here.

More information about General Dynamics:

The total of contributions to candidates from General Dynamics PACs is 6 times larger than contributions from individuals.

6 Congressional members own shares in this company (click here for the list).

REVOLVING DOOR: 96 out of 133 General Dynamics lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

CEO Phebe Novakovic earned nearly $19 million in total compensation in fiscal 2014.

5. Northrop Grumman (U.S.)
Arm sales 2013: $20.2 billion, profit $2 billion

We’ve got another heavy hitter here:

Northrop Grumman is the fourth largest defense contractor and the world’s largest builder of naval vessels as of 2010. As a member of the miscellaneous defense industry, Northrop Grumman specializes in aerospace systems, electronic systems, information systems, ship building and technical services.

Northrop Grumman focuses much of its efforts securing government defense contracts and earmarks. During the 2008 election cycle, people and political action committees associated with Northrop Grumman contributed more than $2 million to federal candidates and committees, favoring Democrats slightly.

Details:

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS $4,050,624 (ranks 45 of 16,793)
LOBBYING $10,216,960 (2014), $20,590,000 (2013) (ranks 28 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $2,613,112 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $1,194,560
Contributions to parties: $231,602
Contributions to 527 committees: $6,000
Contributions to outside spending groups: $5,350

For a list of bills this company has lobbied, click here.

More information about Northrop Grumman:

The total of contributions to candidates from Northrop Grumman PACs is 9 times larger than contributions from individuals.

REVOLVING DOOR: 32 out of 49 Northrop Grumman lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

6 Congressional members own shares in this company (for the list, click here).

CEO Wesley G. Bush’s total pay package, including the change in the value of his pension, was $18.6 million in 2013, reports The Washington Post. His salary and stock awards remained steady at about $1.5 million and $8 million, respectively.

4. Raytheon (U.S.)
Arm sales 2013: $29.9 billion, profit $2 billion

OpenSecrets has identified Raytheon as a heavy hitter:

Raytheon is a major American defense contractor that specializes in defense and homeland security technology. As the world’s largest producer of guided missiles, Raytheon specializes in manufacturing defense systems and defense electronics.

A member of the defense electronic industry, Raytheon is most active lobbying on defense, homeland security and federal budget appropriation issues. Until 2008, individuals and political action committees associated with Raytheon had favored Republicans in campaign contribution giving, but after Democrats won both chambers of Congress and the White House, the defense firm favors Democrats, giving 55 percent of campaign contributions to Democrats and 45 percent to Republicans in 2008

Considering that access is needed when securing large government defense contract, it’s of little surprise that Raytheon spends millions of dollars each year lobbying the federal government. Raytheon is the primary manufacturer of Tomahawk cruise missiles, dozens of which have been used by U.S. and British military forces in strikes against targets in Libya during 2011.

Details:

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle:
CONTRIBUTIONS: $3,588,668 (ranks 58 of 16,793)
LOBBYING: $6,250,000 (2014), $7,650,000 (2013) (ranks 65 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $2,131,300 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $1,212,783
Contributions to parties: $236,498
Contributions to 527 committees: $6,037
Contributions to outside spending groups: $2,050

For a list of bills Raytheon has lobbied, click here.

More information about this company:

The total of contributions to candidates from Raytheon PACs is 11 times larger than contributions from individuals.

REVOLVING DOOR: 51 out of 67 Raytheon lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

8 Congressional members own shares in this company (click here for a list).

CEO Thomas A. Kennedy made $5,324,743 in total compensation for fiscal 2013.

3. BAE Systems (U.S./United Kingdom)
Arm sales 2013: $26.8 billion, profit $275 million

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS: $1,360,369 (ranks 210 of 16,793)
LOBBYING: $3,920,000 (2014), $4,635,000 (2013) (ranks 124 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $931,389 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $301,750
Contributions to parties: $120,980
Contributions to 527 committees: $5,500
Contributions to outside spending groups: $3,250

For a list of bills BAE Systems has lobbied, click here.

More details:

The total of contributions to candidates from BAE Systems PACs is 9 times largerthan contributions from individuals.

REVOLVING DOOR: 27 out of 36 BAE Systems lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

CEO Ian King’s total annual compensation is $3,826,308.

2. Boeing (U.S.)
Arm sales 2013: $30.7 billion, profit $4.6 billion

Boeing has been labeled a heavy hitter by OpenSecrets:

Boeing is the world’s top manufacturer of commercial airplanes, including well-known aircraft such as the 787 and the 747. The company is also a leading military supplier, making fighter-bombers, transport planes and the Apache helicopter.

 

Along with rival Lockheed Martin, the company regularly lobbies Congress to win military contracts and increase defense spending. Boeing is a major supporter of free trade, especially in Asia, where it has focused on selling more planes. The company also lobbies on environmental rules and transportation regulations, among other issues.

Boeing is also a large recipient of government loan-guarantees, primarily coming from the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Details:

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS: $3,227,934 (ranks 67 of 16,793)
LOBBYING: $16,800,000 (2014), $15,230,000 (2013) (ranks 10 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $2,536,149 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $398,276
Contributions to parties: $252,685
Contributions to 527 committees: $33,749
Contributions to outside spending groups: $79,325

For a list of bills Boeing has lobbied, click here.

More information on this company:

The total of contributions to candidates from Boeing PACs is 6 times larger than contributions from individuals.

REVOLVING DOOR: 83 out of 115 Boeing Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

17 Congressional members own Boeing shares (click here for the list).

CEO W. James McNerney Jr. made $23,263,562 in total compensation in 2013. Of this total $1,930,000 was received as a salary, $12,920,972 was received as a bonus, $3,763,503 was received in stock options, $3,763,534 was awarded as stock, and $885,553 came from other types of compensation. He earned $23.5 million total in 2014.

1. Lockheed Martin (U.S.)
Arm sales 2013: $35.5 billion, profit $3 billion

As the top war profiteer on this list, it should be no surprise that Lockheed Martin is ranked as a heavy hitter by OpenSecrets:

Lockheed Martin is the nation’s top defense contractor, the brains behind such high-tech military hardware as the F-16 jet fighter and a variety of land and sea missiles. In 2001, the company landed the biggest defense contract in history when it was named the main contractor for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Considering that access is the name of the game when securing such lucrative contracts, it’s no surprise that Lockheed splits its campaign money equally between Democrats and Republicans. All told, NASA and the Defense Department account for roughly 80 percent of the company’s annual sales.

Details:

Profile for 2014 Election Cycle
CONTRIBUTIONS: $4,132,497 (ranks 44 of 16,793)
LOBBYING: $14,581,800 (2014), $14,516,226 (2013) (ranks 16 of 4,065 in 2014)
Contributions to candidates: $3,001,928 (for a list of recipients, click here)
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $897,425
Contributions to parties: $219,086
Contributions to 527 committees: $5,585
Contributions to outside spending groups: $10,373

For a list of bills Lockheed Martin has lobbied, click here.

Additional information about this company:

The total of contributions to candidates from Lockheed Martin PACs is 7 times largerthan contributions from individuals.

REVOLVING DOOR: 69 out of 109 Lockheed Martin lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs.

CEO Marillyn Hewson earned $25.16 million in 2014. Of this total, $1.34 million was base salary, $8.16 million was stock awards, $5.98 million was from incentive plan compensation, $9.41 million was in pension earnings, and other compensation was $238,150.

As you can see, many companies and individuals – including politicians – stand to profit greatly from perpetual war.

And we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill.

Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $312,500 for cost of military action against ISIS. 

Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $10.17 million for cost of war in Afghanistan. 

Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $365,297 for cost of war in Iraq. 

Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $10.54 million for total cost of wars since 2001. 

Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $8.43 million for Homeland Security Since 9/11. 

Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $58 million for the Department of Defense.
For a live ticker showing how much we have paid to date in each of the categories above, please visit the National Priorities Project site. You also can use the site’s trade-off tool to see what else those dollars could buy.

The full costs of war cannot simply be measured in dollars. It is impossible to place a monetary value on the tremendous loss of life (both military and civilian) caused by perpetual war.

Since 2003, U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan total 2,356. UK military deaths total 453, and there have been 677 coalition military deaths from other countries.

Since 2003, U.S. military deaths in Iraq total 4,489. UK military deaths total 179, and there have been 140 coalition military deaths from other countries.

There have been 136,495 – 154,378 documented civilian deaths that resulted from military intervention in Iraq since 2003.

In Iraq, 1,487 contractor employees have died. 348 journalists have been killed. 448 academics have died.

To view information on 6,840 U.S. service members who have perished in Afghanistan and Iraq, please see Faces of the Fallen.

Deaths don’t only occur in combat. An unusually high percentage of young veterans have died since returning home, many as a result of drug overdose, suicide, and vehicle crashes, reports Costs of War. The suicide rate doubled in the Army during the first decade of the wars among both the deployed and the non-deployed.

In many ways, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are worse off now than they were before U.S. military invasion. Both countries are considered more authoritarian, more corrupt, and more repressive than they were before.

****

In his piece titled A State of Perpetual War, David A. Love makes a fitting comparison:

In the George Orwell classic 1984, there is a state of perpetual war between the nations of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. The enemy in the conflict is ambiguous, and the battlefield exists in an elusive and distant land. The enemy could be Eurasia one day, and Eastasia the next, but that location is really insignificant.

The mission of perpetual war for these superpowers is to justify psychological and physical control over their populations, to keep their people busy, fearful and hateful towards the enemy. The perpetual war also serves as an excuse for a nation’s failings and shortcomings. The economy, the labor force and industry are all centered around war rather than consumer goods. People live a miserable existence with poverty and no hope of improving their standard of living.

Love points out that there are bigger problems we should be concerned about:

…there are many domestic threats that seem to pose a greater risk to national security, including the U.S. economic system itself.

He concludes with:

If we are to have a perpetual war, it must be a war against injustice and deprivation at home and abroad. We need to get our own house in order, rather than demolish and rebuild other nations that did not invite us there. And as far as the so-called terrorism problem is concerned, maybe we should stay out of other folks’ backyards and it will go away.

Indeed, the authorities would like us to believe that “fighting for our freedoms” in lands thousands of miles away is a necessary evil.

In War is a Racket, Butler suggested the following three steps to smash the war racket:

  1. We must take the profit out of war.
  2. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
  3. We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

Butler concluded his speech with the following exclamation:

TO HELL WITH WAR!

That seems like an appropriate conclusion here as well.

Additional Resources:

Lily Dane is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple, where this article first appeared. Her goal is to help people to “Wake the Flock Up!”

 OLDDOGS COMMENTS

If only the young were properly educated there would be no participants in these slaughters. Alas, homo sapiens seem to be attracted to violence as a means of gaining status, or a sense of duty to those who detest them. The real bummer is finding out after you have murdered several innocent people that you were beguiled from infancy by the movers and shakers of the world. Yes! They formed your mind into a little mass of obedience. I often wonder if it is fair that the Lord God made a way for us to be forgiven.

We sure as hell do not deserve it.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


AN HONERABLE COMMON SENSE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

03/25/2015

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron196.htm

3-25-2015 12-39-11 PM

By Ron Ewart
March 25, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

“Common sense is in spite of, not the result of, education.” —Victor Hugo

“Government corruption, overly complex legislation, bureaucratic inefficiency and over-educated academic idiots smother COMMON SENSE.” —Ron Ewart

Only men with the strongest resolve can resist and not be corrupted by the influence of importance and position. —Thomas Paine, in his book Common Sense, wrote this:

“Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”

Without honor in the people and in government, there can be no freedom. Position, perceived importance and the almost assured corruption that results there from, always poisons the well of honor if men are not, by nature, honorable. That brings us to the subject of this article.

In about one second you are going to think that the conservative author who has been writing the articles you have been reading for these last 10 years, has lost his mind. Not hardly!

It is said that anyone can run for president in America ….. and win. Over the ten years we have been writing articles on freedom and property rights, we have had several readers suggest we should run for president and others who said they would vote for us, if we did run, even if the idea is nothing more than a fantasy. We have resisted the idea for many reasons, the first being, only a fool would subject him or herself and their family to the kind of media scrutiny and feeding frenzy that a presidential candidate must endure, especially a conservative candidate.

However, with the plethora of candidates now allegedly running for the conservative ticket and many of those candidates just a replay of the same old tired political games, we have decided to explore the possibility of being a serious candidate for President, as improbable as that might seem.

There must be a thousand reasons why we shouldn’t run, but if you are wondering why we would make such a bold move, all you need to do is read our last 500 articles describing the down hill slide of America, directly caused by Progressive policies. We can’t stand by and watch that happen to the country we love without doing something more than just writing articles.

We have over 40 years of hands-on business experience as an entrepreneur employing many people; we worked with the federal and state government as a contractor, we have over 30 years in land use and real estate investment experience giving us a broad knowledge of the law and how government works; we wrote a book on real estate fundamentals and how to develop property; we served on a local government planning commission; we served eight years with a major city chamber of commerce as a director and vice president; as a pro se attorney we personally sued a multi-national corporation and won: we have become a nationally known conservative author; we are well read in most of the science disciplines; have significant knowledge of American history and equally important, we have the wisdom of age. Our education came from graduating from the school of hard knocks and we don’t back down from bullies. We are blessed with good health and boundless drive and energy.

Have we made mistakes, of course, everyone does. But why would we be any less qualified than a community organizer from Chicago whose only attributes are that he is arrogant, a narcissist, a reverse racist, devoid of honor and has a radically distorted view of America from which he governs?

In a recent NY Post article, they said this about Obama:

“First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet. He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ¬allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ¬adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamic terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.”

This is how Obama has governed America for six years and it is tragic if not treasonous. It is obviously not how we would govern.

Many of our readers will say we haven’t a chance to be nominated as the Republican front-runner to face whomever the Democrats finally bring to the fore and they might be right. But before the reader makes up his or her mind, we ask that he or she review the platform we would put forth under the banner “A Common Sense Conservative Candidate“. The reader may just find that they agree with our platform more than they disagree. Most of our platform came from the “18 Principles For A Free America” we wrote several years ago that appears on our website. Our platform could very well be used to compare against the platforms of the current cadre of conservative presidential candidates.

We lean heavily towards strict constitutionalism and free enterprise. On the domestic front, the down sizing of government and the privatization of many government functions would be one of our first priorities. Elimination of many government bureaucracies would be the second priority. Shaking up the IRS and the EPA and other out-of-control cabinet level agencies, repealing and replacing Obama Care and closing the border would be the third.

On the foreign front we will take very seriously the constitutional clause and oath that requires the president to protect and defend the American people from all enemies, foreign or domestic, not forgetting America has many domestic enemies as well as foreign. Most of the domestic enemies fall into the flawed ideology of Progressivism that has led us down the path to financial ruin and the continuing loss of liberty. We guarantee everyone that we would not back down from, or appease national or international bullies, no matter how large or small they may be.

Our administration would be one of inclusion and transparency, to the best of our ability and transparency will not be just a campaign slogan. We do not intend to follow in the footsteps of the current president, or the alleged, presumptive Democrat, seriously flawed, hopelessly corrupt, female front-runner. Re-election to a 2nd term, or party considerations, will never be factors in making decisions for America and the American people.

OUR PLATFORM

We have taken the issues one by one that a president would face while in office. Common sense will be our guide in almost everything, but still recognizing that common sense is not necessarily the solution to some complex problems. If you haven’t already convinced yourself that we have no chance at winning the Republican nomination, we strongly suggest that you review our platform, as laid out in detail on our website here.

To get our common sense message out to the public, we will need supporters to set up speech venues for us in every state, obtain petitions to put us on the ballot in each state and provide the funds for our expenses. We will also need a pro bono legal firm to make sure we comply with all political campaign laws. To embark upon this kind of effort, is not only time consuming, it is expensive. Without the support from thousands of those of like mind, the effort is futile.

For now, we will be exploring the possibilities of running for president by using specific web pages on our existing NARLO website, as we did with our Platform. NARLO is a nationally known organization and our website receives considerable traffic. Early funding for exploring the possibility will come from the sale of NARLO products, memberships, or donations. Thus, we are asking that you help us with DONATIONS and tell your rural landowner friends about our powerful, legally intimidating 18″ x 24″ aluminum No Trespassing sign and our unique, one-of-a-kind Rural Landowner Handbook that is not available anywhere else.

In addition, we have uploaded 4 years (over 200) of our copyrighted weekly articles to a USB Flash Drive in Microsoft WORD format. If you have enjoyed our articles and want an in depth glimpse into our general philosophy and how we would govern, we have made the articles available here.

Even if we don’t win which is quite possible, it will give us a large platform and a much larger audience to extol the virtues of this great county and perhaps change some minds along the way.

We’d like to know what you think.
 If you think we should run, click this link.
 If you think we’re a fool to run, click this link.
 If you would donate to our effort, click this link.
Then hit SEND after clicking one or more of the links.

We will assess the responses and make our decision. If this article goes viral, as we hope it will, we might just have a shot.

[NOTE: The forgoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of the publisher.]

© 2015 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved

Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

IF HE CAN STAY ALIVE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING HE WILL HAVE MY SUPPORT FOR LIFE. KEEP YOUR EYE OUT FOR HILLARY RON. THAT MEANS WATCH YOUR BACK!

 2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM