By Professor Steven Yates
May 30, 2015

Articles on racial tension and conflict tend to hit nerves. My last one did, evidenced both in my email and on my Facebook page. One person dissented from certain details of my account of the Zimmerman-Martin physical confrontation. He was civil. A few other items were scary! There are people out there who aren’t satisfied that Zimmerman is a marked man whose life has been ruined! They want him dead! (Or, in prison, then dead!)

If I didn’t know better, I’d ask whatever happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Or to the idea of the rule of law, as opposed to lynch mobs, including online where people can post hate blasts under fake names and bogus accounts.

There was no proof that Zimmerman was guilty. Period.

The high-tech lynch mobs might one day get their wish. Zimmerman was recently back in the news. It was reported as a road rage incident, but this wasn’t mere road rage. The other driver had clearly singled him out. The two had had at least one previous confrontation. The other man shot at his truck. Contrary to initial reports, Zimmerman was not hit by gunfire but cut in the face by broken glass and debris when the shot blew a hole in the truck’s passenger window. Zimmerman had a weapon — he’s a licensed gun owner — but did not fire in retaliation. Bleeding but not seriously injured, he walked to an ambulance, and was taken to an emergency room where he was treated and released.

This is the sort of bullying that is common enough in today’s America that it wouldn’t be considered news if Zimmerman hadn’t been the target. The incident ties in with the general decline in civility about which I wrote earlier this year.

Eventually, someone will shoot and not miss. Then, perhaps, the lefties will be happy — or at least satisfied. (I have trouble picturing cultural leftists happy; those I have encountered, in person or online, seemed like cauldrons of pent-up rage.)

I’d begun writing a piece on the melee in Baltimore, drawing attention to the race-and-gender make-up of the six cops directly responsible for Freddie Gray’s death: three white men, two black men, one black woman. Baltimore has a black mayor, a black police commissioner, and a police department that is 43% black. The Baltimore State’s Attorney is black.

Somehow, one might get the impression that Freddie Gray’s tragic death from injuries sustained while in police custody was about more than race, and that the epidemic of police violence in the U.S. is not primarily about race, which is what I have been arguing since the issue rose to visibility following the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

Cultural lefties everywhere are railing about “white privilege.”

White privilege? I recall videos of random whites being physically attacked on Baltimore’s streets by blacks. One family was attacked in a passing vehicle. I didn’t see them striking back. They were terrified, and trying to get away. They were fleeing for their lives. In a separate incident, 61-year-old Baltimore resident Richard Fletcher was set upon by a large group of black teens and beaten unconscious. The beating continued despite his unconsciousness. This was sadism, pure and simple. Fletcher’s injuries included broken eye sockets and a brain bleed.

I have never taken the view that racial conflict is the worst threat facing the U.S., although obviously it is a threat — a big one! My view has long been that those with real power want us all divided — by race/ethnicity, by gender, by ideology (“conservative” or “liberal”), by one-percent vs. 99-percent, or by whatever other fault lines happen to be available. The superelites figured out long ago that when one group is given unworkable government favors at the expense of another group that can be demonized, resentments and counterresentments build until they explode. Such explosions can then be exploited, as society as a whole is taken in the desired direction: towards more centralized control, less privacy, less freedom.

There are reasons I do not believe in any substantive “white privilege.” Yes, yes, yes, I can look at history books and see mostly white people. Or walk into a store or restaurant and most of those around me are white — although this was not always the case: there was an incident in South Carolina I have never written about where I clearly was singled out in a public place where I was the only white person in the room, and chose to exit before the confrontation turned ugly. And yes, if a cop stopped me on the interstate, he was probably less wary when he saw I was white. Does that mean I am “privileged”?

Look at it this way: I presently live in Chile. Everyone around me, on a typical day when I must be out and about, speaks Spanish. All I have to do to signal my status as a gringo is open my mouth. My Spanish is halting and broken; I can speak, but make a lot of grammar mistakes. I often have to say “Más lento, por favor,” to even begin to understand what someone is saying to me. Do native speakers of the dominant language here have natural advantages over me because of that? Of course they do. Do they have advantages over us gringos because they grew up here, speak the dominant language, know the culture, know the local customs, etc., etc. Of course. Are we gringos “discriminated against” or victims of “microaggressions” (one of the latest, and silliest, politically correct buzzwords) because of our limitations?

Nonsense. No one is discriminating against us or aggressing against us.

Cultural lefties will respond that my analogy is absurd. Blacks’ ancestors, they will say, were brought to U.S. soil by force and enslaved. We went to Chile voluntarily.

Let’s look at it. Not long after the War Between the States, there were black-owned businesses especially in the South where there were concentrations of newly freed former slaves. These included restaurants, newspapers, schools, and even banks. There were black authors and educators (e.g., Booker T. Washington), and black inventors (e.g., George Washington Carver). Blacks also went into the ministry and a few even held public office. Much of this progress was halted by specific acts of government, especially Supreme Court decisions (e.g., the Slaughter-House cases and Plessy), not discrimination in a general sense or “white privilege.” It is true that a lot of whites feared these advances; that is why the country got “black codes” and Jim Crow. The point is, black historians could make a larger deal of the successful black entrepreneurs one could find prior to 1900 and note their primary enemies were white elites, not white people generally, but this would hurt the Al Sharpton claim that slavery damaged blacks so badly they need reparations. They cannot have it both ways.[*]

The blacks who burned down small businesses in Ferguson and Baltimore had never been slaves. Nor had their parents been slaves; nor their grandparents. They were represented in their local governments. Are they victims? If so, it is of “progressive” policies that promised them advances in society without having to work to achieve them — advances their ancestors were capable of. These policies have destroyed the black family. Prior to the civil rights era blacks did experience workplace discrimination, but their families tended to stay together. They were not in a situation in which 70% of black children grow up without knowing who their fathers are.

I grew up in an all-white suburb in Atlanta, during the era of integration via forced busing to increase racial balance in public schools. As I recall, we white kids didn’t hate the black kids. We didn’t understand them, and they didn’t understand us. If there were opportunities for genuine education about our differences, they weren’t taken. Remember, this was forced on public schools, and those in them had no idea how to carry out what they were being told to do. By high school we were afraid of the black kids, who kept to themselves, usually congregrating in one section of hallway. Most aggression, which wasn’t “micro” either, came from them if one of us had to pass through that section. Their measure of a person’s worth seemed to be physical prowess, which may be why so many black kids of my generation excelled in sports. While again it was doubtless different in the pre-civil rights era, I never saw a white student single out a black student for abuse. Nor did I see a teacher or an administrator do it. I recall black students being openly defiant of teachers on more than one occasion, however.

Many could not read! Some of us wanted to help them learn to read! But we had no idea how to go about it! They had already separated themselves and wanted nothing to do with us!

There were a few sterling exceptions to this pattern: black students, presumably from the same background, who could read, took their studies seriously and made good grades. They were polite to everyone around them. They dressed decently. They did not hang out in the courtyard or on sidewalks smoking cigarettes, then blow smoke in white kids’ faces (yes, they did that, too). I believe they’d figured out that personal effort and responsibility — variables roundly condemned as code for “racism” by cultural lefties and media elites — actually went a long way! Those guys went on to college and probably made something of their lives. I do not imagine their children are burning down businesses in Baltimore.

The majority of blacks don’t realize that white elites in government — a bastion of real privilege — sold them a bill of goods from top to bottom right from the start. Today, they’ve basically developed a different culture, one lived in decrepit public housing and on the streets. Perhaps in a sense those of us who lived in safe, well-kept neighborhoods should feel “privileged” not to have grown up in that environment. But such claims won’t bear the weight cultural leftists are placing on them. How do they explain why Asians, with far fewer numbers than blacks and often unable to speak English, came to the U.S. with nothing but the clothes on their backs and went on to succeed brilliantly at whatever they tried, often outperforming whites in business or their studies? Is there some hidden “Asian privilege” none of the lefties or media elites have noticed?

All this is somewhat beside the point. The potential for media-fomented clashes between blacks and police are taking the U.S. closer to an abyss. For there will continue to be clashes. One day, conditions will be just right for another police murder, perhaps caught on video, to provoke a riot. Again, police will be ordered to stand down (as they were in both Ferguson and Boston). National Guard troops will be called in. Someone will get trigger happy, and instead of the situation coming under control, it will spread.

For nothing is being done about deadly violence at the hands of police. Over 400 people, black and white alike, have been killed by cops so far in 2015. While I’ve no doubt most officers just want to do their jobs and serve their communities, a few are dangerously violent sociopaths. Little is being done to contain this element. If anything, militarization of police forces with weaponry suitable for a battlefield has made matters several magnitudes worse!

Militarization of police is part of the ongoing militarization of American society generally. What, for example, is Jade Helm 15 really all about?

You’ve heard of it, no doubt. Just this morning as I write this article, I watched a video taken in Texas of a lengthy caravan hauling all manner of military vehicles and equipment down a major interstate.

Government officials insist Jade Helm is a standard training exercise, not different from its predecessors, intended to prepare troops for action elsewhere in the world. Across the aisle are those convinced we are seeing the beginning of an armed occupation of the affected states, which include Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and southern California. Texas, moreover, was deemed “hostile” on an official Jade Helm map, which raised hackles all across alternative media.

The abrupt closings of five Walmarts, all in Jade Helm states and projected to remain shuttered for up to six months, have fueled speculation that the stores will be used as staging areas. Others have speculated that this is company retaliation against employees demanding better wages and threatening to unionize. I wish to emphasize that we have no hard evidence of either one. Walmart’s official explanation—plumbing problems—seems to this writer a stretch. Does it take six months to fix plumbing problems? Be that as it may, those convinced that Jade Helm is more than an innocent exercise got the attention not only of Texas officials including the governor but also GOP presidential aspirants Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who have pledged to keep an eye on things.

Neither of the extremes is likely, of course. I do not believe Jade Helm will impose martial law on Texas. But I doubt it is as innocent as its defenders claim. We should be aware that specific events could bring martial law to U.S. soil.

Do I need to point out that another 9/11 could happen at almost any time? Or that the U.S. federal government definitely appears to be preparing for something!

It might be another terror attack, real or false flag. A real terrorist attack could be planned and carried out by foreigners who have entered the U.S. illegally (and I do not mean people from Mexico), as blowback against any of the U.S.’s many destructive wars of choice in the Middle East. This is not impossible, given the utter refusal by both Republicans and Democrats to secure the country’s southern border! (Again: border security is not wanted by the superelite, whose corporations profit from cheap labor just as the mostly Spanish-speaking populations undermine the dominant culture and divide the country further.)

It might be general civil unrest — an Arab Spring in U.S. soil — accompanying a major economic downturn. This is worth noting because even as I write, the U.S. economy appears to be slowing after the most tepid “recovery” in U.S. history. Except for Wall Street, of course, the U.S. never really recovered from the Meltdown of 2008. The present “5.4% unemployment rate” has been achieved by consigning roughly 100 million people to the status of “not in the labor force.”

It might be a massive, multi-city race riot following either another suspicious death in police custody or a highly publicized nonprosecution of a white cop for shooting and killing another unarmed black man. These days, any white cop who shoots a black man has to be either stupid or sociopathic.

It might be a combination of these. If the economy does abruptly turn sour, with the “too big to fail” banks even bigger, the majority of jobs part-time and paying starvation wages, economic inequality now worse than it was in the 1960s with no end in sight, every major city in the U.S. will become a powder keg.

When whatever happens, happens, it is going to catch the bulk of the majority-white TV-watching public with their pants down and around their ankles. Most, after all, are far more fascinated by the Kardashians than what is occurring in the corridors of power. So much for their “white privilege.”

This column hasn’t been as focused as I usually prefer. The U.S. is approaching its abyss from many directions at once. Events are happening so rapidly that writing columns about all of them is impossible.

Why civilizations collapse has been widely studied. While scholars differ on a lot of details, most agree that few if any major civilizations are invaded. They decompose from within. Having risen energetically, they grow complacent. They betray whatever principles gave rise to them and become bloated, arrogant empires. Gradually, corruption saps their energies. Trust in public officials declines and slowly takes loyalty down with it. Those in positions of authority grow increasingly abusive and violent. When working within the system repeatedly fails to yield satisfactory results, abuses of power eventually lead to armed rebellion and separatism. The U.S. is presently at the stage where massive corruption in all the dominant institutions is in evidence, and loyalty is fading. The inherent violence of its power structures is clear, but has not yet prompted organized resistance or secession movements with sufficient influence to commandeer state governments, which is what will be necessary for such movements to gain traction.

It’s just a matter of time, however. Whatever else one says, those in power are not stupid. They know the U.S. is rotting from the inside out, and do not plan to go down without a fight. Maybe this is why they are militarizing police all over the country (even small towns). Maybe this is what they are using Jade Helm to prepare for.

[*] Once, perhaps 15 years ago, there was a very comprehensive black history website that listed black achievers by name, date, and accomplishment, but that site appears to be gone. One can find relevant information on scattered sites by googling, e.g., black inventor. But as the cultural left has gained influence including over the Internet, the majority of websites now emphasize the official narrative, meaning that unless you have physical books or a printout the older site (I don’t), the claims in this paragraph will be difficult to document. I will be happy to send the bibliography I’ve worked from to anyone who requests it.

© 2015 Steven Yates – All Rights Reserved


Steven Yates has a doctorate in philosophy and currently lives in Santiago, Chile. He is the author of Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic(Brush Fire Press International, 2011). He also owns an editing business, Final Draft Editing Service.

Steven Yates’s new ebook is entitled: Philosophy Is Not Dead: A Vision of the Discipline’s Future.

E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Financial Reset Coming? China’s Currency Nears World Reserve Status + Washington Protects Its Lies With More Lies



5-29-2015 12-17-15 PM

By Mac Slavo

The world is anticipating a new global reality with huge implications: China’s yuan is poised to get recognized as a global reserve currency.

In a sign of the times, the IMF has essentially rebuffed U.S. claims of currency manipulation, to instead affirm that China’s currency is “no longer undervalued” – essentially giving its approval for the inner circle what many have described as an incubating world currency.

China’s yuan currency, which Washington has long alleged was manipulated, is “no longer undervalued”, the International Monetary Fund said Tuesday.

The value of the yuan, also known as the renminbi, has been a source of tension for years, with China’s major trade partners — led by the United States — accusing Beijing of keeping it artificially low to give Chinese exporters an unfair competitive advantage, which Beijing denied.

“Our assessment now is that the substantial real effective appreciation over the past year has brought the exchange rate to a level that is no longer undervalued,” the IMF said in a statement after a consultation mission to China. (source)

With longstanding U.S. opposition to China’s currency status, the IMF decision has been seen as the biggest hurdle to world reserve status. This news brings China one giant step closer to entry onto the global stage of currencies and new financial norms for Americans, as SHTF has long reported.

The decision underscores a larger shift in the global balance of power – there is no doubt that there are serious cracks in the foundation – as the U.S. petrodollar has lost its potency as the world reserve currency hegemony.

U.S. allies have been easily won over to recognizing China, and partnering with its Asian Infrastructure Investment bank, signaling a new era for finance under globalism. The new currency will be pegged to a global basket that China is part of.

What will this new currency look like, and will it become a reality? A mining executive shed light on the manipulation of gold behind the scenes, with a quest for parity undervalue that is encouraging China to accumulate gold at a rapid pace, so that it can hold reserves equivalent to those the U.S. reportedly holds:

I think there will be a reset of the financial industry…

I think China is being allowed to accumulate gold purposefully by the American government… I believe that the Chinese need to own at least the same amount as the U.S. owns before this reset occursI think that there’s some kind of deal that’s being made between all the central banks behind the scenes and that’s why you’re seeing governments accumulating the metal.

I do believe there will be some kind of new currency created with the backing… and it might not be a direct backing of the metal… but it’ll be some kind of blend of currency.. it could be through SDR’s… Special Drawing Rights… or some type of mechanism… I think that’s where we’re going.

It could mean a major shakeup to the norms that Americans and other Westerners have been accustomed.

But beyond that, the currency will ultimately be digital. Cash will likely be banned to enhance control, and all payments will be authorized and monitored. Through a new wave of bank fees and fines, and (outrageously) charges for deposits, average people will be hurt on all sides of transactions by money that has been thoroughly debased and manipulated.

The Federal Reserve bank and its owners, the largest banks on Wall Street, want badly to be able to charge you interest for the privilege of depositing your funds. The problem is getting you to stand for it.

The cashless digital grid will become fully a tool of banker control that is global in scope and backed at its root by central planning at central banks supported by a system of total consumer surveillance over spending, exchanges and all other transactions.

Listen to more about IMF’s revaluation of the Chinese yuan, discussion starts at 8:50:



 Washington Protects Its Lies With More Lies


By Paul Craig Roberts

My distrust has deepened of Seymour Hersh’s retelling of the Obama regime’s extra-judicial murder of Osama bin Laden by operating illegally inside a sovereign country.  That Hersh’s story, which is of very little inherent interest, received such a large amount of attention, is almost proof of orchestration in order to substantiate the Obama regime’s claim to have killed a person who had been dead for a decade.

Americans are gullible, and thought does not come easily to them, but if they try hard enough they must wonder why it would be necessary for the government to concoct a totally false account of the deed if Washington kills an alleged terrorist. Why not just give the true story? Why does the true story have to come out years later from anonymous sources leaked to Hersh?

I can tell you for a fact that if SEALs had encountered bin Laden in Abbottabad, they would have used stun grenades and tear gas to take him alive. Bin Laden would have been paraded before the media, and a jubilant White House would have had a much photographed celebration pinning medals on the SEALs who captured him.

Instead, we have a murder without a body, which under law classifies as no murder, and a story that was changed several times by the White House itself within 48 hours of the alleged raid and has now been rewritten again by disinformation planted on Hersh.

Perhaps the release of book titles allegedly found in bin Laden’s alleged residence in Abbottabad is part of the explanation. Who can imagine the “terror mastermind” sitting around reading what the presstitute London Telegraph calls bin Laden’s library of conspiracy theories about 9/11 and Washington’s foreign and economic policies?

Keep in mind that the government’s claim that these books were in bin Laden’s Abbottabad library comes from the same government that told you Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that Assad used chemical weapons, that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and that Russia invaded Ukraine. There is no evidence whatsoever that bin Laden had these books, just as there is no evidence for any claim made by Washington. In the absence of evidence, Washington’s position amounts to this: “It is true if we say so.”

I would wager that the Hersh story was planted in order to gin up renewed interest in the bin Laden saga, which could then be used to discredit Washington’s critics. Notice that the authors in bin Laden’s alleged library are those careful and knowledgeable people who have severely whipped Washington with the truth. The whip wielders are Noam Chomsky, David Ray Griffin, Michel Chossudovsky, Greg Palast, Michael Scheuer, William Blum. You get the picture. You mustn’t believe these truth-tellers, because bin Laden approved of them and had their books in his library. By extension, will these truth-tellers be accused of aiding and abetting terrorism?

Obama claims to have settled the score in mafia godfather fashion with bin Laden for 9/11. But there is no body and not even a consistent story about what happened to the body. The sailors aboard the ship from which the White House reported bin Laden was given a burial at sea report no such burial took place. The SEAL unit that allegedly supplied the team that killed an unarmed and undefended bin Laden was mysteriously wiped out in a helicopter crash. It turns out that the SEALs were flown into combat against the Taliban in an antique, half-century-old 1960s vintage helicopter. Parents of the dead SEALs are demanding to have unanswered questions answered, a story that the presstitute media has conveniently dropped for Washington’s convenience.

Other than 9/11 itself, never has such a major event as bin Laden’s killing had such an enormous number of contradictory official and quasi-official explanations, unanswered questions and evasions. And the vast number of evasions and contradictions arouse no interest from the Western media or from the somnolent and insouciant American public.

Now it turns out that Washington has “lost” the bin Laden “death files,” thus protecting in perpetuity the fabricated story of bin Laden’s killing.

Here is Tom Hartman’s interview with David Ray Griffin: “Is bin Laden dead or alive?

Here is Philip Kraske’s OpEdNews article on Steve Kroft’s orchestrated “60 Minutes” interview with Obama on the killing of Osama bin Laden.

This article provided courtesy of PaulCraigRoberts.org.



Don’t you know that being ignorant of your government’s lies and misrepresentations, gives them the power to continue? It also shows their total disrespect for those who voted for them, and empowers them to do even more nefarious skullduggery. Liars for leaders cannot be ignored, or chaos reigns. We will all pay an enormous price for accepting their actions as normal for politicians. Damn near every country on earth hates us, the people who you rely on for personal protection have morphed into wannabe killers, your assets belong to the Banking Cartel, your future is a guaranteed physical and emotional misery, and your children will turn on you for your cowardice and failure to protect them. Good luck suckers!

10 13 11 flagbar

Time to Put Your Money in your Mattress! Economists Warn Feds will Grab Retirement Funds



5-28-2015 9-59-55 AM

Dr. Jerome R. Corsi / WND

NEW YORK – The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Tibble v. Edison has once again stoked ongoing fears in the financial services industry that the Obama administration might be preparing for a takeover of private retirement savings.

Some economists believe the court decision sets the ground for the administration to begin nationalizing 401(k) retirement savings plans under the banner of protecting individuals from predatory financial planners. The administration has in mind planners who recommend mutual fund investments on which they receive excessive commissions and fees, which curbs an investor’s gains during the 401(k)’s tax-deferred accumulation phase.

Yet most economists read Tibble much more narrowly. They argue that the justices’ only concern is that an objective methodology be implemented that forces financial planners to make recommendations on the basis of performance, avoiding mutual funds with high loads and fees that benefit financial planners unreasonably.

Is Obama planning to grab your 401(k)?

Economist Martin Armstrong, writing on his blog ArmstrongEconomics.com, asserted the Tibble decision “sets the stage to justify government seizure of private pension funds to protect pensioners.” He noted that 401(k) plans are part of the private pension market he estimates currently totals about $19.4 trillion.

Clearly the size of the retirement savings market is attractive to a federal government at a time when the federal deficit has increased some 80 percent in the past six years, with the federal debt now totaling more than $18 trillion.

An Investment Company Institute report published March 25 suggests the U.S. private retirement savings asset market may be even larger than Armstrong estimates. The ICI pegs total U.S. retirement assets at $24.7 trillion as of Dec. 31, 2014, with IRA assets estimated as $7.4 trillion and 401(k) assets at $4.6 trillion of that accumulated total.

The fear that the Obama administration may seek to grab private retirement assets is not entirely unjustified, as WND has reported. In 2010, the Obama administration began exploring strategies that would require hundreds of billions of dollars in programs such as 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, to invest in U.S. Treasury bonds. The aim would be to lock in secured maturity values while providing the federal government a means of funding the $1.5 trillion a year needed to keep the government operating under the federal budget deficit estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

In 2012, WND reported that in its annual budget proposal, the Obama administration endorsed “Automatic IRAs,” a plan introduced into Congress by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass, and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. According to the plan, private companies would be automatically enrolled in government-mandated IRAs, forcing those businesses to contribute on behalf of their employees a “default amount” equal to 3 percent of an employee’s pay, unless the employee specifically opts out of the plan.

Earlier this year, WND reported the concern expressed by Rush Limbaugh that Obama intends to extract money from private retirement accounts. He cited the White House’s proposed fiscal year 2016 budget as proof Democrats have a plan to tax retirement accounts as a means of funding the administration’s ever-expanding social welfare, including services for the estimated 5-6 million illegal immigrants given “deferred deportation” under Obama’s executive actions.

Supreme Court disciplines financial planners

Columnist Chuck Jaffe, writing in MarketWatch.com, said the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Tibble is a simple idea that impacts all retirement savers.

“Workers should have access to the best fee structures available for their retirement plan,” he said. “The company providing or overseeing the plan has a responsibility to employees to make sure that the investments – and most importantly the fee structure on the plan – is the best available.”



There is no absolute proof any of the above is going to happen, because that’s always been the way government’s work. When it happens we will not see it coming until we wake up some day and smell the shit on the fan. Pass this info to your broker – accountant – or whatever their called and watch his reaction. All of them will deny that snow is cold, or governments go broke. This has been going on in the EU and it will come here just as sure as ice melts in your hand. HEADS UP FOLKS!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM






5-27-2015 8-01-28 AM

By Ron Ewart
May 27, 2015

“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy”….. [or a Republic] —Charles de Montesquieu French Philosopher 1689 to 1755

Our last article entitled “Is It Too Harsh To Force Illegal Aliens to Self-Deport?” was of vital importance to every legal citizen in America. It laid out a succinct and detailed argument on how illegal aliens and the government-created magnets that draw them here, impact our way of life, our culture, our sovereignty, the criminal element, disease and the rule of law, but especially our pocket books. It demonstrated with clarity that to deport or force self-deportation was nowhere near as harsh as the impact that illegal immigration has on every legal American.

Expecting that this article would touch many hearts and minds of legal Americans, we had predicted, unfortunately falsely, a significant response. To our disappointment, we received only four (4) responses. One of those responses said this:

“As always many thanks Ron for your articles. “Too harsh on illegal aliens” was outstanding. From 1972 to 911, my partners and I saw the political fiasco, illegal immigration feel good policies disregarding INA codes for decades from Reagan’s 1986 Amnesty.”

We are grateful for this man’s acknowledgement, but as the poem says, “one swallow does not a summer make.”

Many conservative writers and talk show hosts have regurgitated the conservative message on the airways for decades ad nauseam and in cyber space since the birth of the Internet. Rush Limbaugh, with a huge national audience, has been on the air for going on 26 years and yet, with all that power to persuade he has not been able to stem the tide of liberalism. Rush Limbaugh has done nothing more than exploit the political schism that exists in America today, reaping huge profits from his advertisers and his products in the process. We say, more power to him. He was and still is using a niche’ market and the tools of capitalism to make a profit, as millions do. It matters not that his impact is negligible ….. to him.

Thousands of very good conservative authors write daily or weekly articles on the deadly plague that is Progressivism, as it uses its agenda of collectivism, social justice, radical environmentalism, multi-culturalism, one-world government, political correctness and the public treasury to buy votes, control the masses and maintain perpetual power. But the power of the Progressives has grown to the point that more Americans find a sleazy, hopelessly corrupt, power hungry, insanely ambitious, half man, “What-Difference-Does-It-Make” Hillary Clinton a better candidate for president than any one of the 25 declared or undeclared Republican candidates. That’s not Hillary’s fault! It is a testament to how successful the Progressives have been over the last 100 years in buying off the public for votes …. with your money.

It is going to take the people to rise up en masse, outside of the political system before there will be any changes. It is going to take massive resistance against government policies. Voting and writing to our Senators and Congressmen “ain’t” going to cut it any more, if it ever did. The simple reality is, it boils down to ….. NO GUTS, NO FREEDOM!

We have tried to get people to demonstrate their resistance to government and drafted a Petition calling for a Declaration of Open Resistance. Out of the thousands of people who read and forward our articles, seven (7) people actually signed the petition. SEVEN people out of tens of thousands had the guts! The excuse is that petitions are worthless and the excuse is valid when only seven people sign the petition. A petition will only have impact if millions of people sign it and act on it.

Most of the American people are like lambs to the slaughter. Half are on the dole and won’t bite the hand that feeds them and the other half are just plain scared of government. They have good reason to be scared. Nevertheless, they aren’t going to do anything to upset their little apple cart, or draw attention to themselves. The similarities to what happened twice in Europe in the 20the Century, are deeply troubling.

Sure there are some fighters in our midst and they are ready to fight, if it wasn’t for the fact that they are too few, nationally disorganized, rudderless, have no concrete plan to win and out of touch with others who are ready to fight.

In contrast, every time we write an article, we draw attention from the government. They monitor our website and might even have our phone tapped for all we know. We are still fighting the IRS, as are other beleaguered conservatives. Most conservative authors know what we are talking about and have felt the “sting” of government because of what they write. We hear stories of clandestine censorship, missing e-mails, disappearing e-mails, blocked e-mails and hacked websites. About 4 to 5 times a year our e-mails are blocked by Comcast, requiring a significant effort on our part to get them un-blocked.

In America’s fly-over country, rural landowners are taking a direct, frontal attack from government on their livelihood, their income and their property rights, from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Endangered Species Act, (ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Agency (USFW) and eminent domain, local and state government regulations, along with the U. S. Congress that provides the legislation and the enforcement power. These federal, state and local agencies are owned, occupied and are driven by powerful, wealthy environmental organizations. Environmentally indoctrinated graduates from America’s liberal colleges, staff these agencies. Rural landowners are virtually powerless to stop them and are forced to knuckle under when “Uncle Gov” comes calling. Who speaks for the rural landowner? NARLO does!

For 10 years and over 500 articles, some of them damn good, and like so many other authors, we have failed to make a difference. Progressivism has metastasized into a full-blown, invasive, out-of-control cancer in America with no cure in sight until an excruciating, painful, disfiguring death overtakes her. Any potential cure could, in all likelihood, kill the patient before it cures the cancer, as many cancer cures do, that is of course if anyone invents a cure.

“You can hit a nail with a hammer a million times, but if the force of the hammer is not greater than the friction the nail encounters as it enters the wood, the nail will not move.” —Ron Ewart

There have been many workable solutions proffered by thousands of dedicated patriots. But without a charismatic leader, a well organized national entity, millions of devoted followers and the billions of dollars it will take to implement any one of those workable solutions, there will not be enough energy to overcome the 100 plus year inertia of the Progressives and the Progressives know it.

So far, our conservative “hammer” has not had sufficient force to drive the nail into Progressivism (Socialism) and silence it forever.

Insanity, according to Einstein, is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. That is exactly the insanity that all conservative authors, talk show hosts and bloggers have been unwittingly practicing. Like voting, writing articles or espousing conservative principles on the airways and in cyberspace are not enough. Unless peaceful solutions are designed and implemented to “cure” this cancer on a massive scale, radical and violent alternatives will suddenly erupt in skirmishes and clashes all over the place, like they have in Los Angeles, Ferguson and Baltimore, but for entirely different reasons. The rallying call at these clashes will be “FREEDOM!“, punctuated by guns. These skirmishes and clashes will be put down with even more intense violence by over-powering government forces and nothing will be accomplished. What is even worse, many of the skirmishes could easily erupt in full-scale civil war. Whether skirmishes, clashes, or civil war, freedom will have not been assuaged.

We have put forth many initiatives to inspire people to take action in the defense of liberty. Sadly, we have nothing but an empty wallet to show for it. At our age wasting time and money is a fool’s errand. In the coming weeks we will be re-assessing our effectiveness as a conservative author and determine whether to continue, or whether to pursue more lucrative endeavors.

What we will not do is suspend or terminate our efforts on behalf of the American rural landowner through our almost 10-year old, nationally known organization, the “National Association of Rural Landowners”. Our website is crammed full of useful information and tools for the urban and rural landowner. If you are a rural landowner, you owe it to yourself to check us out. If you are in need of an advocate, or a problem solver for land use issues, we are here to HELP.

[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


Do not make the mistake of assuming that Ron is going belly up, and giving up the fight. He and I will fight this tyrannical bunch of scumbags until our blood covers the ground. I refuse to live in the world they are building, and I doubt not that Ron feels the same way.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM





By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

Since I first started to write columns for NewsWithViews in 2005 about the need to revitalize “the Militia of the several States”—a full decade ago—that subject has received scant support, sympathy, or even mention from the run of self-styled conservatives, patriots, constitutionalists, and (most depressing of all) champions of the Second Amendment who have made themselves prominent on the Internet. Instead, if they say anything at all about the matter, they tend to parrot the line put out by a certain notorious “‘poverty’ law center”, that anyone who mentions the word “militia” (except to disparage the concept) is some sort of “extremist” or other crackpot whose goal is “to overthrow the federal government”. Or they take the position that the only “militia” in which Americans can have confidence are “militia” with no connections to “government” at all—and that somehow the Constitution provides for such “militia”. Or they contend that Americans’ right to defend themselves with arms against private criminals and tyrants in public office has nothing to do with any “militia”, but is exclusively an “individual” right with no “collective” purpose or manifestation. Apparently, as far as these people are concerned, that the original Constitution incorporates “the Militia of the several States” as permanent, integral components of the federal system of government—and that the Second Amendment conjoins “[a] well regulated Militia” with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the very same sentence, and even declares that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”—are facts without significance (or facts the significance of which has somehow escaped them).

These are not the only examples of the astoundingly tortuous mental gymnastics in which such people indulge, for what reasons Heaven alone can fathom. For, on the one hand, many of them predict with approval that Americans may soon have, and will want, to depend upon leaders in the Armed Forces who will thrust themselves into positions of political authority in order to save this country in the event of a nationwide crisis. Yet, on the other hand, not a few of these very same prophets repeatedly warn Americans that “the federal government” is plotting to deploy the Armed Forces to impose “martial law” throughout this country, under color of either a real calamity or a “false-flag” deception. Apparently, in these people’s imaginations, at one and the same time the Armed Forces are not just capable of, but also intent upon, both a coup d’état to enforce the Constitution and a coup d’état to eviscerate the Constitution. (Note that in the term “Armed Forces” I include both the regular Army of the United States and the National Guard—because, although people often assume that the National Guard is some sort of “militia”, it actually is not any kind of “militia” at all, but instead consists of the “Troops, or Ships of War” which the States may “keep * * * in time of Peace” “with[ ] the Consent of Congress”, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution.)

I presume, however, that the upper echelons of America’s Armed Forces are not yet composed predominantly of aspiring Bonapartists, Peronists, and other assorted uniformed usurpers and traitors who itch to seize control of this country under whatever pretext of faux patriotism or pressure of some manufactured crisis can supply them with a plausible excuse for the imposition of “martial law”. Rather, until the necessary experiment falsifies the hypothesis, I believe that the true patriots within the Armed Forces should, could, and (with the proper encouragement and education) would go a long way towards saving this country by doing exactly what that “‘poverty’ law center” and its partisans, dupes, and useful idiots of both the political “Left” and “Right” so deprecate. Through successfully promoting revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, the Armed Forces would help to prevent the assassination of the Constitution, by foreclosing the deadly threat of “martial law”, not just now but once and for all. (As I have written a lengthy book, entitled By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”, on this subject I shall not elaborate on it here.) Not only that, the Armed Forces would help to provide the institutions Americans desperately need in order (among other things) to secure honest elections, to introduce an economically sound and constitutional alternative currency within the several States, to put teeth into “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, and to make meaningful the assertion of the Tenth Amendment that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, both today and for the foreseeable future. (As I have written an even more lengthy book, entitled The Sword and Sovereignty, on this subject I shall not elaborate on it here, either.)

But how should this be done? Quite simply. Every time questions of “homeland security” arise in Congress and the States’ legislatures, spokesmen for the Armed Forces who are called as expert witnesses should make it a point to testify in favor of revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” as the missing, critical, and indispensable element in any coherent, comprehensive, and constitutional plan for “homeland security”. Not just referring to revitalization, not just recommending it, not just urging it—but demanding it in no uncertain terms. Explaining that no fully constitutional Militia now exist in any State in this Union. And emphasizing that something needs to be done as soon as possible to correct this situation—because, without revitalization of the Militia, this country very soon will find itself in exceedingly dire trouble with which the Armed Forces are almost entirely unqualified, as well as quite ill prepared, to deal.

That is what spokesmen for the Armed Forces should be telling legislators at every opportunity. If they did, their audiences would have to pay serious attention to what was being said. The big “mainstream media” could not get away with refusing to report the story. Average Americans would take notice. And even the mass of self-described conservatives, patriots, constitutionalists, and champions of the Second Amendment could no longer disregard or dismiss the matter!

Exactly why, though, should the Armed Forces take it upon themselves—indeed, perhaps go out on a political limb—to promote revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”? For two reasons: principle and practicality.

  1. Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” is a matter of imperative moral, political, and legal principle.Perhaps the most familiar of the mottos people associate with the Armed Forces is “Duty, Honor, Country”. But what is the very first and most important duty all members of the Armed Forces—and especially the higher ranks in the Officer Corps—owe to their country? Why, to do their best to understand, to protect, to defend, and to promote America’s foundational laws: namely, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Consider first the Declaration. Intent upon “let[ting] Facts be submitted to a candid world”, the Declaration set out a litany of abuses related to King George III’s deployment of “Standing Armies” and their imposition of “martial law” against the American Colonies:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our legislatures.—He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.—He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:—For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:— * * * For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:—For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences * * * .—[and] He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging war against us.

These, the Declaration asserted, constituted “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”.

Moreover, the Declaration did not reflect American patriots’ mere disapproval, or disparagement, or even disgust with those abuses, but instead evidenced their downright denunciation of such wrongdoing. Those “repeated injuries and usurpations” constituted no less than violations of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, so serious that they justified “the good People” of the Colonies in absolving themselves “from all Allegiance to the British Crown” and in severing “all political connection between them[selves] and the State of Great Britain”.

Self-evidently, in the light of this history, no member of America’s Armed Forces who takes seriously the motto “Duty, Honor, Country” should desire to give anyone the impression—or worse, grounds for suspicion—or worst of all, an actual basis in “Facts [to] be submitted to a candid world”—that he would ever advocate, participate in, or aspire to take a commanding rôle with respect to the sort of abuses in condemnation of which the Declaration excoriated George III. Nonetheless, the present-day para-militarization of State and Local police forces, the provision to those forces of military equipment by the Department of Defense, and the close coöperation being effected between the Armed Forces and State and Local “law-enforcement agencies” in various domestic “anti-terrorism” exercises all supply “Facts” from which “a candid world” could reasonably draw the conclusion that someone is preparing the Armed Forces to implementsomething akin to “martial law” somewhere within this country under some circumstances in the foreseeable future—as well as conditioning common Americans to accept this turn of events as somehow justifiable as well as inevitable. The obvious danger is that, once the precedent for such a deployment has been set anywhere within the United States, rogue public officials can concoct one ersatz “crisis” or another in order to rationalize further deployments of the Armed Forces just about everywhere, until “martial law” (in effect if not in name) becomes commonplace.

Unless Americans will have lost their wits entirely, though, they will eventually recognize these events as parts of what the Declaration of Independence described as “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object[, which] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”—and the stage will then be set for desperate patriots once again to assert “their right” and “their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”. Yet that, one may rest assured, will be a consummation devoutly to be avoided, if at all possible. Certainly the Armed Forces should not want to be the immediate cause of such a calamity it—indeed, to be the moving parties, as the Armed Forces are the only establishments that can actually attempt to impose “martial law” within America. Fortunately for them, they can always put that praiseworthy desire into effect. For they are the only parties capable of absolutely guaranteeing that “martial law” will never be imposed, because if they do not impose it no one else can. For part two click below.



To be sure, one must take seriously the objection that extraordinary situations may arise “in the Course of human events” when and where only some “martial” institution can adequately execute the “law”, and that this possibility must somehow justify some form of “martial law” administered by America’s Armed Forces, notwithstanding the Declaration of Independence’s unqualified animadversions on “martial law” administered by Britain’s “Standing Armies”. Obviously, though, the great statesmen who subscribed to the Declaration, along with the other enlightened patriots of that time, were not unaware of this seeming paradox—or of how to resolve it.

The solution to the apparent problem of “martial law” is found, in pellucid terms, in the Constitution. No spurious distinction between America’s Armed Forces of today and Britain’s “Standing Armies” of yesteryear need be attempted. For “martial law” administered by Americans can no more claim a place within the Constitution than “martial law” as administered by the British found favor in the Declaration. That is, as a matter of constitutional law, “martial law” in that sense can find no place at all.

As the Preamble to the Constitution attests, “WE THE PEOPLE * * * ordain[ed] and establish[ed] th[e] Constitution”. However, WE THE PEOPLE enjoyed the legal authority to do so only because the Declaration of Independence “solemnly publish[ed] and declare[d], That the[ ] United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; * * * and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do”. But “may of right do” in accordance with what standards of “right”? Obviously, the standards established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” which, as the Declaration explained, alone “entitle[d]” Americans “to assume among the powers of the earth, [a] separate and equal station”. Those “Laws” establish that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers”—and only “just powers”—“from the consent of the governed”. Even the People themselves cannot consent to be governed by any “Form of Government” purportedly vested with “[un]just powers”. (Which, of course, is why the Preamble lists “establish[ing] Justice”, not “imposing Injustice”, as one of the Constitution’s six goals.)

Plainly enough, America’s Founders did not consider “martial law” such as George III attempted to fasten upon them to be a “just power” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, or they would not have catalogued and condemned it in the Declaration of Independence as part of “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” on the King’s part. Therefore, imposing “martial law” of that ilk on America’s citizenry cannot be included within the “Acts and Things” which the Declaration asserted that “Independent States may of right do”. As an unjust power, it could not have been delegated to any “Form of Government” by “the consent of the governed” in the late 1700s—neither by WE THE PEOPLE to their State governments in the several States’ constitutions, nor by WE THE PEOPLE to the government of the Union in the Constitution of the United States. And because a power to impose “martial law” could not have been delegated to any “Form of Government” in America then, no “Form of Government” in America can claim to exercise such a power now. “Martial law” is as morally, politically, and legally impossible under the Constitution today as it was impossible under the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Nonetheless, the Constitution does provide for certain “martial” institutions to which it assigns the authority, responsibility, and capability “to execute the Laws of the Union” “when called into the actual Service of the United States”: namely, “the Militia of the several States”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16; and art. II, § 2, cl. 1. It delegates no such authority or responsibility to the Armed Forces, though. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 12 through 14; and art. II, § 2, cl. 1. So, if “martial law” is defined in general terms as the execution of the “Laws of the Union” (or of the several States each within her own jurisdiction) by a “martial” institution, then the only institutions constitutionally entitled, and required, to engage in such execution are “the Militia of the several States”, either “when called into the actual Service of the United States” or otherwise in the performance of duties mandated to them by their own States.

By delegating to the Militia—and to the Militia alone—the right, power, and duty to execute the laws, the Constitution solves the apparent paradox of “martial law” mentioned above. For, although the Militia are governmental institutions of the States, and permanent components of the federal system, they are not “standing armies”. Perhaps nothing makes this dichotomy clearer than Article 13 of Virginia’s original Declaration of Rights in 1776: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty”. Similarly, the Second Amendment declares “well regulated Militia” to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. So the “law” executed by the Militia, even in a “martial” fashion were the circumstances to warrant it, would always be executed by THE PEOPLE themselves for the ultimate purpose of securing their own freedom.

The problem which confronts America today is that, if constitutional “martial law” were ever needed in response to some major nationwide crisis, constitutional “martial law” could not be had. For the constitutional “Militia of the several States”, for all intents and purposes, do not exist—and therefore cannot be “called into the actual Service of the United States” in order “to execute the Laws of the Union”, or called forth to fulfill the analogous duty for their States. Some Americans have voluntarily enrolled in the National Guard, which a statute deceptively denominates as “the organized militia”, when actually it is no “militia” at all—whereas all other Americans who are eligible for service in the Militia have been consigned by that same statute to what it calls “the unorganized militia”. See 10 U.S.C. § 311. Relevant statutes of the States follow the same pattern. As the name implies, “the unorganized militia” is precisely that: unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, untrained, and ungoverned. Contrast U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16. But, as American legal history proves beyond any possible doubt, an “unorganized militia” is as much of a contradiction in terms as a “square circle”—and therefore is a constitutional impossibility. (See my book The Sword and Sovereignty.)

What obviously needs to be done in order to forefend the danger of “martial law” of the sort denounced by the Declaration of Independence, as well as to provide for the possibility that a “martial” execution of the laws allowable under the Declaration and the Constitution may become necessary in this country the not-too-distant future, is for the “martial” institutions which rogue public officials expect will impose “martial law” on common Americans—that is, the Armed Forces—to state publicly, categorically, and repeatedly that: (i) the imposition of “martial law” in any form is not and cannot be the constitutional mission of the Armed Forces; and (ii) execution of “the Laws of the Union” and of the several States in a “martial” fashion under exigent circumstances is the constitutional prerogative of “the Militia of the several States”, and only the Militia. Inasmuch as no one is better positioned at the present time to make this clear to legislators and the general public than are the Armed Forces themselves, it is their duty to do so.

  1. Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” is a matter of practical necessity.Unfortunately, even with a constitutional principle in one hand, today one still needs an Abraham Lincoln Federal Reserve Note in the other hand to be able to buy a small espresso in a fashionable coffee shop. That is, constitutional principles command very little purchasing power in the contemporary “real world” of egotism, materialism, and hedonism, which allow only two notes on their discordant scale: namely, “me…me…me” and “dough…dough…dough”. So even the Armed Forces will need some very practical incentives to promote revitalization of the Militia. Some of the most important of these, however, are not difficult to identify.
  2. Just as an authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” forms no part of the Armed Forces’ express constitutional mandate, so too does it fall outside, and would be expected to hinder the fulfillment, of their vital practical mission to deter aggressors in foreign venues and to defeat them if deterrence fails and Congress must “declare War”. (Surely it is no accident that Congress’s power to do so, set out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, is immediately followed by its powers “[t]o raise and support Armies” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” in Clauses 12 and 13.) Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” will enable the Armed Forces to devote their undivided attention to their constitutionally proper rôle, relieved of the possible burden of being diverted into domestic difficulties through deployments that smack of “martial law”. The Militia would “secure the home front” by maintaining law and order domestically in its proper form: namely, what the Second Amendment denotes as “a free State”.
  3. In the event of an unavoidable nationwide domestic crisis, such as the collapse of the monetary and banking systems, revitalization of the Militia would be requisite, for the obvious reason that the Armed Forces could never deploy enough “boots on the ground” to re-establish and then maintain law and order in every locality where significant social unrest arose and civil disobedience broke out. Part of the explicit constitutional authority of the Militia is to “suppress Insurrections”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. And enrollments in revitalized Militia would outnumber by far the total possible enlistments in the Armed Forces. Even if the Armed Forces could mobilize forces arguably sufficient in raw numbers to quell violent disturbances throughout the entire country, those forces would face innumerable, often novel, and predictably insuperable difficulties in dealing with other untold problems peculiar to the thousands of unfamiliar Localities they would be called upon to police. Revitalized Militia, in contrast, would be composed entirely of Local citizens—raised, organized, specially trained, and always deployed at the Local level—and imbued with intimate knowledge of and sympathy for their Localities and the people who lived there, which would enable them to deal intelligently and effectively with all of the disparate situations which arose in different areas of the country.
  4. A collapse of the monetary and banking systems is not the only conceivable nationwide or regional catastrophe which might threaten this country in the near future. Consideration must also be given to pandemics, famines, natural disasters, and massive industrial failures or accidents, to name but a few. The Armed Forces are not prepared, and therefore cannot be expected—let alone ordered—to deal with all of the complex challenges each and every one of these events could bring forth. Indeed, the Armed Forces can never be prepared for such duty, because they have few, if any, places in their tables of organization for people with the various kinds of highly technical knowledge and specialized experience which would be vital to draw upon in the event of such crises. In contrast, being composed of just about every adult American not enrolled in the Armed Forces, “the Militia of the several States” would not just as a matter of fact have access to, but also as a matter of law could call upon and dispose of, almost the entirety of national talent in every relevant field—with many, if not the vast majority, of these people already resident in, and therefore familiar with, precisely those areas in which the crises would most seriously manifest themselves.
  5. Even in the event of an actual invasion of the United States, the Armed Forces would need support from the Militia. That support would be forthcoming, because one of the explicit constitutional responsibilities of the Militia is to “repel Invasions”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. Moreover, that support would likely be necessary. For any initially successful invasion would involve hordes of enemy troops which would have to be fought with every tactic available, from direct counterattack at the invasion sites to guerrilla and partisan warfare throughout every part of the country into which the invaders penetrated—which types of warfare would require full and unstinting participation by the Militia.

To expect such a “Red Dawn” scenario always to be confined to movie theaters is naïve in an era in which America’s borders apparently cannot be made secure against even an invasion of illegal aliens composed almost exclusively of unarmed men, women, and children. (And, by revitalization of the Militia, even these now-porous borders could finally be sealed, without deployment of the Armed Forces.)

A final note of concern and caution. In the present state of political, economic, and social uncertainty and unrest throughout America, the Armed Forces will surely forfeit the confidence of every thinking citizen if, instead of supporting revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, they attempt to impose “martial law” anywhere within this country when some major crisis breaks out (for which eventuality many observers believe they are training right now). For, by such behavior, they will prove “to a candid world”: (i) that they are politically unreliable “Standing Armies” with scant concern for the Constitution; and, worse yet, (ii) that they are willing to aid and abet America’s dysfunctional and disloyal political-cum-economic Establishment in “affect[ing] to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” throughout this land—even if that turns out to be part and parcel of the Establishment’s “design to reduce the[ People] under absolute Despotism”. Confidence so lost can never be regained. Once the Armed Forces have alienated themselves from the people, the full consequences of their breach of trust may be unpredictable. But they surely will prove to be undesirable in the extreme.

© 2015 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volumePieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes.www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…

He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.

E-Mail: Not available 

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Memorial Day Dishonor and Disgrace



by Stephen Lendman

General Smedley Butler was right. War is a racket – based on Big Lies, waged for wealth, power and dominance.

Wars have nothing to do with upholding democratic values, humanitarian intervention or fighting for peace, stability and security.

They have everything to do with conquest, colonization and control – forcing one nation’s will on others, stealing resources and exploiting populations.

America dishonors its war dead – sacrificed on the alter of greed and lust for power.

Privileged elites let others do their dying for them – making the world safe for bankers, war profiteers and other corporate predators.

Innocent youths are sent to die based on Big Lies. Sick and/or wounded returning home are often abandoned.

Epidemic levels of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) affect hundreds of thousands of combat forces and vets. Many go untreated.

Independent reports reveal nearly half of Afghan and Iraq vets have emotional and/or physical combat injuries. Many are maimed for life.

Combat stress is more than many can bear. The disturbing toll wars take is one of the most underreported stories. A generation of combat vets won’t ever be the same again.

Many needing help don’t get it. Too few get enough. An epidemic of vet and active duty suicides symbolizes war’s hellishness.

Many deaths aren’t called suicides – at home or abroad in war theaters. Misreporting is commonplace.

Many suicide victims are age 50 or older. Combat-related trauma is long-lasting. According to a Center for a New American Security (CNAS) suicide report, veterans commit suicide every 80 minutes.

Study authors Margaret Harrell and Nancy Berglass said:

“America is losing its battle against suicide by veterans and service members. And as more troops return from deployment, the risk will only grow.”

Many vets return home feeling helpless. Marine Corps vet Jason Christiansen watched his life unravel. “At one point, I was sitting there with a gun in my mouth,” he said. A friend urged him to seek help.

The Veterans Crisis Line gets hundreds of thousands of calls. CNAS said from 2005 – 2010, “approximately one service member committed suicide every 36 hours.” Too little too late reflects DOD/VA policy.

For what? America hasn’t had an enemy since Japan formally surrendered in early September 1945 aboard the battleship Missouri.

In the decade post-9/11, the VA paid $200 million to nearly 1,000 families in wrongful death cases.

They’re the tip of the iceberg. Malpractice takes countless others. Included are veteran and active duty suicides for denial of vitally needed physical and/or emotional care.

Wrongful diagnoses and botched surgeries are commonplace by uncaring medical professionals in a system encouraging malpractice by devoting resources to war-making, not caring of its sick, wounded or dying.

Malignant tumors are allowed to grow. Over-dosing on dangerous drugs compensates for denial of proper treatment.

Elderly vets promised healthcare for life die from fatal neglect. How many others suffer out of sight and mind?

It bears repeating. America dishonors its war dead, sick, wounded and dying. Paul Craig Roberts is right. Memorial Day is a cruel hoax – a national disgrace.

It’s been this way from inception since 1866 – more than ever today by far.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

The Senate voted down a bill to renew the Patriot Act. The laws worst provisions will end on June 1.



5-23-2015 4-32-13 PM


Senate Votes Against Patriot Act Renewal!

5-23-2015 4-32-36 PM

Fellow Americans,

This is a major victory. Late last night, the Senate held two votes. The first was on the USA Freedom Act, a piece of legislation to “reform” the NSA’s data collection methods. In reality, the NSA would have been just as powerful and able to spy on Americans which is why Senators like Rand Paul rejected it.

The vote was 57-42, which fell three votes short of the 60-vote threshold to pass. The USA Freedom Act was rejected.

Then, not to be outdone, Mitch McConnell staged a vote for a clean renewal of the Patriot Act. Even though the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA’s data collection methods were illegal, Mitch McConnell wants to renew them.

The vote on the clean renewal was 45-54, missing the threshold by 15-votes. Another rejected attempt to renew the Patriot Act.

We did it!

Instead of keeping the Senate in session like he threatened to, Mitch McConnell conceded. Now, in all likelihood, the most atrocious parts of the Patriot Act will end!

But not so fast…

Senator McConnell has scheduled an emergency session for May 31, the day before these Patriot Act provisions expire. This is when he and the RINOs will stage their last stand.

Right now, it is important to thank all those who voted against infringing on Americans’ 4th Amendment rights. But with that said, we need to take this opportunity to remind Congress that when Leadership calls for another vote in the coming days, we expect for them to vote against this horrible legislation once again.

Make no mistake… Your activism made a difference here. All told, we sent 110,000 faxes to Congress on this issue.

Just as it is important to threaten our Congressmen and Senators when they stray from the path, it is equally important for us to thank them when they honor their oaths!

Tell Congress ‘Thank You’ for letting the PATRIOT Act die and restoring Americans’ 4th Amendment rights!

All the best,

Joe Otto

Conservative Daily

Tell Your Friends!

Make sure your friends read this too…we need every voice we can get to change the status quo in Washington!
Copyright 2015 PoliZoo LLC, P.O. Box 1382, Parker, CO 80134. All rights reserved.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM




By Michael V. Copeland

Partner, Andreessen Horowitz

Not since the arrival of the almighty dollar has currency been poised for a more dramatic leap forward.

There was a time when people happily used chickens, pigs, or a nice pile of lumber as payment for a cow, some clothes, or anything else of value. And then some smart people got behind a breakthrough—they introduced currency.

Swatches of buckskin, stamped pieces of gold, and later, paper notes—these were a mighty intellectual and technological leap ahead from that clucking bird. It may not seem like it in today’s world, where cash has a whiff of the downright prehistoric, but paper currency was mind-blowing in its heyday—the first U.S. government-issued currency debuted during the Civil War—because of its advanced features: It was lightweight, portable, reliable (hyper-inflationary events notwithstanding), efficient, and powerful. These are descriptors we might apply to the latest smartphone today.

The point is, currency for hundreds of years has been an evolving form of technology, with the faster, better, cheaper underpinnings found in all great technologies. But arguably, not since the arrival of the greenback has currency been poised for a more dramatic leap forward. Digital currency is finally taking hold.

Driven by two massive technological waves—the Internet and the mobile phone—digital currency is bringing banking to the unbanked; it’s making new forms of transactions financially feasible; and it’s allowing currency to do things it could never do when trapped in a physical form.

With digital currency as the stream through which value flows, barriers to truly global trade are poised to fall. The knock-on effect is that the advantage that developed nations held for so long—as hubs through which value of all kinds move—is weakening. As with all forms of digital goods, it’s the most connected nation, or company, or individual that has the power. That does not necessarily mean the nations and companies that have traditionally led the global economy will continue to lead. The fastest, most secure data exchange will win—wherever it may be.

Digital currency acts as a catalyst for all kinds of businesses—large, small, legal, and not so legal. It’s enabling a whole new wave of competition. Whether you are running the corporate show, or investing in it, be prepared to take digital currency on, or be prepared to be left behind.

The digital currency everyone has heard of lately is Bitcoin, but there are many other forms this new platform takes. Each has its network within which it is exchanged. For Bitcoin that is the Internet, and by extension, the globe. For others it might be a single country, a company, or a game (hard to call it a currency if you can’t get it out of the game, but it’s pretty close). At a high level, what all these currencies have in common is the conversion of value into ones and zeros, into digital data. That in itself isn’t revolutionary. Banking today is mostly a function of moving around digital data. Where it gets far more interesting is when smart software hooks into that data and emerges on the front-end as new services serving networks of people and organizations—that’s when new digital currencies will be able to take on properties we’ve never seen. For example, banking without any banks.

In the U.S. with banks on every other downtown corner, it is hard to wrap your head around the fact that more than 2.5 billion people worldwide don’t have bank accounts. What they do have, however, are mobile phones. Take a form of digital currency, introduce some software that allows value to be exchanged on phones between people and businesses, and all of a sudden “money” is moving where it never has. That is the case in Kenya with the digital currency M-Pesa (“M” stands for mobile, “Pesa” is Swahili for money).

Launched in 2007 by the nation’s largest wireless carrier, Safaricom, M-Pesa is a service that allows registered users to do things like deposit money in accounts, transfer money person-to-person, or to one of tens of thousands of shops that take the digital currency. You put value in; it resides on the network (so if you lose your phone you don’t lose your money) and you take it out on your phone.

Even more interesting is that the service has led to a wide variety of businesses being built on top of it that couldn’t have been anticipated—such as shops and bars, travel insurance on animals being brought to market by farmers, and of course lots of money transfers from the city to relatives in rural areas. Saving for later—to buy a home, or to buy that thing to start a business—is another byproduct of this form of digital currency. M-Pesa’s success has been phenomenal. Recent statistics show that fully one-quarter of the Kenyan economy flows through M-Pesa.

Other countries are taking a crack at a similar mobile digital currency. Vodacom (majority owned by UK-based Vodafone, which owns a minority stake of Safaricom) has launched M-Pesa in other African nations, as well as India and parts of Eastern Europe. In Latin America, Ecuador recently announced it would launch a nationwide digital currency, residing largely on people’s smartphones to accompany the U.S. dollars that are the country’s official currency. The hope is that a digital currency will bring the same safety and ease of monetary transfer that the M-Pesa has to Kenyans to the roughly 40% of Ecuadoreans who don’t have access to a bank account. Plus, it offers Ecuadoreans the opportunity to start saving. The difference in Ecuador is that the Bank of Ecuador is backing the digital currency, essentially bypassing the big commercial banks in the nation, at least for now.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Militarization Is More Than Tanks and Rifles: It’s a Cultural Disease, Acclimating the Citizenry to Life in a Police State



 5-9-2015 3-43-16 PM

By John W. Whitehead
May 19, 2015

“If we’re training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve. A soldier’s mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers to have that mentality? Of course not.”— Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member of the military

Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it’s brilliant timing.

Only now—after the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security (DHS) and Defense have passed off billions of dollars worth of military equipment to local police forces, after police agencies have been trained in the fine art of war, after SWAT team raids have swelled in number to more than 80,000 a year, after it has become second nature for local police to look and act like soldiers, after communities have become acclimated to the presence of militarized police patrolling their streets, after Americans have been taught compliance at the end of a police gun or taser, after lower income neighborhoods have been transformed into war zones, after hundreds if not thousands of unarmed Americans have lost their lives at the hands of police who shoot first and ask questions later, after a whole generation of young Americans has learned to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates—only now does President Obama lift a hand to limit the number of military weapons being passed along to local police departments.

Not all, mind you, just some.

Talk about too little, too late.

Months after the White House defended a federal program that distributed $18 billion worth of military equipment to local police, Obama has announced that he will ban the federal government from providing local police departments with tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms and large-caliber firearms.

Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot gear and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo more training and collect data on the equipment’s use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to “incentivize police departments to adopt the report’s recommendations.”

While this is a grossly overdue first step of sorts, it is nevertheless a first step from an administration that has been utterly complicit in accelerating the transformation of America’s police forces into extensions of the military. Indeed, as investigative journalist Radley Balko points out, while the Obama administration has said all the right things about the need to scale back on a battlefield mindset, it has done all the wrong things to perpetuate the problem:

  • distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
  • provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
  • redefined “community policing” to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT teams,
  • encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of “contractors that now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,”
  • ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target “medical marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,”
  • defended as “reasonable” aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house based on a mistaken license plate,
  • and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents can “accuse” of being connected to a crime.

It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama’s part, coming in the midst of heightened tensions between the nation’s police forces and the populace they’re supposed to protect, opens the door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses all the while further acclimating the populace to life in a police state.

Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted upon us. In fact, Obama’s belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power and institutional immunity. And it certainly fails to recognize the terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy, and our freedoms as a result of the government’s determination to bring the war home.

Will the young black man guilty of nothing more than running away from brutish police officers be any safer in the wake of Obama’s edict? It’s unlikely.

Will the old man reaching for his cane have a lesser chance of being shot? It’s doubtful.

Will the little girl asleep under her princess blanket live to see adulthood when a SWAT team crashes through her door? I wouldn’t count on it.

It’s a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama’s pronouncement and the release of his “Task Force on 21st Century Policing” report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life in the American police state will become even more perilous.

Among the report’s 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on the ground, training for police “on the importance of de-escalation of force,” and “positive non-enforcement activities” in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as sending an ice cream truck across the city.

Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama’s authority as president. And while the word “constitutional” is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report notes: “Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement duties, the legal framework (warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to crime.”

Translation: as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our everyday activities will be even more invasive.

This emphasis on technology, surveillance and social media is nothing new. In much the same way the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to “gift” local police agencies with military weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier for police to monitor, track and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray devices and fusion centers are all funded by grants from the DHS. Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.

If you’re noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into a national police force that answers not to “we the people” but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community.

So where does that leave us?

There’s certainly no harm in embarking on a national dialogue on the dangers of militarized police, but if that’s all it amounts to—words that sound good on paper and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms—then we’re just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.

Despite the Obama Administration’s lofty claims of wanting to “ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice,” this is the reality we must contend with right now:

Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through our doors, or police officers who shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still no longer innocent until proven guilty. Americans still don’t have a right to private property. Americans are still powerless in the face of militarized police. Americans still don’t have a right to bodily integrity. Americans still don’t have a right to the expectation of privacy. Americans are still being acclimated to a police state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed at reassuring the public that the police are our “friends.” And to top it all off, Americans still can’t rely on the courts, Congress or the White House to mete out justice when our rights are violated by police.

To sum it all up: the problems we’re grappling with have been building for more than 40 years. They’re not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish the same results—i.e., maintain the government’s power, control and wealth at all costs.

This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Free Trade and the Real World



5-19-2015 1-01-31 PM

By Philippe Gastonne

In late 2013, Cisco chief executive John Chambers used a portentous phrase while telling analysts that sales in emerging markets were spiraling downward, forcing the networking equipment company to cut its three- to five-year revenue growth target: “We’re the canary in the coal mine.”

… Cisco was just the latest victim of globalization, the tantalizing but perilous business principle that has – quietly – counted among its casualties some of the world’s largest companies. Indeed, although multinational executives avoid talking about it publicly, profits in global markets are underwhelming – and doing business internationally is full of unanticipated risks. – Washington Post, April 24, 2015

Globalization and international trade are in the headlines as Congress considers whether to give President Obama “Fast Track” negotiating authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Opponents say TPP is less about free trade than giving privileges to special interests.

That may not be the point. The Washington Post article makes a different argument: globalization is a failed business strategy, at least in the way most corporations pursue it.

The theory sounded compelling. Lower manufacturing costs abroad would reduce prices for American consumers while raising the standard of living in foreign countries, whose consumers would then buy American goods. The process may have broken down at that last step, however.

Again from WaPo: ” ‘Even for the most successful multinationals, profit margins in international markets are on average lower than margins in the domestic market,’ said Robert Salomon, a professor of international management at the NYU Stern School of Business. ‘It’s the liability of foreign markets. By virtue of the fact that you are foreign, you are at a disadvantage.’ ”

Tastes and preferences vary by culture; rarely will people on two different continents want to buy the same goods in the same way. Yet executives persist in assuming their product is a hammer and each new market is simply another nail.

This is a problem even for relatively similar cultures. Target, for instance, recently closed its Canadian locations to refocus on the US market. If leaping that barrier is problematic, then Target is certainly not likely to succeed in Germany or China. It is better off not trying.

Small businesses seem to have better luck playing both sides. Chinese restaurants in the US, for instance, often have two menus. American customers can choose from semi-Chinese cuisine adapted to American tastes. Chinese-American customers get the “real” Chinese food menu with selections that are more traditional.

Anti-trade government policies don’t help. Free trade agreements like TPP never deliver truly free trade. Inevitably, they devolve into a giant set of compromises. Even proponents usually sell them as “not perfect but better than nothing.”

Are agreements like NAFTA and TPP better than nothing? Maybe not.

Even if all legal trade impediments miraculously disappeared, businesses would still have to find ways to serve culturally different markets while preserving economies of scale. The evidence suggests this is harder than it seems, but some would surely succeed.

Yet we don’t have such a world. Instead, would-be importers and exporters must navigate a dense and constantly shifting legal patchwork. This inevitably favors those who find ways to carve out their own private pathways.

In most cases, the so-called “trade” agreements serve mainly to offer false hope. Gullible business owners believe the hype and make poor decisions.

The business lesson seems to be that, short of truly free trade for all, smart companies stay close to home. The political lesson is – or should be – that you can’t be halfway free. Freedom demands total commitment.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

79 Members Of Congress Have Been In Office For At Least 20 Years



5-18-2015 8-51-01 AM

 By Michael Snyder

No wonder Washington never changes – 79 members of Congress have been there since Bill Clinton’s first term in the White House.  This list includes names such as Reid, Feinstein, McConnell, McCain, Pelosi, Boehner, Rangel and Boxer.

In this article, I am going to share with you a complete list of the members of Congress that have been “serving” us for at least 20 years.  They believe that they are “serving” us well, but without a doubt most Americans very much wish that true “change” would come to Washington.  In fact, right now Congress has a 15 percent approval rating with the American people, and that approval rating has been consistently below 20 percent since mid-2011.

So of course we took advantage of the 2014 mid-term election to dump as many of those Congress critters out of office as we possibly could, right?  Wrong.  Sadly, incumbents were re-elected at a 95 percent rate in 2014.  This just shows how broken and how corrupt our system has become.  The American people absolutely hate the job that Congress is doing, and yet the same clowns just keep getting sent back to Washington again and again.

Our founders never intended for service in Congress to become a career, but that is precisely what it has become for many of our “public servants”.  As of this moment, there are 79 members of Congress that have been in office for at least 20 years, and there are 16 members of Congress that have been in office for at least 30 years.

No wonder so many Americans are advocating term limits these days.  When there are dozens of members of Congress that know that they are going to be sent back to Washington over and over again no matter how the American people feel about things, that can cause them to become extremely callous toward the will of the people.  Instead, often these politicians become increasingly responsive to the needs of their big donors, because it takes big money to win campaign after campaign.  I am sure that if George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were running around today, they would be absolutely disgusted by how our system has evolved.

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office…

Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Jan. 4, 1977
Thad Cochran, Miss. Dec. 27, 1978
Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Jan. 5, 1981
Mitch McConnell, Ky. Jan. 3, 1985
Richard C. Shelby, Ala. Jan. 6, 1987
John McCain, Ariz. Jan. 6, 1987
James M. Inhofe, Okla. Nov. 30, 1994

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office…

Patrick J. Leahy, Vt. Jan. 14, 1975
Barbara A. Mikulski, Md. Jan. 6, 1987
Harry Reid, Nev. Jan. 6, 1987
Dianne Feinstein, Calif. Nov. 4, 1992
Barbara Boxer, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Patty Murray, Wash. Jan. 5, 1993

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office…

Don Young, Alaska March 6, 1973
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wis. Jan. 15, 1979
Harold Rogers, Ky. Jan. 5, 1981
Christopher H. Smith, N.J. Jan. 5, 1981
Joe L. Barton, Texas Jan. 3, 1985
Lamar Smith, Texas Jan. 6, 1987
Fred Upton, Mich. Jan. 6, 1987
John J. Duncan Jr., Tenn. Nov. 8, 1988
Dana Rohrabacher, Calif. Jan. 3, 1989
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla. Aug. 29, 1989
John A. Boehner, Ohio Jan. 3, 1991
Sam Johnson, Texas May 18, 1991
Ken Calvert, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Robert W. Goodlatte, Va. Jan. 5, 1993
Peter T. King, N.Y. Jan. 5, 1993
John L. Mica, Fla. Jan. 5, 1993
Ed Royce, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Frank D. Lucas, Okla. May 10, 1994
Rodney Frelinghuysen, N.J. Jan. 4, 1995
Walter B. Jones, N.C. Jan. 4, 1995
Frank A. LoBiondo, N.J. Jan. 4, 1995
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jan. 4, 1995
Edward Whitfield, Ky. Jan. 4, 1995

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office…

John Conyers Jr., Mich. Jan. 4, 1965
Charles B. Rangel, N.Y. Jan. 21, 1971
Steny H. Hoyer, Md. May 19, 1981
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Jan. 3, 1983
Sander M. Levin, Mich. Jan. 3, 1983
Peter J. Visclosky, Ind. Jan. 3, 1985
Peter A. DeFazio, Ore. Jan. 6, 1987
John Lewis, Ga. Jan. 6, 1987
Louise M. Slaughter, N.Y. Jan. 6, 1987
Nancy Pelosi, Calif. June 2, 1987
Frank Pallone Jr., N.J. Nov. 8, 1988
Eliot L. Engel, N.Y. Jan. 3, 1989
Nita M. Lowey, N.Y. Jan. 3, 1989
Jim McDermott, Wash. Jan. 3, 1989
Richard E. Neal, Mass. Jan. 3, 1989
José E. Serrano, N.Y. March 20, 1990
David E. Price, N.C. Jan. 7, 1997 Also served 1987-95
Rosa DeLauro, Conn. Jan. 3, 1991
Collin C. Peterson, Minn. Jan. 3, 1991
Maxine Waters, Calif. Jan. 3, 1991
Jerrold Nadler, N.Y. Nov. 3, 1992
Jim Cooper, Tenn. Jan. 7, 2003 Also served 1983-95
Xavier Becerra, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Ga. Jan. 5, 1993
Corrine Brown, Fla. Jan. 5, 1993
James E. Clyburn, S.C. Jan. 5, 1993
Anna G. Eshoo, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Gene Green, Texas Jan. 5, 1993
Luis V. Gutierrez, Ill. Jan. 5, 1993
Alcee L. Hastings, Fla. Jan. 5, 1993
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas Jan. 5, 1993
Carolyn B. Maloney, N.Y. Jan. 5, 1993
Lucille Roybal-Allard, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Bobby L. Rush, Ill. Jan. 5, 1993
Robert C. Scott, Va. Jan. 5, 1993
Nydia M. Velázquez, N.Y. Jan. 5, 1993
Bennie Thompson, Miss. April 13, 1993
Sam Farr, Calif. June 8, 1993
Lloyd Doggett, Texas Jan. 4, 1995
Mike Doyle, Pa. Jan. 4, 1995
Chaka Fattah, Pa. Jan. 4, 1995
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Jan. 4, 1995
Zoe Lofgren, Calif. Jan. 4, 1995

As you looked over those lists, you probably noticed that they contain many of the members of Congress that Americans complain about the most.

Unfortunately, because the vast majority of these individuals come from states or congressional districts that are basically a lock to vote a certain way, there is very little hope of ever removing them.  That means that most of these Congress critters are going to get to keep coming back for as long as they want.

No matter which political party you prefer, this should greatly disturb you.

Our founders certainly never intended for a permanent class of elitists to rule over us.

But that is what we have.

We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but instead we have a government of the elite, by the elite and for the elite.  Most people do not realize this, but today most members of Congress are actually millionaires.  The disconnect between members of Congress and average Americans has never been greater than it is right now, and I think that is a very troubling sign for the future of this nation.

 So is there a solution to this problem?


No Nation can survive with an ignorant population!


New Military Spending Bill Expands Empire But Forbids Debate on War


5-18-2015 11-11-58 AM

By Ron Paul

On Friday the House passed a massive National Defense Authorization for 2016 that will guarantee US involvement in more wars and overseas interventions for years to come. The Republican majority resorted to trickery to evade the meager spending limitations imposed by the 2011 budget control act – limitations that did not, as often reported, cut military spending but only slowed its growth.

But not even slower growth is enough when you have an empire to maintain worldwide, so the House majority slipped into the military spending bill an extra $89 billion for an emergency war fund. Such “emergency” spending is not addressed in the growth caps placed on the military under the 2011 budget control act. It is a loophole filled by Congress with Fed-printed money.

Ironically, a good deal of this “emergency” money will go to President Obama’s war on ISIS even though neither the House nor the Senate has debated – let alone authorized – that war! Although House leadership allowed 135 amendments to the defense bill – with many on minor issues like regulations on fire hoses – an effort by a small group of Representatives to introduce an amendment to debate the current US war in Iraq and Syria was rejected.

While squashing debate on ongoing but unauthorized wars, the bill also pushed the administration toward new conflicts. Despite the president’s unwise decision to send hundreds of US military trainers to Ukraine, a move that threatens the current shaky ceasefire, Congress wants even more US involvement in Ukraine’s internal affairs. The military spending bill included $300 million to directly arm the Ukrainian government even as Ukrainian leaders threaten to again attack the breakaway regions in the east. Does Congress really think US-supplied weapons killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine is a good idea?

The defense authorization bill also seeks to send yet more weapons into Iraq. This time the House wants to send weapons directly to the Kurds in northern Iraq without the approval of the Iraqi government. Although these weapons are supposed to be used to fight ISIS, we know from too many prior examples that they often find their way into the hands of the very people we are fighting. Also, arming an ethnic group seeking to break away from Baghdad and form a new state is an unwise infringement of the sovereignty of Iraq. It is one thing to endorse the idea of secession as a way to reduce the possibility of violence, but it is quite something else to arm one side and implicitly back its demands.

While the neocons keep pushing the lie that the military budget is shrinking under the Obama Administration, the opposite is true. As the CATO Institute pointed out recently, President George W. Bush’s average defense budget was $601 billion, while during the Obama administration the average has been $687 billion. This bill is just another example of this unhealthy trend.

Next year’s military spending plan keeps the US on track toward destruction of its economy at home while provoking new resentment over US interventionism overseas. It is a recipe for disaster. Let’s hope for either a presidential veto, or that on final passage Congress rejects this bad bill.

This article provided courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. On this week’s Ron Paul Liberty Report, Dr. Paul and Daniel McAdams discuss the recent article by Seymour Hirsh in “Bin Laden Killing: Who’s Teling the Truth.” 

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Jade Helm 15; and The Coming “Gray State”. We Were Warned! Welcome To The New World Order. Everything Changed Overnight!



5-15-2015 1-58-16 PM

By Stefan Stanford

All across the country reports have come filing in of the US military on the streets of America, out in the open, wanting to be seen, often wearing full military gear with planes and black choppers filling the air from California to Arizona to Texas to New Hampshire as seen in the videos below.

An ANP readers sums up what we’re watching perfectly: “This isn’t just Texas and the Southwest, this is everywhere.”

With the full acclimatization of the American people underway across the nation, accustomizing Americans to the sight of the US military on the streets, even the Pentagon has now admitted that it is preparing for mass civil unrest and we can slowly see the ‘Gray State’ materializing before our eyes. How long will it be until everything changes, overnight?

While millions of Americans are oblivious to the military exercises taking place across the nation, the warnings of preparation for economic collapse and America one day being turned into a 3rd world nation have been going out for a very long time… we have all been warned.

When the final breaths of freedom have finally been breathed will we look back upon this day and age we now live in as a failed opportunity to save freedom for the entire human race or will we overcome what lays ahead of us?

A Russian man calls into the Alex Jones show in the 1st video to talk about the collapse of Russia and how in 2015 America he can see the same thing unfolding. He can clearly see that Jade Helm and the military exercises across America are acclimating American citizens to see the military in the street as they prepare for financial collapse. In California, a videographer asks ‘is this Jade Helm 15′ as a column of ‘about 10′ tanks makes its’ way down I-10. Quite surreal, the men sit on top of their behemoth’s as they trodge down the California highway only to be passed by ‘the oblivious’. Many thanks to PGExpress for getting this footage in the 2nd video below.

The 3rd video is a master work of art combining John F. Kennedy’s secret society speech to the world and footage from the movie ‘Gray State’ to paint a picture of a different America, an America that changed overnight. The 4th video below is footage of an enormous amount of air traffic over the Phoenix Arizona area during the last few weeks.

Susan Duclos recently asked me if I believe that the murder of Gray State producer David Crowley, so soon before the leak of the Jade Helm 15 documents to All News Pipeline, was related to the culmination of what we’re watching now unfold. That’s a question each of our readers should answer themselves.

NEW VIDEO ADDED! You can watch the entire rough cut of Gray State here: Gray State: The Rise – Raw, Uncut Documentary – Censored ‘Martial Law’ Movie In Full Here! Watch It While You Still Can!

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtHpeQ1IkY4    2:53

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS7fuYJhVAs    1:04

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj37HWYxuds   4:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj37HWYxuds   4:56

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Battlefield America: The War on the American People



By John W. Whitehead

“A government which will turn its tanks upon its people, for any reason, is a government with a taste of blood and a thirst for power and must either be smartly rebuked, or blindly obeyed in deadly fear.”—John Salter

We have entered into a particularly dismal chapter in the American narrative, one that shifts us from a swashbuckling tale of adventure into a bone-chilling horror story.

As I document in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” have now come full circle, from being held captive by the British police state to being held captive by the American police state. In between, we have charted a course from revolutionaries fighting for our independence and a free people establishing a new nation to pioneers and explorers, braving the wilderness and expanding into new territories.

Where we went wrong, however, was in allowing ourselves to become enthralled with and then held hostage by a military empire in bondage to a corporate state (the very definition of fascism). No longer would America hold the moral high ground as a champion of freedom and human rights. Instead, in the pursuit of profit, our overlords succumbed to greed, took pleasure in inflicting pain, exported torture, and imported the machinery of war, transforming the American landscape into a battlefield, complete with military personnel, tactics and weaponry.

To our dismay, we now find ourselves scrambling for a foothold as our once rock-solid constitutional foundation crumbles beneath us. And no longer can we rely on the president, Congress, the courts, or the police to protect us from wrongdoing.

Indeed, they have come to embody all that is wrong with America.

For instance, how does a man who is relatively healthy when taken into custody by police lapse into a coma and die while under their supervision? What kind of twisted logic allows a police officer to use a police car to run down an American citizen and justifies it in the name of permissible deadly force? And what country are we living in where the police can beat, shoot, choke, taser and tackle American citizens, all with the protection of the courts?

Certainly, the Constitution’s safeguards against police abuse means nothing when government agents can crash through your door, terrorize your children, shoot your dogs, and jail you on any number of trumped of charges, and you have little say in the matter. For instance, San Diego police, responding to a domestic disturbance call on a Sunday morning, showed up at the wrong address, only to shoot the homeowner’s 6-year-old service dog in the head.

Rubbing salt in the wound, it’s often the unlucky victim of excessive police force who ends up being charged with wrongdoing. Although 16-year-old Thai Gurule was charged with resisting arrest and strangling and assaulting police officers, a circuit judge found that it was actually the three officers who unlawfully stopped, tackled, punched, kneed, tasered and yanked his hair who were at fault. Thankfully, bystander cell phone videos undermined police accounts, which were described as “works of fiction.”

Not even our children are being spared the blowback from a growing police presence. As one juvenile court judge noted in testimony to Congress, although having police on public school campuses did not make the schools any safer, it did result in large numbers of students being arrested for misdemeanors such as school fights and disorderly conduct. One 11-year-old autistic Virginia student was charged with disorderly conduct and felony assault after kicking a trashcan and resisting a police officer’s attempt to handcuff him. A 14-year-old student was tasered by police, suspended and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and trespassing after he failed to obey a teacher’s order to be the last student to exit the classroom.

There is no end to the government’s unmitigated gall in riding roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, whether in matters of excessive police powers, militarized police, domestic training drills, SWAT team raids, surveillance, property rights, over-criminalization, roadside strip searches, profit-driven fines and prison sentences, etc.

The president can now direct the military to detain, arrest and secretly execute American citizens. These are the powers of an imperial dictator, not an elected official bound by the rule of law. For the time being, Barack Obama wears the executioner’s robe, but you can rest assured that this mantle will be worn by whomever occupies the Oval Office in the future.

A representative government means nothing when the average citizen has little to no access to their elected officials, while corporate lobbyists enjoy a revolving door relationship with everyone from the President on down. Indeed, while members of Congress hardly work for the taxpayer, they work hard at being wooed by corporations, which spend more to lobby our elected representatives than we spend on their collective salaries. For that matter, getting elected is no longer the high point it used to be. As one congressman noted, for many elected officials, “Congress is no longer a destination but a journey… [to a] more lucrative job as a K Street lobbyist… It’s become routine to see members of Congress drop their seat in Congress like a hot rock when a particularly lush vacancy opens up.”

As for the courts, they have long since ceased being courts of justice. Instead, they have become courts of order, largely marching in lockstep with the government’s dictates, all the while helping to increase the largesse of government coffers. It’s called for-profit justice, and it runs the gamut of all manner of financial incentives in which the courts become cash cows for communities looking to make an extra buck. As journalist Chris Albin-Lackey details, “They deploy a crushing array of fines, court costs, and other fees to harvest revenues from minor offenders that these communities cannot or do not want to raise through taxation.” In this way, says Albin-Lackey, “A resident of Montgomery, Alabama who commits a simple noise violation faces only a $20 fine—but also a whopping $257 in court costs and user fees should they seek to have their day in court.”

As for the rest—the schools, the churches, private businesses, service providers, nonprofits and your fellow citizens—many are also marching in lockstep with the police state. This is what is commonly referred to as community policing. After all, the police can’t be everywhere. So how do you police a nation when your population outnumbers your army of soldiers? How do you carry out surveillance on a nation when there aren’t enough cameras, let alone viewers, to monitor every square inch of the country 24/7? How do you not only track but analyze the transactions, interactions and movements of every person within the United States? The answer is simpler than it seems: You persuade the citizenry to be your eyes and ears.

It’s a brilliant ploy, with the added bonus that while the citizenry remains focused on and distrustful of each other, they’re incapable of focusing on more definable threats that fall closer to home—namely, the government and its militarized police. In this way, we’re seeing a rise in the incidence of Americans being reported for growing vegetables in their front yard, keeping chickens in their back yard, letting their kids walk to the playground alone, and voicing anti-government sentiments. For example, after Shona Banda’s son defended the use of medical marijuana during a presentation at school, school officials alerted the police and social services, and the 11-year-old was interrogated, taken into custody by social workers, had his home raided by police and his mother arrested.

Now it may be that we have nothing to worry about. Perhaps the government really does have our best interests at heart. Perhaps covert domestic military training drills such as Jade Helm really are just benign exercises to make sure our military is prepared for any contingency. As the Washington Post describes the operation:

The mission is vast both geographically and strategically: Elite service members from all four branches of the U.S. military will launch an operation this summer in which they will operate covertly among the U.S. public and travel from state to state in military aircraft. Texas, Utah and a section of southern California are labeled as hostile territory, and New Mexico isn’t much friendlier.

Now I don’t believe in worrying over nothing, but it’s safe to say that the government has not exactly shown itself to be friendly in recent years, nor have its agents shown themselves to be cognizant of the fact that they are civilians who answer to the citizenry, rather than the other way around.

Whether or not the government plans to impose some form of martial law in the future remains to be seen, but there can be no denying that we’re being accustomed to life in a military state. The malls may be open for business, the baseball stadiums may be packed, and the news anchors may be twittering nonsense about the latest celebrity foofa, but those are just distractions from what is really taking place: the transformation of America into a war zone.

Trust me, if it looks like a battlefield (armored tanks on the streets, militarized police in metro stations, surveillance cameras everywhere), sounds like a battlefield (SWAT team raids nightly, sound cannons to break up large assemblies of citizens), and acts like a battlefield (police shooting first and asking questions later, intimidation tactics, and involuntary detentions), it’s a battlefield.

Indeed, what happened in Ocala, Florida, is a good metaphor for what’s happening across the country: Sheriff’s deputies, dressed in special ops uniforms and riding in an armored tank on a public road, pulled a 23-year-old man over and issued a warning violation to him after he gave them the finger. The man, Lucas Jewell, defended his actions as a free speech expression of his distaste for militarized police.

Translation: “We the people” are being hijacked on the highway by government agents with little knowledge of or regard for the Constitution, who are hyped up on the power of their badge, outfitted for war, eager for combat, and taking a joy ride—on taxpayer time and money—in a military tank that has no business being on American soil.

Rest assured, unless we slam on the brakes, this runaway tank will soon be charting a new course through terrain that bears no resemblance to land of our forefathers, where freedom meant more than just the freedom to exist and consume what the corporate powers dish out.

Rod Serling, one of my longtime heroes and the creator of The Twilight Zone, understood all too well the danger of turning a blind eye to evil in our midst, the “things that scream for a response.” As Serling warned, “if we don’t listen to that scream – and if we don’t respond to it – we may well wind up sitting amidst our own rubble, looking for the truck that hit us – or the bomb that pulverized us. Get the license number of whatever it was that destroyed the dream. And I think we will find that the vehicle was registered in our own name.”

If you haven’t managed to read the writing on the wall yet, the war has begun.

The Best of John W. Whitehead


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).

Copyright © 2015 The Rutherford Institute

Previous article by John W. Whitehead: Ignore the Presidential Election

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM



From: Michael Gaddy


 “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry, one who could be referred to as the leader of the Anti-federalists, fought tirelessly for individual liberty and freedom. Many of our founders considered Henry to be among the most devout Christians of their time. It is believed Henry’s oratory skills were honed when he was asked to repeat the sermons of Samuel Davies for his mother when he was a young man.

As has been oft stated here, Henry refused to attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because he “smelt a rat leaning toward a Monarchy” and spoke almost daily in the Virginia Ratification Convention against the ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Arguably, a Bill of Rights would have never been drafted and ratified had it not been for Patrick Henry and those who followed his lead in the other states.

Many years ago, the people of this country traded away the ability to have a say in how their children were educated for a “free lunch” program initiated by the federal government. Ironically, the money used for this purchase of individual liberty was the same money that is removed from those who produce labor and property using another program our founders feared: direct taxation. Once the masses are addicted to government crack, which is what is seen as “free stuff,” the game is over.

Tyranny in the form of totalitarian government cannot be implemented in one large dose, for as stated by Socialist John Dewey in 1898, “Change must come gradually. To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction.” Dewey knew that Socialism delivered in small doses is “comfortable” to the majority of the masses, right up until the time one is dragged off to a gulag or death camp. Any elected or appointed official who uses the preferred old phrase of tyrants in training, “it can’t happen here,” should be immediately tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Our totalitarian government, having seen the gradual but outstanding success of using monies stolen from the productive in our society along with monies borrowed against the lives of their children in the educational process is now embarking on a program of nationalization of law enforcement. To achieve total domination and control of the people, all unconstitutional laws must be enforced using a single point of control. The funding of SWAT units, and providing military vehicles and drones have so far been the incremental steps to unified control of everyone wearing a uniform and a badge. The gradual and conditioned acceptance of police brutality and justified killings of innocent citizens has not occurred by accident. Neither has what has been exploited as racial discrimination as it applies to law enforcement actions. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” is the national motto of totalitarian government. And of course, if these crises don’t occur in a timely fashion, totalitarian governments have never been averse to creating them. The pages of history are chocked full of evidence of this practice.

The racial divide in this country was created by our government (socialist welfare) and it will be used as the basis and justification for a nationalized police force controlled by one head, most likely the Department of Homeland Security.

This is a prime example of the Hegelian Dialectic. Totalitarian government has created a problem which only it (they claim) can solve with large doses of other people’s money (OPM) and the attendant losses of freedom and liberty. The application of this remedy only creates a larger and more virulent problem, which in turn requires more (OPM) and loss of individual freedoms. If you have any doubts as to how this works in reality, I suggest you examine the history of “The war on Poverty,” “The war on Drugs” “The war on Crime” and of course “The war on Terror.” Everything our government declares war on increases exponentially during that war, except of course their undeclared war on Liberty which has been highly successful.

The way a totalitarian government operates as is abundantly clear in the study of history, is to pass more and more laws prohibiting the practice of individual rights and the destruction of the theory of private property. The government then reminds everyone that “we are a nation of laws” and idiots with guns and badges claim they have no choice but to “enforce” the law, even when they know these laws were proposed, passed and signed by socialist politicians and ruled upon by socialist judges.  Placing all members of law enforcement, at all levels, under a unified command structure simplifies the “enforcement” of these draconian, unconstitutional laws.

So, how does a nationalized police force operating under one head relate to Patrick Henry you ask? Well, it appears the Sage of Liberty was able to predict what we are seeing now because of his study of history and his understanding of the frailties of humans.

Henry feared what he and others referred to as a “standing army.” Along with direct taxation, Henry cited these two as the greatest threats to Liberty. One could not deny that a nationalized police force, under one head, would constitute a “standing army.” And of course this standing army would work in concert with the military as they would share the same source of authority.

Henry would state of a standing army the following at the Virginia Ratification Convention in June of 1788:

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? …What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness…

This, it seems to me will produce such a dreadful oppression as the people cannot possibly bear. The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses he pleases, and ruin you with impunity; for how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculation, commissions and fees?

Thomas Jefferson’s cousin, Federalist/Nationalist and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, would challenge Patrick Henry’s allegations about the proposed government. You can judge for yourself as to which man was correct about standing armies and federal sheriffs. Again, the wisdom of the Anti-federalist and the marketing campaign of the Federalists are exposed to history. Marshall would counter Henry’s projections in the same ratification convention.

“[According to Patrick Henry]…the officers of the government will be screened from merited punishment by the federal judiciary. The federal sheriff, says he, will go into a poor man’s house and beat him, or abuse his family, and the federal courts will protect him. Does any gentleman believe this? Is it necessary that officers will commit a trespass on the property or persons of those with whom they are to transact business? Will such great insults on the people be allowable? Were a law made to authorize them, it would be void.”

This presents one of those “where do I start’ conundrums. When it comes to the federal sheriffs going into a man’s house and beating him or abusing his family and the courts protecting them, need I say more than Randy Weaver, his wife Vicki and their 14 year old son Samuel, both killed at the hands of federal sheriffs? What about Waco and the 74 dead children and adults who perished at the hands of federal sheriffs? Will someone please point out for me where any of the perpetrators of those heinous acts have been called to account for their crimes? Did the federal courts protect or prosecute those federal sheriffs?

Marshall said “Were a law made to authorize them, it would be void.” How can that ever work in a society with idiots wearing badges and guns who claim they have no authority to question the constitutionality of a law but are mandated to enforce them all?

Marshall also said “Is it necessary that officers will commit a trespass on the property or persons of those with whom they are to transact business?” Well, those who have had any encounters with the badges and guns from the Department of Wildlife in our part of the country can attest to the fact those officers claim the right to “commit a trespass on the property” of our citizens in order to “transact business.” When asked in a public forum, one such officer claimed there was a state statute that “has been on the books for years and allowed him to trespass on anyone’s private property” to transact the business of government. Just a few minutes before this same officer claimed he would not enforce any unconstitutional laws. Tyranny is magnified when anyone with a badge and a gun believes anything they do is constitutional simply because they have a badge and a gun and represent the government.

There will be a nationalized federal police force in our country in the very near future. They will intermingle with members of the military and use the same equipment as they go about enforcing the laws of tyrants. All the while they will believe they are accomplishing good things.

We are not “a nation of laws” as those in our government would have you believe. We are a country of individual rights limited only by the equal rights of others, to paraphrase Jefferson.  Two very good sources other than Patrick Henry warned of presenting ourselves as slaves to the law of the tyrant.

“I do not add within the limits of the law because law is often the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” ~Thomas Jefferson

“So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.” Galatians 5:1 (NLT)

In Liberty


“Patriotism–real patriotism–has a most important venue, and it is not always about putting on a uniform to fight some senseless, insane war in order to sustain the meaningless myths about freedom or America’s greatness.  There is a higher loyalty that real patriotism demands and encompasses, and that loyalty is the pursuit of truth, no matter how painful or uncomfortable the journey.” ~Peter Janney

“We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth.” ~Sydney Schanberg

“Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to become comfortable.” ~Emma Goldman

10 13 11 flagbar






Confirmed: US Operation Rooms Backing Al Qaeda in Syria



5-12-2015 10-05-56 AM

By Tony Cartalucci

Global Research, May 11, 2015

US policy think-tank Brookings Institution confirms that contrary to propaganda, US-Saudi “moderates” and Turkey-Qatar “Islamists” have been coordinating all along.

The war in Syria continues to drag on, with a recent and renewed vigor demonstrated behind an opposition long portrayed as fractured and reflecting a myriad of competing foreign interests. Chief among these competing interests, the public has been told, were the US and Saudis on one side, backing so-called “moderate rebels,” and Turkey and Qatar on the other openly backing Al Qaeda and its various franchises including the Islamic State (ISIS).

However, for those following the conflict closely, it was clear from the beginning and by the West’s own admissions that success hinged on covertly providing arms, cash, equipment, and both political and military support to Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists, not opposed by Saudi Arabia, but rather by using Saudi Arabia as the primary medium through which Western material support could be laundered.

And this fact is now confirmed in a recent article published on the Brookings Institution’s website titled, “Why Assad is losing.”

It states unequivocally that (emphasis added):

The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions’ backers have changed their tune regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey, which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups, was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards. That operations room — along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria’s south — also appears to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence to vetted groups in recent weeks.

Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called “vetted groups,” but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.

Overall, Brookings is pleased to report that with the infiltration and overrunning of much of Idlib in northern Syria, it appears their long-stated goal of creating a seat of power for their proxies within Syria’s borders and perhaps even extending NATO aircover over it, may finally be at hand. Brookings still attempts to perpetuate an adversarial narrative between the West and Al Qaeda, despite admitting that it was only with Western backing that recent offensives spearheaded by Al Qaeda itself were successful.

In reality, as far back as 2007, it was the admitted policy of the then Bush-led White House to begin arming and funding sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda, through the use of intermediaries including Saudi Arabia. Veteran journalist and two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh in his report “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?“would lay bare this conspiracy which has since then unfolded verbatim as described in 2007.

The above mentioned Brookings article also alludes to a grander geopolitical landscape taking shape beyond the Syrian conflict. It states in regards to the US now openly backing what is for all intents and purposes an Al Qaeda-led offensive that:

The most likely explanation for such a move is pressure from the newly emboldened regional alliance comprising Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The United States also is looking for ways to prove its continued alignment with its traditional Sunni Gulf allies, amid the broader context of its rapprochement with Iran.

The continuation, even expansion of the US-backed conflict in Syria is the most telling evidence of all regarding the disingenuous nature of America’s rapprochement with Iran. The entire goal of destabilizing and potentially overthrowing the government in Syria is to weaken Iran ahead of a similar campaign of encirclement, destabilization, and destruction within Iran itself.

The fact that events in Syria are being accelerated, with Brookings itself admitting that “international and ideological differences,” have been “pushed to the side,” illustrates a palpable desperation among the West to finish the conflict in Syria in hopes of moving forward toward Iran before regional dynamics and Iran’s own defensive posture renders moot the West’s entire regional agenda, jeopardizing its long-standing hegemony across North Africa and the Middle East.

Similarly rushed operations appear to be underway in Yemen. With Western-backed conflicts embroiling virtually every nation surrounding Iran, the idea that the US seeks anything but Iran’s eventual destruction, let alone “rapprochement” must surely have no one fooled in Tehran.

While Brookings enthusiastically reports on the continued destruction in Syria it itself played a part in engineering and promoting, it still admits that overthrowing Syria’s legitimate government is not inevitable. While it attempts to portray Syria’s allies as withdrawing support for Damascus, the reality is that if and when Syria falls, Syria’s allies are indisputably next in line.

Iran will face an entire nation handed over to Al Qaeda and other heavily armed and well-backed sectarian extremists dreaming of a cataclysmic confrontation with Tehran, fueled by a global network of US-Saudi backed madrases turning out legions of ideologically poisoned zealots. And beyond Iran, Russia faces the prospect of its Caucasus region being turned into a corridor of terror aimed straight at the heart of Russia itself.

The conflict in Syria is but a single battle among a much larger war a global war constituting what is basically a third World War, fought not upon vast but clearly defined fronts, but rather through the use of fourth generation warfare, proxies, mercenaries, economics, and information. For those that fail to see how Syria is linked to the survival of many nations beyond its borders and the very concept of a multi-polar world built upon the concept of national sovereignty, they invite not just Damascus’ defeat, but that of the world as we know it.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

 2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM




 By: Devvy

May 11, 2015

Yet another destructive “free” trade treaty – this one secret – Republicans are trying to shove down our throats.

I’ve already written many columns about the massive destruction to America because of NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO/GATT . No need to recycle here.

For over a year the criminal impostor in the White House has been trying to put another gigantic nail in our coffin for his new world order bosses with the very secretive “free” trade treaty called the Trans Pacific Partnership. Members of the Outlaw Congress are only allowed to view the details of this latest toxic treason in secrecy. They cannot remove or copy any documents. Stench of the old Soviet Union and secrecy that should never, ever be practiced by a legitimately seated U.S. president or the U.S. Congress.

Off all the articles I’ve read which full explain this monstrosity, I encourage you to read the ones below:

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Bigger and More Dangerous Than ObamaCare – “Like the infamous NAFTA trade agreement passed in the ’90s, the TPP would usher in another wave of outsourcing, as the remaining manufacturing and technology bases would be given incentives to move to Pacific Rim countries, resulting in millions more American job losses.”

Trans-Pacific Partnership To Facilitate U.S.-China Merger

There’s no question based on what’s been leaked this latest, treasonous sell out would achieve what the North American Union architects want so bad: unlimited open border with Mexico bringing in more floods of unskilled workers, criminals and terrorists. It is such an assault on our Constitution and way of life it’s no wonder Barry Soetoro and his Republican supporters are doing everything they can to keep it secret – including the media. Why isn’t this a major subject of discussion on Greta, Hannity, O’Reilly or Kelly? Where is ANY coverage about the dangers of that treaty on any “mainstream” or cable networks?

Rand Paul to Obama: “Prioritize” Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership – Like the two above, this one is packed with how American workers will be slaughtered if that treaty is passed.

And, of course, the never ending attack on the Second Amendment. From Gun Owners of America:

“Reports have already surfaced that the TOP SECRET draft contains a whole chapter with a European Union-style provision allowing unlimited migration from Mexico into the United States. This would fulfill Obama’s dream — which he begun with Executive Amnesty — to import millions of new anti-gun (liberal) voters into the country.

“Of course, we can’t quote for you any of the language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because the document is TOP SECRET. Obama won’t reveal it, even to most congressmen, until Congress has given it its imprimatur by allowing it to pass under fast track procedures.

On Monday, Politico reported: “If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

“If you’re a [congressional] member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving. And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.”

As Joseph Farah, WND, pointed out this past February, the TPP will: “Surrender U.S. sovereignty to an international tribunal with authority higher than the U.S. Supreme Court; Put American companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign firms; Give up 544 million acres of public land, one-quarter of the entire U.S. land area, to UN and World Bank judges who will decide how our lands are used; and Ban “Buy American” policies.”

At surprised (Only one member of Congress read the massive, destructive 24,000 page GATT/WTO treaty shoved down our throats in 1995): Only Two Republicans Admit They Actually Read Secret Obama Trade Deal—Both Unsupportive

So, knowing what has been leaked so far and now that theRepublicans control both houses of the Outlaw Congress, what have they done? John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are working to sell out the American worker and our sovereignty again.

Boehner: Clinton needs to bring Democrats along on trade. “House Speaker John Boehner says Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to back trade legislation that President Barack Obama wants — and help get Democrats on board. Boehner says Republican votes alone aren’t enough to give Obama the negotiating authority to complete an Asia-Pacific trade deal. He tells NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Obama “needs her help” and Clinton should be more involved.”

Mitch McConnell is a bald faced liar when he says he supports American jobs: Strange Bedfellows Are Blocking The McConnell-Obama Trade Deal

Senate committee passes fast track trade bill – April 22, 2015

May 8, 2015: Senate Fast Track Vote Tuesday. “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled the voting process for trade promotion authority, commonly known as “fast track,” to begin as early as Tuesday. If passed, fast track prohibits the Congress from amending trade agreements no matter what problems might show up, requires these agreements to be voted on within 90 days, limits the debate Congress is allowed and prohibits filibusters.

“Passing fast track will essentially pre-approve the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “trade” agreement before the public gets a chance to know what is in it, as well as future trade deals regardless of who is president or what the rigged, corporate-dominated negotiating process produces.” (Emphasis mine). ANOTHER Pelosi Obamacare: You have to pass it and then you’ll know what’s in it.

As with other “free” trade treaties, many Democrats in Congress are against the TPP for which we should be grateful:

Obama rebukes ‘politician’ Warren as trade feud escalates

The UN small arms treaty is allegedly part of the TPP. Gun Owners of America has voiced strong opposition. How many more bills or treaties will the GOA and NRA oppose before they finally unleash their nearly 6 million members to go after their state legislatures to pass a bill reconstituting the constitutional militia and put to bed once and for all any more attempts at nullifying the Second Amendment?

Well, I guess you’ll have to ask them, but remember this saying: There’s no money in the cure, only the treatments. Fix the problem and there goes the endless begging for donations for “fighting for your Second Amendment rights!”

As for the UN, in the last session of Congress (2012-2014), there was a bill to finally get us out of the United Nations:

H.R. 75: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2013 – To end membership of the United States in the United Nations. Bill introduced January 3, 2013. Bill Sponsor: Rep. Paul Broun Jr. [R-GA10]. The bill has a whopping 8 cosponsors; all Republicans. Referred to House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Every penny in UN “dues” is borrowed money – more unpayable debt with the interest slapped on our backs. For what? In 1971, Rep. John Rarick attempted to get us out of that evil body; I highly encourage you read the information here.

What happened the bill above? It died because the American people didn’t demand it get passed. The same as another critically important bill in the same session:

H.R. 156: To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement

NAFTA (No American Factories Taking Applications) according to Soviet traitor, CFR/Trilaterialst, Henry Kissinger: “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world order.” July 18, 1993

NAFTA was the first in a long line of unconstitutional treaties/agreements destroying nearly 10 million good paying jobs; career, steady employment destroyed in furtherance of world government. H.R.156 was introduced January 4, 2013. Bill sponsor: Rep. Mike McIntyre [D-NC7].

That was the second time that bill was introduced; it previously died in 2013. Members of the House who introduced those bills must wonder why they waste their time when there’s no support from the American people.

As for treaties, can they override the U.S. Constitution?

Reid v Covert, a U.S. Supreme Court decision:

“Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

“There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, inGeofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

“The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

“There is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, which is contrary to the position taken here.” Please do take the time to read the decision.

Constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, wrote a three part series several years ago on treaties and jurisdiction; I encourage you to read them. I know I’m always asking readers to read links, but it’s the only way to get a good education on the issues. Just like I’ve been doing the past 24 years and I am so grateful to have learned as I have from knowledgeable, experienced individuals like Larry.

There have been many lawsuits over free trade treaties passed by the political animals in the U.S. Senate who don’t give a damn about you, me, jobs for America or our sovereignty. Lost to federal judges with their own agendas and who chose not to bite the hand that feeds them. The pathological liar in the White House has gotten many federal judges confirmed by globalist dirt bags in the U.S. House and Senate. Pelosi, Boehner, McDonnell and many more. Those judges loyalty is to the America hating individual who usurped the office of president through fraud, Barry Soetoro aka Obama.

What can you do?

  1. STOP voting for incumbents who are are not constitutional bull dogs. STOP voting the same incumbents back into office every two years (House) and six years (Senate) even though the Seventeenth Amendment was NOT ratified by enough states, few in America care. My Seventeenth Amendment lawsuit is in the Third District Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas; the next brief is due July 3rd. I will keep you posted. Are conservatives happy they voted back in all the same incumbents last November who continue to stab us in the back?
  2. Last month the trade deficit was $40 BILLION dollars.That’s America’s wealth being sucked out of this country. Buy Made in USA (a huge listing of companies) so American companies can expand and hire Americans. Ask where you shop. Let them know you will order on line, butwe support American workers first. We CAN create a huge job boom. That means fruits and vegetables, too. See: One Million Jobs Project – take five minutes to read and watch:

“It’s a mathematical fact. If we all buy just 5% more US made products we will create a MILLION new jobs. AND if each person that sees this video shares it with at least two friends it will only take a month for every person in America to see this. Crazy, but true. Seems like if we all knew the solution to unemployment was so simple we’d fix it. So let’s spread the news”.

  1. We do have to make the effort:Call or fax your U.S. Senator – NO on the TPP. A large number of Democrats are against that treaty, so don’t skip calling your senator if they’re a Democrat. Make the call today, tomorrow, but keep hounding them. Tell your Republican senator to stop sleeping with America’s enemy: Barack Hussein Obama and vote NO on the TPP.

Important Links:

1 – It’s War: Stop the TPP and TAFTA (Jan 2014) – Read
2 – Sen. Jeff Sessions: Trade deal opens immigration floodgates

[Just a short note about 9/11. The cost of America’s undeclared “war” (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion borrowed dollars – massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation, but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or give a copy as a present. I’ve purchased half a dozen copies and given them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It’s very powerful simply because it’s one ‘ordinary’ man’s story who ask a simple question that led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in this film that many have never heard about but everyone should.Just a suggestion, order more than one and give one to a friend. The more people wake up the better.]

© 2015 – NewsWithViews.com and Devvy – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn’t left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Devvy’s regularly posted new columns are on her site at:www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

E-mail is: devvyk@npn.net

10 13 11 flagbar


A Powerful Weapon of Financial Warfare The US Treasury’s Kiss of Death + PRESIDENTIAL QUESTIONS PART 1 and 2



5-9-2015 10-02-09 AM

By Nick Giambruno

It’s an amazingly powerful weapon that only the US government can wield—kicking anyone it doesn’t like out of the world’s US-dollar-based financial system.

It’s a weapon foreign banks fear. A sound institution can be rendered insolvent at the flip of a switch that the US government controls. It would be akin to an economic kiss of death. When applied to entire countries—such as the case with Iran—it’s like a nuclear attack on the country’s financial system.

That is because, thanks to the petrodollar regime, the US dollar is still the world’s reserve currency, and that indirectly gives the US a chokehold on international trade.

For example, if a company in Italy wants to buy products made in India, the Indian seller probably will want to be paid in US dollars. So the company in Italy first needs to purchase those dollars on the foreign exchange market. But it can’t do so without involving a bank that is permitted to operate in the US. And no such bank will cooperate if it finds that the Italian company is on any of Washington’s bad-boy lists.

The US dollar may be just a facilitator for an international transaction unrelated to any product or service tied to the US, but it’s a facilitator most buyers and sellers in world markets want to use. Thus Uncle Sam’s ability to say “no dollars for you” gives it tremendous leverage to pressure other countries.

The BRICS countries have been trying to move toward a more multipolar international financial system, but it’s an arduous process. Any weakening of the US government’s ability to use the dollar as a stick to compel compliance is likely years away.

When the time comes, no country will care about losing access to the US financial system any more than it would worry today about being shut out of the peso-based Mexican financial system. But for a while yet, losing Uncle Sam’s blessing still can be an economic kiss of death, as the recent experience of Banca Privada d’Andorra shows.
Andorra, a Peculiar Country Without a Central Bank 

The Principality of Andorra is a tiny jurisdiction sandwiched between Spain and France in the eastern Pyrenees mountains. It hasn’t joined the EU and thus is not burdened by every edict passed down in Brussels. However, as a matter of practice, the euro is in general use. Interestingly, the country does not have a central bank.

Andorra is a renowned offshore banking jurisdiction. Banking is the country’s second-biggest source of income, after tourism. Its five banks had made names for themselves by being particularly well capitalized, welcoming to nonresidents (even Americans), and willing to work with offshore companies and international trusts.

One Andorran bank that had been recommended prominently by others (but not by International Man) is Banca Privada d’Andorra (BPA).

Recently BPA received the financial kiss of death from FinCEN, the US Treasury Department’s financial crimes bureau. FinCEN accused BPA of laundering money for individuals in Russia, China, and Venezuela—interestingly, all geopolitical rivals of the US.

Never mind that unlike murder, robbery and rape, money laundering is a victimless, make-believe crime invented by US politicians.

But let’s set that argument aside and assume that money laundering is indeed a real crime. While FinCEN seems to enjoy pointing the money-laundering finger here and there, it never mentions that New York and London are among of the busiest money laundering centers in the world, which underscores the political, not criminal, nature of their accusations.

And that’s all it takes, a mere accusation from FinCEN to shatter the reputation of a foreign bank and the confidence of its depositors.

The foreign bank has little recourse. There is no adjudication to determine whether the accusation has any merit nor is there any opportunity for the bank to make a defense to stop the damage to its reputation.

And not even the most solvent foreign banks—such as BPA—are immune.

Shortly after FinCEN made its accusation public, BPA’s global correspondent accounts—which allow it to conduct international transactions—were closed. No other bank wants to risk Washington’s ire by doing business with a blacklisted institution. BPA was effectively banned from the international financial system.

This predictably led to an evaporation of confidence by BPA’s depositors. To prevent a run on the bank, the Andorran government took BPA under its administration and imposed a €2,500 per week withdrawal limit on depositors.

However, it’s not just BPA that is feeling the results of Washington’s displeasure. FinCEN’s accusation against BPA is sending a shockwave that is shaking Andorra to its core.

The ordeal has led S&P to downgrade Andorra’s credit rating, noting that “The risk profile of Andorra’s financial sector, which is large relative to the size of the domestic economy, has increased beyond our expectations.”

For comparison, BPA’s assets amount to €3 billion, and the Andorran government’s annual budget is only €400 million. There is no way the government could bail out BPA even if it wanted to.

The last time there was a banking crisis in a European country with an oversized financial sector, many depositors were blindsided with a bail-in and lost most, or in some cases, all of their money over €100,000.

While the damage to BPA’s customers appears to be contained for the moment, it remains to be seen whether Andorra turns into the next Cyprus.

BPA is hardly the only example of a US government attack on a foreign bank. In a similar fashion in 2013, the US effectively shut down Bank Wegelin, Switzerland’s oldest bank, which, like BPA, operated without branches in the US.

To appreciate the brazen overreach that has become routine for FinCEN, it helps to examine matters from an alternative perspective.

Imagine that China was the world’s dominant financial power instead of the US and it had the power to enforce its will and trample over the sovereignty of other countries. Imagine bureaucrats in Beijing having the power to effectively shut down any bank in the world. Imagine those same bureaucrats accusing BNY Mellon (Bank of New York is the oldest bank in the US) of breaking some Chinese financial law and cutting it off from the international financial system, causing a crisis of confidence and effectively shuttering it.

In a world of fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking, that is a power—a financial weapon—that the steward of the international financial system wields.

Currently, that steward is the US. It remains to be seen whether or not the BRICS will learn to be just as overbearing once their parallel international financial system is up and running.

In any case, the new system will give the world an alternative, and that will be a good thing.

But regardless of what the international financial system is going to look like, you should take action now to protect yourself from getting caught in the crossfire when financial weapons are going off.

One way to make sure your savings don’t go poof the next time some bureaucrat at FinCEN decides a bank did something that they didn’t like is to offshore your money into safe jurisdictions. And we’ve put together an in-depth video presentation to help you do just that. It’s called, “Internationalizing Your Assets.”

Our all-star panel of experts, with Doug Casey and Peter Schiff, provide low-cost options for international diversification that anyone can implement – including how to safely set up foreign storage for your gold and silver bullion and how to move your savings abroad without triggering invasive reporting requirements. This is a must watch video for any investor and it’s completely free.

Click here to watch Internationalizing Your Assets right now. 

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.





By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
May 9, 2015


Not long ago, a friend of mine asked me to draft a few pertinent, if not provocative, questions to be posed to all of the candidates who run for the Presidency in the 2016 elections. After what should be the initial question posed to every aspirant to “the Office of President”—namely, “Are you actually ‘eligible to th[at] Office’ by virtue of being ‘a natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution?”—the following queries came to my mind:

  1. Are there any principles of government in George Washington’s Farewell Addresswhich you, as President, would not attempt to put into practice? If so, what are they; and why and how would you deviate from them?
  2. This country’s monetary and banking systems have slipped into a state of chronic crisis, which threatens to devolve into a nationwide financial collapse. As President, how would you utilize the authority granted to you under Title 12, United States Code, Section 95(a), to deal with this situation?
  3. As President, how would you support those States that adopted an alternative currency pursuant to the authority the Constitution reserves to them in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1?
  4. As President, under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution you would be the “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. Today, no State fields a constitutional Militia. Would you therefore demand revitalization of the Militia in the several States as soon as possible—and how would you go about it?
  5. Many Americans fear that, in a severe national crisis, such as a collapse of the monetary and banking systems, “martial law” will be imposed. As President, under what circumstances would you support the use of “martial law”, and on what constitutional basis?
  6. The Supreme Court takes the position that a decision which it renders on an issue of constitutional law is itself “the supreme law of the land”, which can be reversed only by a subsequent decision of the Court or an amendment of the Constitution. As President, would you accede to this theory of “judicial supremacy”? If not, why and how would you oppose it?
  7. Many Americans believe that the current resident of the White House, Barack Obama, has never been eligible for “the Office of President” because he is not a “natural born Citizen”, and that the facts concerning his ineligibility have been systematically ignored, covered up, and even falsified by rogue public officials at every level of the federal system. As President, would you immediately open an investigation into this question so as to settle the matter once and for all? If not, why not?
  8. Many Americans believe that the official inquiries into the 9/11 event, especially with respect to the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7, are seriously deficient. As President, would you immediately open an investigation into this question, inviting full and fair participation by all interested parties, with timely and complete disclosure of all relevant information held by every governmental department, bureau, and other agency, so as to settle the matter once and for all? If not, why not?

I must concede that these are questions which the candidates put forward by the “two” major political parties will never be asked by any political journalist from the big “mainstream” print and electronic media. Not, however, because these questions are unimportant, or because they have no specific answers. Quite the contrary. To demonstrate that these are not merely theoretical and quixotic inquiries, for purposes of illustration I shall expand on the practical significance of the second question: “This country’s monetary and banking systems have slipped into a state of chronic crisis, which threatens to eventuate in a nationwide financial collapse. As President, how would you utilize the authority granted to you under Title 12, United States Code, Section 95(a), to deal with this situation?” In doing so, I shall also touch on the fourth question: “As President, under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution you would be the “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. Today, no State fields a constitutional Militia. Would you therefore demand revitalization of the Militia in the several States as soon as possible—and how would you go about it?”

Now, how should a patriotic President, intent upon restoring an economically sound, honest, and especially constitutional monetary system in this country as quickly and effectively as possible, answer these questions? The proper response is quite straightforward. Section 95(a) mandates that,

[i]n order to provide for the safer and more effective operation of the National Banking System and the Federal Reserve System, to preserve for the people the full benefits of the currency provided for by the Congress through the National Banking System and the Federal Reserve System, and to relieve interstate commerce of the burdens and obstructions resulting from the receipt on an unsound or unsafe basis of deposits subject to withdrawal by check, during such emergency period as the President of the United States by proclamation may prescribe, no member bank of the Federal Reserve System shall transact any banking business except to such extent and subject to such regulations, limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President. Any individual, partnership, corporation, or association, or any director, officer or employee thereof, violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or, if a natural person, may, in addition to such fine, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding ten years. Each day that any such violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense.

Importantly, this statute imposes no constraints whatsoever on the “regulations, limitations and restrictions” which the Secretary of the Treasury may “prescribe * * * with the approval of the President”. (I do not intend here to enter into an investigation as to whether this provision is constitutional or not, in whole or in part. Suffice it to say that it is at least as constitutional as any part of the Federal Reserve Act, and certainly sufficiently constitutional to be used to correct the worst deficiencies in that Act “during [the present] emergency period”. After all, at this perilous stage in the tortuous course of human events, monetary reformers must act in reliance upon the old adage that “it takes a crooked stick to beat a mad dog”. And what sort of stick would be more suitable in this situation than one which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal has provided?)

So, in general, to master the present monetary and banking crisis a patriotic President could and should “by proclamation” “prescribe” a suitable “emergency period” during which 12 U.S.C. § 95(a) were to take effect (presumably, until the crisis had abated)—simultaneously (or, preferably, well beforehand) he should draft the necessary “regulations, limitations and restrictions”—then he should order that those “regulations, limitations and restrictions” be “prescribed by [his hand-picked] Secretary of the Treasury”, precisely as written so as to obtain the President’s “approval”—and finally he should enforce those “regulations, limitations and restrictions” swiftly, surely, and severely, pursuant to his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

In particular, the President should so draft and his Secretary of the Treasury should so “prescribe[ ]” the “regulations, limitations and restrictions” as to achieve the statute’s two purposes: namely, (a) “to preserve for the people the full benefits of the currency provided for by the Congress through the national banking system and the Federal reserve system”; and (b) “to relieve interstate commerce of the burdens and obstructions resulting from the receipt on an unsound or unsafe basis of deposits subject to withdrawal by check”. Consider each of these in turn—

(a) Originally, “the full benefits of the currency provided for by the Congress through the national banking system and the Federal reserve system” were bipartite.

(i) On the one hand, those “benefits” included the statutory right of all Americans to require that Federal Reserve Notes “shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal reserve bank”. An Act To provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes, Act of 23 December 1913, CHAP. 6, § 16, [1], 38 Stat. 251, 265. As this statute made clear, the banks themselves were not required as a matter of law in the first instance to redeem Federal Reserve Notes solely in gold (although as a matter of fact they generally did so prior to 1933 domestically and prior to 1971 internationally); but they were required to maintain a large reserve of gold in order to ensure that, at some point, they could be held fully liable for such redemption:

Every Federal reserve bank shall maintain * * * reserves in gold of not less than forty per centum against its Federal reserve notes in actual circulation, and not offset by gold or lawful money deposited with the Federal reserve agent. * * * Notes presented for redemption at the Treasury of the United States shall be paid out of the redemption fund and returned to the Federal reserve banks through which they were originally issued, and thereupon such Federal reserve bank shall, upon demand of the Secretary of the Treasury, reimburse such redemption fund in lawful money or, if such Federal reserve notes have been redeemed by the Treasurer in gold or gold certificates, then such funds shall be reimbursed to the extent deemed necessary by the Secretary of the Treasury in gold or gold certificates, and such Federal reserve bank shall, so long as any of its Federal reserve notes remain outstanding, maintain with the Treasurer in gold an amount sufficient in the judgment of the Secretary to provide for all redemptions to be made by the Treasurer.

The Federal Reserve Board shall require each Federal reserve bank to maintain on deposit in the Treasury of the United States a sum in gold sufficient in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury for the redemption of the Federal reserve notes issued to such bank, but in no event less than five per centum; but such deposit of gold shall be counted and included as part of the forty per centum reserve hereinbefore required.

Act of 23 December 1913, § 16, [3] and [4], 38 Stat. at 266. At that time, the statutorily fixed rate of exchange was 20.67 “dollars” per ounce of gold, or 23.22 grains of gold per “dollar”. An Act To define and fix the standard of value, to maintain the parity of all forms of money issued or coined by the United States, to refund the public debt, and for other purposes, Act of 14 March 1900, CHAP. 41, § 1, 31 Stat. 45, 45.

Even with these apparent safeguards in place, however, Congress carefully provided in the Federal Reserve Act that “[t]he right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved”, so that the lessons later experience taught could easily be applied. Act of 23 December 1914, § 30, 38 Stat. at 275. Unfortunately, in a misguided response to the banking crisis of the early 1930s, Congress relied on this reserved right to remove the requirement for redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold. AN ACT To protect the currency system of the United States, to provide for the better use of the monetary gold stock of the United States, and for other purposes, Act of 30 January 1934, CHAPTER 6, § 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337, 337, now codified at 12 U.S.C. § 411. Yet, during the same crisis, Congress, in what ultimately became 12 U.S.C. § 95(a), authorized the President and the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe by regulations whatever changes in the Federal Reserve Act the future might prove to be necessary in order to deal with such matters. See AN ACT To provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes, Act of 9 March 1933, CHAPTER 1, § 4, 48 Stat. 1, 2.


Subsequent experience has now taught this country that the only way to obtain “the full benefits of the currency provided for by the Congress through the national banking system and the Federal reserve system” with respect to the original statutory goal of maintaining a permanent relationship between that “currency” and gold is to impose directly upon the banks themselves, both in the first place and in the final analysis, a requirement that they make Federal Reserve Notes freely exchangeable for gold at all times.

(ii) On the other hand, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, Americans were already legally entitled to exchange gold coin of the United States for silver coin of the United States at a statutorily fixed ratio (supposedly the exchange-rate between the two metals set in the free market). So, in practice, “the full benefits of the currency provided for by the Congress through the national banking system and the Federal reserve system” originally included a paper currency which, in one way or another, could be exchanged for silver, as well as gold, coin of the United States. Americans’ ability to require the Treasury to exchange any forms of United States paper currency for silver ended, however, in 1968. AN ACT To authorize adjustments in the amount of outstanding silver certificates, and for other purposes, Act of 24 June 1967, Public Law 90-29, § 2, 81 Stat. 77, 77. Subsequent experience has taught this country the serious error of that policy. Therefore, in order to bring America’s monetary system as quickly as possible into complete compliance with constitutional principles, as well as sound economics, a requirement for exchangeability of Federal Reserve Notes for silver should be included in whatever regulations were to be issued under the auspices of 12 U.S.C. § 95(a).

© 2015 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved




(iii) In sum, a patriotic President (and Secretary of the Treasury) could require both the Federal Reserve regional banks and the member banks of the Federal Reserve System to exchange Federal Reserve Notes for gold and silver coin of the United States. As noted above, the Federal Reserve regional banks—of which the member banks of the System are stockholders—were originally required to redeem their notes in gold. In addition, from the beginning they were granted, and still enjoy, the power “[t]o deal in gold coin and bullion at home and abroad, to make loans thereon, exchange Federal reserve notes for gold, gold coin, or gold certificates, and to contract for loans of gold coin or bullion”. Act of 23 December 1913, § 14(a), 38 Stat. at 264, now codified at 12 U.S.C. § 354. Therefore, under Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act implemented through and otherwise coupled with 12 U.S.C. § 95(a), a patriotic President could require the Federal Reserve regional banks which the member banks control, as well as the member banks themselves, to exchange Federal Reserve Notes for gold for the benefit of “the people” of this country. Inasmuch as neither Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act nor 12 U.S.C. § 95(a) precludes adding silver to this requirement, the banks can be assigned the further power to deal in silver to the same extent as they may deal in gold, and the further duty to exchange Federal Reserve Notes for silver to the same extent that they exchange those Notes for gold. It is, of course, true that a statute declares that “[t]he United States may not pay out any gold coin”. 31 U.S.C. § 5118(b). Whether this statute is constitutional or not is a moot point, however; for neither the Federal Reserve regional banks nor the member banks of the Federal Reserve System qualify as “the United States”.

As a practical matter, whatever regulations the President finally approved under 12 U.S.C. § 95(a) would have to establish definite units of gold and silver which the banks were to employ with respect to exchanges of those metals for Federal Reserve Notes. The original Federal Reserve Act did not explicitly set a rate of exchange between Federal Reserve Notes and gold, because that rate was implicitly determined in the statutory definition of a “gold dollar” at 23.22 grains (0.0484 ounces) of gold per “dollar”. Thus, at that time a Federal Reserve Note promising to pay (say) “20 dollars” had to be exchanged for (redeemed with) “20 dollars” worth of gold, which amounted to 0.9675 ounces of that metal. Today, in order to take advantage of the latest technology in the area of so-called “electronic gold” and “electronic silver”, the units of weight subject to exchange for Notes should be the grain of gold and the grain of silver—and all possible multiples thereof, including decimal fractions (0.1, 0.01, 0.001, and so on). To conform to constitutional and statutory requirements, however, these weights should still be valued in “dollars”, with one “dollar” in silver containing 480 grains of that metal, and one “dollar” in gold containing 480 grains of that metal multiplied by the exchange-ratio between gold and silver then-existing in the free market.

Although (as noted above) the original Federal Reserve Act provided implicitly for a rate of exchange between Federal Reserve Notes and gold, it did not fix that rate unalterably, but in its Section 30 left entirely to Congress the right, power, and privilege to re-determine the rate howsoever future circumstances might warrant. And, indeed, in the early 1930s Congress removed the requirement for redemption of those Notes in gold altogether, so that the rate of exchange thereafter became, and still remains, zero. AN ACT To protect the currency system of the United States, to provide for the better use of the monetary gold stock of the United States, and for other purposes, Act of 30 January 1934, CHAPTER 6, § 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337, 337, now codified at 12 U.S.C. § 411. Revealingly, no one ever challenged the elimination of redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold as unconstitutional—for the self-evidently sound reason that Congress had explicitly reserved the plenary right to do so when redemption was originally included in the Federal Reserve Act. So today, under Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act implemented through and coupled with 12 U.S.C. § 95(a), a patriotic President and Secretary of the Treasury could require the banks to adopt whatever rates of exchange between Federal Reserve Notes and gold, and between those Notes and silver, the President and the Secretary believed would “preserve for the people the full benefits of the currency system provided for by the Congress”. And that requirement embodied in a regulation today would be just as constitutional as was either the initial requirement of redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold in the statute of 1913, or the removal of that requirement in the statute of 1934.

Nonetheless, today everyone with any financial insight at all realizes that it would be economically impossible for the banks to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold at the fixed rate of exchange employed in 1913 and 1934; and no less impossible for them to redeem those Notes in an equivalent fixed amount of silver. Therefore, to ease their transition from a system of effectively fiat paper currency to one of economically sound and constitutional money, the banks should be allowed to exchange Federal Reserve Notes for the ever-varying amounts of gold and silver for which those Notes exchange in the free market from day to day. The success of such a transition, of course, would depend upon a properly functioning free market—for the preservation of which the President and the Secretary of the Treasury would need to promulgate specific regulations to dissuade and prevent bankers and their cronies in the underworld of high finance from attempting, directly or indirectly, to manipulate the gold and silver markets, and to punish them in truly exemplary fashion should deterrence fail. Overall, the banks should not be heard to complain, because this arrangement would be far less onerous as to them than were the traditional requirements that bank notes be redeemed with precious metals at statutorily fixed rates of exchange.

To put the new system of exchange into practice, the regulations under 12 U.S.C. § 95(a) should require all of the member banks of the Federal Reserve System which conduct operations in each State, together with the particular Federal Reserve regional bank the statutorily assigned district of which includes that State, to establish and thereafter administer a common gold and silver depository in that State (the ultimate goal being fifty such depositories). The banks would offer all of their customers accounts through which the latter could: (i) exchange Federal Reserve Notes for gold and silver, and gold and silver for Federal Reserve Notes—so that a completely free market for such transactions could function throughout the United States; and (ii) accept deposits of gold and silver from their customers, and make payments in gold and silver to other customers with similar accounts—so that gold and silver could be efficiently employed as actual media of exchange in Americans’ common day-to-day commercial transactions. The costs of maintaining this system would be deemed to be among “the necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank”, after the payment of which “the stockholders [of such bank, being primarily the member banks in that region] shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 per centum on the paid-in capital stock”. See Act of 23 December 1913, § 7, [1], 38 Stat. at 258, now codified at 12 U.S.C. § 289. It would be eminently just to impose on the banks the costs for repairing the nation’s banking system along these lines, because the imprudence and even profligacy of the Federal Reserve’s managers (from both the regional banks and the member banks) caused the banking cartel to “go off the gold standard” in the first place.

(b) In order to achieve the second goal of 12 U.S.C. § 95(a)—that is, “to relieve interstate commerce of the burdens and obstructions resulting from the receipt on an unsound or unsafe basis of deposits subject to withdrawal by check”—the new system for exchanging Federal Reserve Notes for gold and silver and for employing gold and silver as common media of exchange through the Federal Reserve regional banks and the member banks of the Federal Reserve System must be secured from the problems associated with “fractional reserves”. To accomplish this, the new regulations must stipulate that: (i) the customers’ deposits of gold and silver are the property of the customers alone, not of the banks to any degree; (ii) the banks may not deal in their depositors’ gold or silver except to transfer ownership from one account to another upon and in strict accordance with their depositors’ orders; (iii) the depositors enjoy first liens on the assets of the banks for the values of their deposits, so that their claims against the banks come before the claims of all other private creditors; and (iv) the depositors’ claims against the banks must be settled in gold and silver only (that is, by specific performance, rather than with “monetary damages” paid in some other currency).

(c) That 12 U.S.C. § 95(a) posits the existence of “burdens and obstructions [on interstate commerce] resulting from the receipt on an unsound or unsafe basis for deposits subject to withdrawal by check”; that it allows for an “emergency period” which “the President of the United States by proclamation may prescribe”; and that it imposes truly draconian penalties upon entities and individuals which and who even for a single day violate the “regulations, limitations and restrictions” to be “prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President”—all plainly indicate Congress’s understanding that America’s national security would be imperiled by a collapse of or other crisis which destabilized the Federal Reserve System. Moreover, inasmuch as the Second Amendment recognizes that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State” in every State throughout this country, and with respect to every possible type of “security” relevant to freedom; inasmuch as Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union”; inasmuch as Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution invests the President with the status of “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”; and inasmuch as 10 U.S.C. § 332 provides that, “whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages * * * make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State * * * as he considers necessary to enforce those laws”—for all of these reasons taken together, the Militia and only the Militia should be assigned the authority and responsibility to supervise enforcement of the new regulations by which Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act would be implemented through and otherwise coupled with 12 U.S.C. § 95(a).

After all, dolorous experience in this country for the last hundred years—and especially during the last decade—amply supports the conclusions that:

(i) Particularly with respect to their long-standing opposition to the constitutional monetary system of silver and gold, the banks in the Federal Reserve System, along with their allies in the underworld of high finance, have proven themselves again and again to be “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages” against the public interest.

(ii) The failure of every attempt to date to bring the banks and their financial partisans to heel demonstrates the impracticality of enforcing the laws of the United States against those parties “in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”.

(iii) That Congress has exposed the banks to the severe strictures of 12 U.S.C. § 95(a) demonstrates its recognition that, under certain circumstances (which plainly obtain today), the banks may collectively constitute combinations too powerful to be suppressed or otherwise disciplined by any other, less-rigorous means. But,

(iv) Precisely because of their severity and potential efficacy, those strictures will be enforceable to the necessary degree only through deployment of the Militia—which, being composed of the American people themselves, alone can supply sufficient personnel who cannot be co-opted or compromised by the banks.

For the purpose of enforcing Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act as implemented through and coupled with 12 U.S.C. § 95(a), the President could with confidence as well as propriety call upon members of the so-called “unorganized militia”. See 10 U.S.C. § 311(b)(2). See, e.g., Code of Virginia §§ 44-1 and 44-4. I use Virginia as an example only because I happen to live in the Commonwealth. A quick search of other States’ codes can discover equivalent provisions. (Again, I do not intend to inquire here as to the constitutionality vel non of an “unorganized militia”. Having written extensively on the subject in such books as The Sword and Sovereignty, I leave it to readers of this commentary to recall that printing , both with ink and electrons, has been invented, and that it would behoove them to take advantage of that fact. But once more I must remind my readers that, at the present perilous time, “it takes a crooked stick to beat a mad dog”.)

Because the “unorganized militia” consists of the great bulk of this country’s adult population, it would be no difficult task to find within “such of the militia of any State * * * as [t]he [President] considers necessary to enforce those laws” a superfluity of individuals who had appropriate education, skills, and experience with regard to the information technology, to the supervision of banks and other financial institutions, to accounting, and to the allied disciplines required for the operations of gold and silver depositories as well as the general surveillance and control of the banks in relation to such operations. The Militia could easily supply all of the personnel necessary and sufficient to provide actual day-to-day physical security for and to administer the depositories, as well as to monitor all of the other activities of the banks that were subject to the regulations promulgated under 12 U.S.C. § 95(a). The Militia, more than any other group within society, would have a keen economic interest in seeing to it that the regulations were enforced to the letter.

And because the “unorganized militia” would supply such a huge pool from which the President could draw the necessary personnel, the bankers and their clients in the underworld of high finance would find it utterly impossible to coöpt, corrupt, or coerce enough Militiamen to subvert the Militia’s supervision of the banks anywhere throughout this country. (Observe, too, that, contrary to the criticism labeled against those who advocate revitalization of the Militia, this proposal does not involve, or even suggest, the use of “violence” by the Militia in the performance of their duties.)

Thus, the foregoing provides an answer to one question which should be posed to every candidate for the Presidency in 2016 (assuming that the monetary and banking systems have not already collapsed before then). If a candidate cannot supply this answer or something closely akin to it, he (or she) is plainly unqualified for “the Office of President” even if “eligible to th[at] Office” on the basis of citizenship. The point of this exercise, though, is to be found not in the expectation that any of the candidates the “two” political parties will foist on America will be asked this question (or, if they were, could intelligibly answer it), but in the demonstration that problems such as the question addresses do have solutions ready to hand, if a little thought is applied to the matter.

Perhaps if patriots were to press throughout the alternative media for questions of this kind to be asked and answered, the Presidential election would take on some substance.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes.www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…

He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.

E-Mail: Not available 

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM




Secrecy Defines Trans Pacific Partnership Deal as Opponents Decry Threat to Jobs



5-6-2015 2-41-59 PM

By Aaron Dykes

Critics are mounting in Congress and across the country over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), making a major issue out of stopping President Obama’s attempt to fast track the secretive trade agreement.

Grassroots opponents have been fighting the TPP for years now, while powerful corporate interests have negotiated favorable terms for a deal that could cost a great deal both to national sovereignty and to the economic livelihood of the working and middle classes.

Thus, opposition is coming from the political left-aisle – prominent Democrats are distancing themselves from Obama and voicing their opposition to the TPP in conjunction with labor interests, unions and others poised to meet unfair competition from lower wage manufacturers throughout the existing and developing multi-national “free trade” manufacturing zones in competing overseas nations.

These members of Congress and others are complaining about the highly secretive process of the trade agreement, and the extreme measures taken before even members of Congress can read passages from the pending 12-nation trade agreement. Via Politico:

If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.

And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.

The TPP  is dangerous and leaves Americans vulnerable, as it puts cooperation with other nations and the driving bottom line and profits of top corporations well above the interests of American workers here, failing to even give full disclosure to Washington lawmakers.

Thus, it should be clear enough who the agreement seeks to benefit. With emphasis on subtly combating Chinese diplomatic and trade pressure, it opens the door for mega-corporations seeking to expand their footprint of dominance over the Asian and Latin American world. As Politico notes:

Administration aides say they can’t make the details public because the negotiations are still going on with multiple countries at once; if for example, Vietnam knew what the American bottom line was with Japan, that might drive them to change their own terms. Trade might not seem like a national security issue, they say, but it is (and foreign governments regularly try to hack their way in to American trade deliberations).

[…and earlier in the article]

For those out to sink Obama’s free trade push, highlighting the lack of public information is becoming central to their opposition strategy:The White House isn’t even telling Congress what it’s asking for, they say, or what it’s already promised foreign governments.So they are hiding behind the cloak of “national security” even while admitting that they have disclosed more about the agreement to the these foreign nations than to the leaders of this one.

The public has not been given an outline of the scope of this new phase of globalism, including how it might affect their jobs, income and the overall economy. It is not a common talking point on the news, or goal of a dramatized struggle with protests and riots.

President Obama has not appealed to its virtues in a public address or plead for the need to pass it. It has been a whisper in the public forums, while inside Washington, its promoters insist upon Fast Track approval and discrete, off-the-record proceedings.

What little has come to light about the past several years of secret negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership has indicated that the process has been led by corporate lawyers and trade lobbyists from the pharmaceutical, agribusiness and chemical giants and other players with insider interests.

The deal has all the hallmarks of the nation’s other big international trade agreements. Like NAFTA, CAFTA, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North American and others, the powerful economic drivers of the deal are coordinated by and confined to the ownership level and to top managers, and discussion of its impacts – and even its promises – are downplayed in the media to keep the issue of the radar for workers ‘adjusting’ to the new rules of the game amid a challenging and even desperate market.

The People will be the last to know, and the least to benefit.

Aaron Dykes is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com, where this article first appeared. As a writer, researcher and video producer who has worked on numerous documentaries and investigative reports, he uses history as a guide to decode current events, uncover obscure agendas and contrast them with the dignity afforded individuals as recognized in documents like the Bill of Rights.

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty May Not Have the Votes to Pass


By Joshua Krause

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty that is being pushed by President Obama, is alarming to say the least. The free trade agreement, which would include at least a dozen nations, has been drafted in secret and largely written for the benefit of global corporations. The fact that our government could establish any treaty in secret is bad enough, but given its sponsors and what can be gleaned from leaked documents, TPP looks like it will be a disaster for individual liberty, economic progress, and the sovereignty of our nation.

Despite the fact that the establishment has been able to keep this treacherous agreement secret for several years, the public is now becoming fully aware of it. You can almost feel their anxiety as support for it slowly evaporates. They’re clearly worried about the success of their treaty, and it shows. The US Senate is currently slated to vote on a bill that would allow Obama to “fast-track” the treaty, thus preventing Congress from amending the agreement at a later date. These corporations want this treaty set in stone now, before it loses even more support.

However, it may be too late for them.

While there is a lot of support for TPP in the halls of government, it may not be enough, and there appears to be growing fear and resentment over the treaty that crosses party lines.

Orrin Hatch, the Republican from Utah and the Senate’s generalissimo on the TPP question, gave a revealing interview to the Financial Times over the weekend. If Obama doesn’t get more Democrats behind fast-track very, very quickly, Part 1 of this undertaking is instantly in doubt.

As Hatch explained, at the moment there are too many Tea Party defectors on the right side of the aisle and too few Democrats willing to vote the bill forward. He seemed to suggest that it would be easier for Obama to cajole Democrats to get behind fast track than it would be to budge the Tea Party resisters.

That’s interesting by itself. Democrats are in for a rolling barrage of anti-TPP protest from constituencies—labor, the greens, civil society groups, the progressive wing—that matter at election time. If Democratic lawmakers are the best bet to push through fast track, the only word we’ve got for this is, Whoa!

And that’s only one roadblock this treaty needs to overcome. The TPP is international in scope, which means it needs the support of all nations involved if it wants to have any teeth. But it looks like the TPP is facing even more resistance in Japan than it is in the United States.

The Japanese leader couldn’t even deliver on imports of autos and farm products during his talks with Obama last week. These were stale, intractable trade issues when I arrived in Tokyo as a correspondent in 1987. We haven’t yet got even this stuff off the table?

The TPP’s outlook in Japan is upside down from ours. U.S. corporations are thoroughly behind the pact—having helped write many parts of it, after all. But big Japanese blue chips—makers of cars, consumer electronics, and machinery—are the core of the export sector and see nothing in the TPP other than unwelcome competition.

Flip this over and you have the weak side of Japan: rice and produce farmers and underdeveloped industrial sectors such as drugs and financial services. Long the beneficiaries of protectionist regulation (and generous supporters of the governing Liberal Democrats), these constituencies are also against the TPP—the farmers very vigorously.

Now you can hear Abe’s message to Obama for what it was: He’s very unlikely to deliver on the TPP—and whether he can’t or doesn’t want to is among the interesting questions he left behind last week. We’ll have to see which it is.

The US appears to have plenty of corporate support while lacking the enthusiasm of the legislative branch, while Japan has these roles reversed. If the two largest economies in this treaty are struggling to convince their politicians and corporations to go along with it, then it may be dead in the water. Good riddance.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple, where this article first appeared. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger.

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


You can bet your backside they will past both of these bills!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM







R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./ sciences
Freelance Investigative Science Reporter since 1996

DISCLAIMER:  The following is not intended as legal, financial, or medical advice; instead, it is sent for Education and Discussion Purposes Only….the Reader is responsible for all thoughts and actions gained from introspection.

NOTE:  Groups of citizens have been meeting together for discussion about these issues since the Vietnam War days.  The govt does not care about those who sit and talk; however, it kills those who try to change their system.

Atty Hudes has not offered a good solution, albeit it was a “safe” one for her to offer.

Unless and Until…enough men and women take responsibility to bring the local government into tow at the COUNTY levels, there cannot be a resolution.  It is a fact that the organization of every state is by COUNTY for very legal reasons….go and do your duty.  Look up the LEGAL history of County formation and learn how it works in the LEGAL system.

The Global Currency Reset


Maine Republic Email

April 28, 2015 interview

PHONE number:  203-792-4101

VIDEO:  (59 minutes)



REPORTER NOTES: (The following is a rough transcript, go to the link for accuracy.  It is intended to help those who cannot upload the large website or who don’t have time to listen for an hour.)

HOST:  Chris Pante

GUEST:  Karen Hudes

Karen Hudes is the Legal Counsel to the Global Debt Facility in the World Bank.  She is an attorney who is blowing the whistle on the Cabal in the international banking community.

HOST:  Explain what happens when a Person signs the back of a Bank card…

HUDES:  “That is when you have something called “CONTRACTS OF ADHESION.”   That is a fancy word for saying a contract that you had no choice to agree to or not.  There is a fellow, Chris Mercier, who used to be the Clerk of Courts in New York.  In 1985 he wrote a book about hidden contracts that when you sign your signature card, on the very bottom in very fine print it says:  SUBJECT TO BANK RULES.

If you look to see what those bank rules are, then there is a hidden contract in there that says you agree to not go to a regular Court that you are supposed to be entitled to go to under the Constitution.  Instead, you are going to go to an Administrative Court.  Those judges who are sitting up there as if they are actually Federal judges are in reality in a secret Administrative Court. 

They are not looking at you as if you are entitled to your rights under the Constitution.

HOST:  Does this mean that even if I am not in the Court for financial reasons, like say a crime, if I signed the bank card, does the put me in this court?

HUDES:  “That is right.  You are not in a real criminal court.  ALL OF THE COURTS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS.  I went to the Senate Judiciary Committee and tried to get them to own up to this fact.  If the Congress is not going to admit that they have been DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY every single year since 1861, and if they are not telling the American people that they are SECRETLY UNDER MARTIAL LAW, do you think that they are going to admit to the fact that citizens are not going to Courts of Equity?

(4.59 minutes)

HOST:  You mentioned the bank card.  So just by doing that, we forfeit our rights by the constitution.  The constitution isn’t the one that we think we have, is it?

HUDES:  That’s right.  In 1871, the banks incorporated the United States, and called the United States “a corporation”.  When they created the District of Columbia, what they did was put that corporation in the District of Columbia.  They said that the members of Congress were actually managers of that corporation.  They said that the President of the United States was actually the President of that corporation.  So, we are not living in the country that we think we are living in.  I have said that what they have done is called State Capture.

I have said that there is an Interregnum.    If you look that word up, that means we don’t have a LEGITIMATE government.

[INSERT]  Interregnum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAn interregnum (plural interregna or interregnums) is a period of discontinuity or “gap” in a government, organization, or social order.

When the founding fathers wrote this constitution they realized that the Bankers were trying to pull a fast one on us and to try to take over our governance.  They put in a safety mechanism.   There is something called Article V, which says when 2/3 of the state legislatures request an Amendment, then the Congress is required to convene a Constitution to consider an Amendment.  The Congress was supposed to do that back in 1929.  They have been in contempt of the American people.  They have not given us an opportunity to get our original constitution back.  They haven’t even told us that we are not operating under our original constitution.  They have been lying to us.

(7.32 minutes)

HOST:  We send people to the House, and we send people to the Senate, but it is immaterial who we send, isn’t it?  They do the bidding of another master.

HUDES:  That’s right.  And so we are under something called STATE CAPTURE, which is that our Public officials are actually serving the interests of the Bankers.  They are not serving the interests of their constituents.

HOST:  Every day we open up our wallets and we see a Federal Reserve Note.  It is labeled:  Legal Tender for Debts.  I would say that 90 percent of the country, if they even recognize the words Federal Reserve, have no idea how they got into this country.  Tell our listeners who these people really are and how they got here.

HUDES:  The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE institution.  It is not a government organization.  They are actually a part of something called the Network of Global Corporate Controls.  Three mathematicians did a study of who owns all of the 43,000 companies on the world’s capital markets.  What they found out was that one company has put Directors in interlocking Boards, in a kind of a Ponzi scheme.  They have ten times the economic might they are supposed to have because of the clever way they did this.  They didn’t think that we would find this out, but we did.

This Company has 60 percent of the profits.  They are in control of 40 percent of the Assets of the 43,000 companies on the capital markets.  In the meantime, they bought up all of the Media.  They are censoring the media.  What they are telling people is their version of what they think people need to know.  They are censoring information, that if people knew about it, would think they are entitled to know.

(9.53 minutes)

HOST:  It is interesting that every time we look at our Social Security Card and our Drivers License, we see our name in bold printed big BLOCK letters…What is the significance of the big block letters?

HUDES:  The significance is that they have actually created “miniature companies” for each citizen.  They have said that we are actually companies who are not real people.  They treat us as if we were those companies.  When we go into a court, we are not seen by the Judges there as if we are human beings.  We are seen as if we are Representatives of that corporation in our name. And when they take the Birth Certificates, they bundle them together and Pledge them on the Capital Markets.  They earn money on them.  They calculate how many taxes we are going to pay over our lifetime.  Then, they issue a Bond in that value, and they earn money on that bond.

HOST:  So we are cattle?  We were deemed that we are prizes for other people, and we are not real people.  We have already been bought and sold.  By the time we enter the world, we have a Social Security Number and we have already entered that system.  When we sign a bank card, we lose our rights.  It sounds like a depreciation of humanity… the System is meant to control you.  From what you are saying, “own you.”

HUDES:  When you realize how this could have come into effect, it is a BETRAYAL of the most fundamental way.  Part of the question that you have when you hear about this is you say, “How many people have been working on this, and making it this way?  Who has been doing this?  Who has been betraying us?”  One of the main culprits is the legal profession.

HOST:  Talk to me about that.

HUDES:  Yes!  The American Bar Association has been betraying people.  They have been creating a very complex system, without telling people about it.  When people go to Law School, they are never taught about this.  Fortunately, there are some very clever people, who have been studying this, and teaching this to other people.  When you finally find out about this, you can find the evidence for it.  You can see the Statutes as they have been enacted.

For example, the Social Security Act is in the United Kingdom.  The reason why is that when we pay our taxes, they are actually going out of the country.  Our income taxes, 100 percent of them, are leaving the country.  Ronald Reagan had a Grace Commission do a study of where our tax revenues are going.  The Grace Commission did a report.  He found out that the Income Taxes were all going to the Bankers; foreign bankers outside the country.

(13.26 minutes)

HOST:  So what we all just did before April 15…we were told, “You owe the Federal Government $300, and you owe the State government $112” …yada, yada, yada….you write checks, and it never ends up in the place we sent it?  All this money is just siphoned to the Bankers?

HUDES:  What they did with the States was they incorporated the state as well.  Then, they created something called Metro 1313.  They have special agencies that on the face of it look as if they are helpful.  The National Association of State Legislatures.  There is a whole slew of these organizations.  They are actually there to undermine states.  I think there are ten states who no longer recognize their own boundaries.

(14.28 minutes)

Their agenda was to erase the states, and to put them into ten FEMA Regions.  We were going to have a different kind of Governance than we thought we had.

HOST:  Is this State of Emergency that you say we have been in since 1871…

HUDES:  It was 1861 that we started a State of Emergency.

HOST:  Is the end result of that Martial Law?

HUDES:  Yes!  We are under Martial Law.

HOST:  Just by having that State of Emergency?

HUDES:  That is what it is designed to do.  Yes, to put us under Martial Law.

HOST:  That means we are located in one of the ten FEMA Regions.  I know that “F” stands for Federal, and that is never good.

HUDES:  Federal Emergency Management Act.

HOST:  It is even more martial that it is.  If something broke out in FEMA Region 2, then the military would be at the President’s disposal to create what…let’s call…Lasting Peace?  Does the military work for us or for them?

HUDES:  Well, I can tell you actually what’s been going on with the military, because when former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was still Senator of Nebraska, I was talking to him about a very powerful analytic tool called a Power Transition Model.  It was developed in the Department of Defense by Yasek Kugler, who is a political scientist.  He holds the Chair of the Political Science Department at Claremont University in California.

(16.21 minutes)

What this model does is predicts how coalitions will form.  It is 90-95 percent accurate.  They have been looking at it over 300-400 models, and maybe more now.  What this predicts is how coalitions will interact with each other by using Game Theory modeling.

What the Power Transition Model predicted was that there would be a coalition for the Rule of Law that would counteract the corruption of these banks.  I spoke to Senator Hagel about this model back in 2008.  When he became Secretary of Defense, I kept writing to him about it, because it predicted that the United States was going to lose its allies.  That is what has actually happened.

That is why Germany is joining the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).    This model predicted that if the United States did not start acting like a country, defending its own interests, and if it did not end the State Capture of the Banking institutions, then we were going to be isolated.  That is what the risk is.  We have been forming a coalition to fight those Bankers.  That coalition now exists.  That coalition has placed the Federal Reserve and the rest of these Private Central banks into RECEIVERSHIP.  It turns out that those Banks owe us more than we owe them for our country’s Debt.

(18:04 minutes)

HOST:  Where does that stand?  Are we going to get what we deserve to get from them, or is this just going to be in the courts and litigated for ever and ever?

HUDES:  It is not going to be in the courts.  Let’s step back a little bit and figure out how it is that these banks owe us more than we owe them.

Underneath all of this paper currency, which is just paper.  The only reason the Federal Reserve Notes are valuable is because we, in the United States, are willing to pay taxes to back up these Federal Reserve Notes.  We recognize them.  When one understands what these things are, we should not be recognizing them.  We should have our own honest constitutional money, because the Federal Reserve Note is unconstitutional.  We were never supposed to have paper currency.  We were supposed to have currencies issued by the Congress, based on precious metals – silver and gold.  Instead, we have paper currency, which in 1971 became detached from the gold.  That was when Nixon did that.

The reason Nixon did that was because we had the war in Vietnam, and there was Debt piling up, and there was not enough gold to compensate people.

CALLER: Explain “bank card”.

(20.35 minutes)

HUDES:      I am talking about the bank’s Signature Card.  They want you to give a specimen signature.  I may be the credit cards, but I don’t know that for a fact.  I am basing this on what George Mercier wrote.

HOST:  There is a lot of discussion about a Global Currency Reset.  You just mentioned that the world is filled with this paper money.  It could be the Yin, Dinar, the Dollar…whatever…and there is always this battle of what is this one worth versus another one.  Let’s talk about the Global Currency Reset…

(22.45 minutes)

HUDES:  Okay, and let’s go back and finish the question about the U.S. military, and where does the military stand.  That is actually the crux of the Global Currency Reset.  That is also why I am very convinced it is not going to be chaotic.  It is going to be very smooth.  It is going to be a wonderful transition, because the military understands that the USA should not surrender unilaterally.  If the Federal Reserve Note is worthless, then how are they going to pay their troops?  If there is nothing backing the Federal Reserve Note, but the thought that the American people are willing to work to pay taxes.  But we understand that our taxes are NOT STAYING IN THE COUNTRY and paying for what we think our taxes ought to go for, but are just simply going to the banks.  The currency is printed by them out of thin air.  It is a digital entry on a computer screen.  They get to keep that money as if it had been issued by them with some value.  They are keeping the difference between what it costs them to print, and the face value of the money.  That is called SIERAGE.

[INSERT]  Money Multiplier – go to wikipedia

(24.34 minutes)

HUDES:  Any President that tried to … have the Treasury issue the currency and not a Private bank, they were murdered.  That is what happened to Lincoln.  That is what happened to John F. Kennedy.  Ten days after Kennedy signed what was called the Green Hilton Agreement, and let’s look at that agreement.  What was that agreement?

There is a Trust Fund that contains the world’s gold monetary reserves.  It is called the Global Debt Facility.  When the World Bank and the IMF were created in 1944, the SECRET REASON for them to be created was so that after fifty years, the gold was put into a Trust fund, a secret Trust fund, and at the end of fifty years the IMF and World Bank were supposed to decide how that was going to benefit Humanity.  That Trust Fund is for the benefit of humanity.

It is administered by the World Bank and the IMF.  I found out about this Global Debt Facility.  I was in the World Bank for twenty years as their lawyer, and I saw that the World Bank was doing crooked things.  I knew that it was my job as the lawyer inside the World Bank to stop that corruption.

I also knew because of this Power Transition Model that if the corruption did not end, then we were going to have a nuclear war in the Middle East.  The likelihood was 90-95 percent.

So when I got my statement about the corruption in the World Bank up on the U.K. Parliament website…I got three statements up…my last statement, along with another Whistleblower Elaine Colvell from Scotland also got her statement up… once that happened, the Power Transition Model predicted that we were going to clean up the corruption.

At the beginning when I started talking about all of this, I thought I was talking about corruption inside the World Bank.  I was not going to start trying to end world corruption as a lawyer by myself.  I would never have started on that.

I did know that as a lawyer inside the World Bank that it was my job.  It was my Duty to end the corruption inside the World Bank.  I also knew from Yasek Kugler that it was something that could be done.  I also knew that if I didn’t do it, that there was going to be a nuclear war in the Middle East.

Actually, that nuclear war nearly happened with Syria.  As you can see, that we have been succeeding in rolling back the Banking Cartel.  So that war did not happen in Syria.  The war didn’t happen in Ukraine.  And, there was a threat of a nuclear bomb being dropped on Charleston.  That was on October 7, 2013.  Now, that is where you see that the U.S. Military is actually loyal to the citizens, and not loyal to the banks.

This past month, we nearly had a nuclear war with Russia.  When Chuck Hagel left as Secretary of Defense, he put in an extra layer of approval for a nuke being utilized by the U.S. military.  A woman (Christine H?) has been arrested for refusing to authorize a nuke dropped on Russia.

(28.16 minutes)

HOST:  Wow.  Do you get the feeling that the development of nuclear weapons is essentially for the Banks to have leverage; always the leverage of fear against citizens?

HUDES:  I will tell you why the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in Japan.  It was because Japan was refusing to tell the bankers where their gold was.  What happened in World War II, was that Hosea Resole had been in charge of this gold for the Vatican.  He took the gold that the Bankers thought was theirs, and he shipped it to Singapore.  He had it melted down and he had it stamped.  He put it in this Trust, the Global Debt Facility for the benefit of humanity.  Then, the Japanese refused to tell the Bankers where they had put this gold that had been restamped.  That is why they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

HOST:  What was Pearl Harbor then?

HUDES:  Pearl Harbor was to get the United States into the war.  That was a False-Flag.

HOST:  So what we were told, and again this was hogwash.  Essentially the attack was allowed.

(30.16 minutes)

HUDES:  Let’s fast forward now.  Japan does not have its own military to defend itself.  What they have instead is the United States troops on Okinawa.  Those troops are governed by what is called the Joint U.S.-Japan Committee under the Status of Forces Agreement.  I went to Japan last summer.  The Japanese do not want the U.S. to surrender unilaterally, which is what is going to happen if we don’t get rid of the Federal Reserve Note.

This Quantitative Easing that we are told is done to try to strengthen the United States economy, that is actually done so that there will be a unilateral surrender of military might by the United States.

The Federal Reserve Note as you continue printing more and more of it becomes valueless. They are trying to have the United States surrender unilaterally.

I asked General Martin Dempsy who is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, why we did not accept the gold that the Global Debt Facility has offered to the United States, and use that to mint dollars out of the gold, which would not crash.  Why would he not accept that if his job is to defend the United States?  He refused to answer the question.  I asked him that question twice.

It is because he is not really working in defense of the United States.   He is working as a Knight of Malta to try to unilaterally surrender the United States.  So Chuck Hagel was going to Court Martial Martin Dempsy, and that is why he had to step down as the Secretary of Defense.

(32.12 minutes)

HOST:  So we have all this gold out there which was made for the Benefit of Humanity… and the IMF and World Bank are trying to figure out what to do with it.

HUDES:  We have already figured it out.  We have agreed that this gold is going to each and every country so they can mint their currency.  It is not a “One World Order.”  It is not a single currency for the world.  What it is:  Each and every country will have its own currency, but they will mint it out of the gold.

HOST:  I see.  We never should have gotten away from that in the first place.  When people talk about Nixon, they always talk about Watergate.  The worst thing he did was get us off the gold standard and why he did that?

HUDES:  He did that because there was not enough gold to go around.  We had too many dollars and too little gold.

HOST:  Is this reset going to happen?

HUDES:  Yes.  The likelihood that it happens is 90-95 percent.  What I have done is written to each and every country back in July [2014] and offered them the gold they they needed to mint their currencies.  There was a Spring meeting of the World Bank and IMF on April 17-19 [2015].  Just before that we had something called a Notarial Protest, which is I wrote to the Federal Reserve and also the U.S. Treasury.  I said, “The Gold that you are claiming is in the Monetary Reserves is actually held at the Global Debt Facility.  You are lying.”  I asked them to respond.

They refused to respond a number of times.  I copied the U.S. Post Master General.  I copied the Universal Postal Union Director General of the International Bureau.  After that, I filed Financing Statements against each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks.  Because what they did in the 1930s is they gathered up gold from the elites, then they issued Certificates issued in denominations of gold.  At the time it was over $200 Trillion (dollars).  That has been accruing interest, and the interest has been compounding.

So now, the Federal Reserve owes over TWO QUADRILLION DOLLARS denominated in gold in these Bonds.

(34.56 minutes)

All of the country Debt is less than that.  We can off-set the Debts – Ireland’s debt, Greece’s debt – and just say that the money that we owe under our debt is off-set against the money that the Federal Reserve Owes, held in the Gold Debt Facility.

I put the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) and the 60 Central Banks into RECEIVERSHIP to the Global Debt Facility during the Spring meetings in April.  That is where they are.  I have been discussing this with the Secretary of State in some of the states where they have raised questions about the U.C.C. statements; the Financing statements that I filed.

In Chicago, where the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank is located, I got a letter saying that they wanted me to Prove that the Global Debt Facility had the Right to file these Financing Statements.  I looked at that law.

The law said that for a Bank that is regulated in the U.S. there is no Requirement to Prove anything.

The World Bank is actually regulated by something that is called “The National Advisory Council On International Monetary and Financial Policies.”  That is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury.  It has the Chairman of the Federal Reserve on it.     It has the Secretary of State.  It has the Chairman of the FEC on it.

Anyway, I said that I was Exempt.  I also showed where the Fed had been trying to buy up the quadrillions in Bonds that they owe.  They actually tried to buy those back at a DISCOUNT.

I cleared that letter with the Board of Governors, and that is over 180 Ministers of Finance and Ministers of Development that are in charge of running the World Bank and IMF.  I cleared that letter with them.

HOST:  So essentially what you are saying is that the Global Reset that you are talking about is the minting of gold to these countries that was kept aside for the good of humanity….There are people out there that talk about all of the world’s FIAT CURRENCIES would be revalued.  And, there are a lot of people out there that have invested in these fiat currencies.  What would you say to those people?

HUDES:  The first thing they would have to do is look at what the BRICS are saying.  These countries have 25 percent of World Trade among themselves.  They are refusing to use Federal Reserve Notes in that trade.  There are also 133 countries called the “G-77.”   They are also stating that they are not going to us the Dollar or the Federal Reserve as currency.   So the Dollar, which is the Federal Reserve Note, has lost its status as an International Reserve Currency.

This means there is a TOTAL GLUT OF FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES.  Nobody wants these anymore.  So how are you going to have a Federal Reserve Note as part of a basket of World’s currencies, the STR, which is what the IMF is saying is going to happen with the Global Reset.  People aren’t agreeing to that.  You cannot have a reset when there is no agreement.

HOST:  So this is not something that is going to happen overnight?  So we are months away, years away, or you don’t know…?

HUDES:  I actually think this is going to happen very soon.  I will tell you why I think that.  It is because, and as I said the United States is under STATE CAPTURE, and we have this interregnum.  So, when I wrote to all the Secretaries and Ministers of Finance, I did not write to Jack Lew, because he is not serving the interest of the United States.  He is serving the interests of this group: The Network of Global Corporate Control, which consists of all these companies rolled into one.

What I did say is that the United States interests are now being served, first of all by the County Executives of America that ACCEPTED THE GOLD.  Why wouldn’t we accept our gold?  Of course, we would accept our gold!  That is what the County Executives of America did.

[INSERT] ·  Jack Lew – CNBC

www.cnbc.com/id/10000444   Cached

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew talks to CNBC’s Sara Eisen about the US economy and how there can be stronger growth around the world.

Jack Lew Announcement Today – Video Results

  1. 4:43

Jack Lew engages in fearmongering and scare tactics over …


  1. 4:43

Jack Lew engages in fearmongering and scare tactics over …


  1. 3:36

Will shutdown bring Jack Lew to his knees?


(40.11 minutes)

So I went just last week to the Mint Council, to the President of the Mint Council, who is Rhonda Set, who is a member of the American Federation of Government Employees.  I said the Mint should accept this gold and mint the dollars, and then we should just exchange the Federal Reserve Notes for those dollars.  And if the AFGE is not accountable, and somehow thinks that it is supposed to serve this Network of Global Corporate Control, well we will just go to a different Mint.   There is nobody that is going to force us to use the U.S. Mint if they are not going to accept our gold that we are entitled to.

HOST:  You know, it is amazing and sometimes it is a matter of semantics.  The Federal Reserve Note is one thing, and the Dollar was a Spanish word.  It was a denomination of Silver.

HUDES:  That is right.

HOST:  We have been totally duped.  You think that you have a dollar bill.  You will wish you had a dollar bill, because it would be worth something.  It would be backed by something.  This Federal Reserve Note is just a piece of paper with the number “5” on it (for example).  If it is not backed by silver, gold, or oil, then it might as well be backed by Gaiter Aid.  It has to get to a point where something has to stop.

HUDES:  Many people are confused about what they should do right now as we speak.  The quarters are not issued by the Federal Reserve.  Buy quarters.  They are worth something.  They will stay valuable.

There is something else that people can do.  Austria has issued gold now, and the gold is a gold bar that can be broken down very easily –  It is meant for that – To 25 pieces of 5 grams each – roughly 8 dollars. You can buy that is going to serve as your currency until we get this sorted out.

I am optimistic that we will get it sorted out very readily.  I have been in touch with any number of countries that know there is a Coalition for the Rule of Law.  And they know the people of the United States are not completely duped by this Network of Global Corporate Control that has the mainstream media.

(42.45 minutes)

There was something that I wanted to show everybody.  It is actually kind of fun…

HOST:  Let me hold it up and go Camera One here…

HUDES:  (Pointing to the picture)  What you have is one leg (blue) that is Democrats, and on the other leg (red) it says Republican.  Underneath the boot on the blue leg is an American voter saying, “Ouch, next time I will vote Republican.”  Under the red leg boot is a Republican saying, “Ugh, next time I will vote Democrat.”  At the top, from the waist up, is a pyramid entitled:  GLOBAL ELITE BANKER using a megaphone called, “The Main Stream Media.”

The cartoon is called:  THE MARCH OF TYRANNY.

Enough American citizens know that the News that they are getting is just propaganda from the Bankers.  The bankers bought up all of the papers.  How many people know about all of these things that I am talking about?  It is people who are lucky enough to see your show, Chris!  Or they look at what is going on in the Internet.  The internet is very, very powerful now.  A lot of people now know that there is going to be a Global Reset of Currency.  That the World’s Gold, and it is not just gold, it is Precious Metals, it is Artwork, is in this Trust that is intended for human beings.  For all of us.

CALLER:   I am retired.  Talk about the local level.  How is this going to affect me when I go to bed or get up in the morning?

(45.27 minutes)

HOST:  Here it is, in short, and then you can pay more attention to Karen.  Anytime you hear the word – GOLD – it has been the currency of the Elite forever.  The only way you can leverage your resources is to have gold or silver, because if this gold that was left for Humanity is given to the countries, then a currency backed by Gold is going to be the ticket.  So any gold or silver that you hold, is going to help you in the resource area.

HUDES:  The very first thing is that I don’t want to frighten people, but we are at a fork in the road.  One fork is Peace and Prosperity.  The other fork is a currency war.  As you know, currency wars lead to real wars.    We are talking about the difference between World War Three and Prosperity.  Right off the bat, when you pay your taxes, for most citizens that is three months [of work] out of the year.  They are working three months out of the year for Bankers for no good reason.  The Bankers are not entitled to print money out of thin air, and then buy our politicians.

How things are going to be different?  It is going to be the most incredible blossoming.  I have been talking about gold currency, but there is actually a different currency, which is much, much more important.  That is Local Currency.  We now have Laws that say:  “Legal Tender is only the Federal Reserve Note.”  There is no other legal tender.  But if you get rid of that law, which should never be there, then you can have local communities issuing their own currency.  You would have goods and services in the local area with the merchants.  It is like a local Barter System, but better.  You could have full employment overnight and all over the place.

CALLER:  So in my assets, I should have gold and silver?

HUDES:  I am not an investment adviser.  What I do say to people about gold and silver when you get it, it is not so much as investment as “insurance.”

HOST:  Before the hour runs out, we have to talk about “Certificate of Title” and actual “Title”.  So I have a car, paid off a mortgage, and someone gives me the Title to the house, but that is a “certificate of title,” and not the actual Title.  What is the difference?

HUDES:  It is the Warranty of Title.  In the 1930s, when the United States was put under bankruptcy, the states all got together and agreed that they were going to keep the Certificates of Title for the Bankers and they were going to keep the actual Title for the Bankers.  They were going to give BOGUS TITLES to the citizens.   When you have paid off your mortgage, and get your Certificate, that is not the real Title to your house.

HOST:  So they have held the actual Title as collateral?

HUDES:  That is right, for the Bankers.  You know a lot of this information people will say it sounds outlandish.  How can I take your word for it?  I am actually relying on the research of people who are telling me this, and I can go back and show you.  There was a very detailed research that was done by a man who analyzed this. He called it, “War Powers Act.”  The government of the United States considers its citizens to be “Belligerents.”  That is what has given them the right – they think – to take our Title from us.

HOST:  That means everything.  The 401-K that we think we have, and the house that we think we own, the car that we think we own, is a BIG SHAM.  It is going to remain a sham until we take it back.  Correct?

HUDES:  Yes, and fortunately everybody is all working together to undo this corruption.  It is all corruption.  When I talk about corruption, there is another word for it that was invented by lawyers:  GOBELDYGUCK.

These systems where you have this hidden reality where nothing really is the way it appears, this has been INVENTED BY THE LAWYERS.

I have been talking to the lawyers about this.  I have been talking to the President of the American Bar Association.  I have been putting comments up.  They take the comments down.  I put them on Twitter, and people can see the Proof of everything that I am saying.

They are going to have to be accountable to the American Public who are not going to accept these lies.

HOST:  What is our Recourse?  Are we supposed to have access to our government? You know we all live in 50 states.  It was meant to be fifty countries as far as freedoms goes.  Who do we Petition?  Who should we really be mad at?  Who can we call?  Our mayor is not going to do it for us.  The Congress and the Senators are in the back pocket of these people.  The Governor would be the same, no?

HUDES:  What I am recommending people to do is form their own independent Networks.  Kind of like a Book Club.  Get together regularly.  Don’t just sit and open the newspapers while believing you are going to be reading what is actually happening.  Those media outlets are owned by the Bankers.  You are being fed propaganda, and much of it is probably lies or manipulating you into being frightened.

People should not be frightened.  What is happening is that people are now realizing what the actual State of Affairs are.  Maybe it is not pleasant news, but it is better to know what is really going on than to be completely duped.  So if you have these groups, you can work together and keep up to date with what is actually going on.

What is actually going on is that we do have this gold at our disposal.  We are going to be Minting this currency out of it.  We are going to be exchanging the Federal Reserve Note, which is worthless for this valuable golden currency.  The chances that we do this are 90-95 percent.

HOST:  There are a lot of folks out there who have been investing in foreign currency, like the Dinar.  The situation in Vietnam, what is it?  The Dong?  What are the dangers of that kind of activity?

HUDES:  The group that is deciding how this Reset is going to be occurring, that is the Board of Governors of the World Bank and IMF.  We are not likely to have valuable gold currency given to speculators who are trying to make a fast buck.  Most of these people have bought the Dinars and Dongs for pennies as speculation thinking that they are going to get rich quick.

I would go back to the people who have sold these things to you, and I would demand my money back.  The likelihood that you are going to get rich quick with this speculation is very, very unlikely.

HOST:  Has this ever happened in history?  Where people have bought currency for speculation and they have become rich?

HUDES:  What we are doing right now has NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY.  It is a magnificent endeavor.  The likelihood that we pull it off is like I said:  90-95 percent.

The reason that I am so optimistic is that every day when I open my emails, I see how many people are working on this and how we are all contributing.  It is Teamwork the likes of which you have never contemplated.  It is so exciting.  I think we are going to manage to do this, but it is not going to be done in a way that individuals will be getting rich quick.  We are going this for generations to come.  We are cleaning up this corruption that we have all been suffering from through our history.

HOST:  So essentially, from the time we became a country, the Parasites were already here?

HUDES:  Oh, Chris, this goes back to the Sumerians [20,000 B.C.].

HOST:  Right, so this is nothing new.  They get their tentacles in you, and they make real wealth almost impossible to acquire.  People like yourself, put your “football helmet on”, and you go into the middle of the lions, and you start creating rachises which get people to talk.  Think about the video you and I did in January – 22,000 people have seen that particular interview… In the next 30 seconds, do you feel that is unbelievable?  Do you feel your responsibility?

HUDES:  We are in the Age of the Internet.  We are all responsible.

HOST:  So you don’t feel an extra responsibility?  An extra burden?  I know that you are in an area where you be a “target”.  Does that effect you in any way, shape, or form?

HUDES:  Oh, I have been targeted every which way, and it just helps me know how to duck better.



Lawyers can confuse just about anyone, so keep that in mind! Karen seems to be mixing provable truth with beguiling speculation as far as I am concerned, and that has always been the banksters action plan. I am satisfied that America has never been a free Republic because the people (citizens) have always been too lazy and self concerned to compare what happens to what is promised. They beguiled us through inspiring documents that never had the authority to enforce what was promised, and ditto with the employees who claimed to be representatives. Karen seems to be providing false hope to slow down, and put back to sleep, the awaking victims. The bansters will never give up until they have been burned alive and their ashes mixed with the excrement of their employees.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM





5-4-2015 10-18-55 AM

AP Photo/Susan Walsh


Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)


is sounding the alarm to his colleagues Senate-wide, warning them and the American public with a “critical alert” published Sunday evening that voting for the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) deal that would set up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal with Asian countries is fraught with problems and concerns.

“Congress has the responsibility to ensure that any international trade agreement entered into by the United States must serve the national interest, not merely the interests of those crafting the proposal in secret,” Sessions’ team writes in a document that lays out the top five concerns with the Obama trade deal. “It must improve the quality of life, the earnings, and the per-capita wealth of everyday working Americans. The sustained long-term loss of middle class jobs and incomes should compel all lawmakers to apply added scrutiny to a ‘fast-track’ procedure wherein Congress would yield its legislative powers and allow the White House to implement one of largest global financial agreements in our history—comprising at least 12 nations and nearly 40 percent of the world’s GDP.

“The request for fast-track also comes at a time when the Administration has established a recurring pattern of sidestepping the law, the Congress, and the Constitution in order to repeal sovereign protections for U.S. workers in deference to favored financial and political allies.”

The Sessions document then goes point-by-point for five full pages through the TPA trade deal, laying out why it wouldn’t help Americans—rather, it would likely hurt American workers—and why the deal doesn’t in fact provide Congress with more power over trade despite talking points from the Obama trade deal’s proponents like House Ways and Means Committee chairman

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)


, Senate Majority Leader

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)


, and House Speaker

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)


The first point lays out how the deal would result in a “consolidation of power in the executive branch,” a point in which Sessions takes to task those like Ryan who have argued that the deal would return more power to Congress.

“TPA eliminates Congress’ ability to amend or debate trade implementing legislation and guarantees an up-or-down vote on a far-reaching international agreement before that agreement has received any public review,” Sessions writes. “Not only will Congress have given up the 67-vote threshold for a treaty and the 60-vote threshold for important legislation, but will have even given up the opportunity for amendment and the committee review process that both ensure member participation. Crucially, this applies not only to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) but all international trade agreements during the life of the TPA.

“There is no real check on the expiration of fast-track authority: if Congress does not affirmatively refuse to reauthorize TPA at the end of the defined authorization (2018), the authority is automatically renewed for an additional three years so long as the President requests the extension.

“And if a trade deal (not just TPP but any trade deal) is submitted to Congress that members believe does not fulfill, or that directly violates, the TPA recommendations—or any laws of the United States—it is exceptionally difficult for lawmakers to seek legislative redress or remove it from the fast track, as the exit ramp is under the exclusive control of the revenue and Rules committees.”

In addition to those concerns about how the deal would not in fact empower Congress—it would instead weaken Congress—Sessions notes that Obama or any future president could redact or classify information from a report the president would be required submit to Congress to get fast-track trade approval if TPA is adopted.

“Moreover, while the President is required to submit a report to Congress on the terms of a trade agreement at least 60 days before submitting implementing legislation, the President can classify or otherwise redact information from this report, limiting its value to Congress,” Sessions writes. “Is TPA designed to protect congressional responsibilities, or to limit Congress’ ability to do its duty?”

The second major point in the Sessions document details how passing TPA through Congress would result in “increased trade deficits.”

“Barclays estimates that during the first quarter of this year, the overall U.S. trade deficit will reduce economic growth by .2 percent,” Sessions writes. “History suggests that trade deals set into motion under the 6-year life of TPA could exacerbate our trade imbalance, acting as an impediment to both GDP and wage growth. Labor economist Clyde Prestowitz attributes 60 percent of the U.S.’ 5.7 million manufacturing jobs lost over the last decade to import-driven trade imbalances.”

Sessions also cites former AT&T CEO Leo Hindery, Jr., who wrote in a recent column for Reuters that since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and South Korea free trade agreements were passed and implemented, “U.S. trade deficits, which drag down economic growth, have soared more than 430 percent with our free-trade partners.”

“In the same period, they’ve declined 11 percent with countries that are not free-trade partners,” Hindery wrote, in the part where Sessions cites him, adding: “Obama’s 2011 trade deal with South Korea, which serves as the template for the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, has resulted in a 50 percent jump in the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea in its first two years. This equates to 50,000 U.S. jobs lost. “

As a result of all that, Sessions questions whether such a trade agreement would actually help—or whether it would hurt—the U.S. economy overall.

“Job loss by U.S. workers means reduced consumer demand, less tax revenue flowing into the Treasury, and greater reliance on government assistance programs. It is important that Congress fully understand the impact of this very large trade agreement and to use caution to ensure the interests of the people are protected,” Sessions wrote. “Furthermore, the lack of protections in TPA against foreign subsidies could accelerate our shrinking domestic manufacturing base. We have been getting out-negotiated by our mercantilist trading partners for years, failing to aggressively advance legitimate U.S. interests, but the proponents of TPA have apparently not sought to rectify this problem. TPA proponents must answer this simple question: will your plan shrink the trade deficit or will it grow it even wider?”

The third major point of Sessions’ “critical alert” document lays out how passing TPA, and then TPP, means the United States is effectively “ceding sovereign authority to international powers.” Sessions cites the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to make his case, laying out how the so-called “living agreement” inside the TPP deal means that the deal could be changed by other countries and the president without congressional approval whatsoever.

That means that while China isn’t currently a part of the deal, if those countries that are a part of the TPP deal wanted to add the currency-manipulating nation to it, they could do so simply with the approval of whoever is the president of the United States at the time. Congress wouldn’t need to sign off. The other countries, with simple sign off by the president without congressional approval, could also change any other agreement terms—including opening the United States up to an influx of foreign workers aimed at replacing Americans in the workforce.

“A USTR outline of the Trans- Pacific Partnership (which TPA would expedite) notes in the ‘Key Features’ summary that the TPP is a ‘living agreement,’” Sessions wrote. “This means the President could update the agreement ‘as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.’

“The ‘living agreement’ provision means that participating nations could both add countries to the TPP without Congress’ approval (like China), and could also change any of the terms of the agreement, including in controversial areas such as the entry of foreign workers and foreign employees. Again: these changes would not be subject to congressional approval.

“This has far-reaching implications: the Congressional Research Service reports that if the United States signs on to an international trade agreement, the implementing legislation of that trade agreement (as a law passed later in time) would supersede conflicting federal, state, and local laws. When this occurs, U.S. workers may be subject to a sudden change in tariffs, regulations, or dispute resolution proceedings in international tribunals outside the U.S.

“Promoters of TPA should explain why the American people ought to trust the Administration and its foreign partners to revise or rewrite international agreements, or add new members to those agreements, without congressional approval. Does this not represent an abdication of congressional authority?”

The fourth major point of the Sessions document notes how TPA and the TPP deal it would expedite do not address currency manipulation at all.

“The biggest open secret in the international market is that other countries are devaluing their currencies to artificially lower the price of their exports while artificially raising the price of our exports to them. The result has been a massive bleeding of domestic manufacturing wealth. In fact, currency manipulation can easily dwarf tariffs in its economic impact,” Sessions wrote.

Sessions cited how the Obama Treasury Department, in a 2014 biannual report, failed to designate China—which manipulates its currency as determined by any objective standard—as a “currency manipulator,” something Sessions notes that like the George W. Bush administration suggests that the Obama administration “will not stand up to improper currency practices.”

“Currency protections are currently absent from TPA, indicating again that those involved in pushing these trade deals do not wish to see these currency abuses corrected,” Sessions wrote. “Therefore, even if currency protections are somehow added into TPA, it is still entirely possible that the Administration could ignore those guidelines and send Congress un-amendable trade deals that expose U.S. workers to a surge of underpriced foreign imports.

“President Obama’s longstanding resistance to meaningful currency legislation is proof he intends to take no action. The President has repeatedly failed to stand up to currency manipulators. Why should we believe this time will be any different?”

Over the next page-plus, Sessions lays out the last—but certainly not least—of his concerns with the TPA deal, noting how it “could facilitate immigration increases above current law,” and leaves Congress powerless to stop it.

“For instance: language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the clear intent to facilitate or enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the United States (including (intra-company transfers), and there would be no capacity for lawmakers to strike the offending provision,” Sessions wrote. “The Administration could also simply act on its own to negotiate foreign worker increases with foreign trading partners without ever advertising those plans to Congress.”

Sessions cites specifically how the Obama 2011 trade deal with South Korea—which was “never brought before Congress”—increased the duration of time people can get L-1 visas to come into the United States and take jobs away from Americans. Sessions notes the L-1 visa program “affords no protections for U.S. workers.”

“Every year, tens of thousands of foreign guest workers come to the U.S. as part of past trade deals,” Sessions wrote. “However, because there is little transparency, estimating an exact figure is difficult. The plain language of TPA provides avenues for the Administration and its trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S.— including visitor visas that are used as worker visas.”

Sessions cites the text of the actual TPA agreement next to lay out how foreign entities, special interests, and politically motivated presidents could pervert it clearly into bringing in foreign workers.

The TPA text Sessions cites reads as follows: “The principal negotiating objective of the United States regarding trade in services is to expand competitive market opportunities for United States services and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating barriers to international trade in services… Recognizing that expansion of trade in services generates benefits for all sectors of the economy and facilitates trade.”

Sessions notes that specific language, and other language throughout the TPA, “offers an obvious way for the Administration to expand the number and duration of foreign worker entries under the concept that the movement of foreign workers into U.S. jobs constitutes ‘trade in services.’”

“Stating that ‘TPP contains no change to immigration law’ is a semantic rather than a factual argument,” Sessions wrote, debunking claims from Ryan and House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)—two of the biggest proponents of the trade deal—made last week. “Language already present in both TPA and TPP provide the basis for admitting more foreign workers, and for longer periods of time, and language could later be added to TPP or any future trade deal to further increase such admissions.”

Sessions notes that since Obama can’t be trusted because of his executive amnesty and other secretive, not-congressionally-approved increases in foreign workers, he can’t be trusted now. Nor should any president be trusted with such power, he said.

“The President has already subjected American workers to profound wage loss through executive-ordered foreign worker increases on top of existing record immigration levels,” Sessions wrote. “Yet, despite these extraordinary actions, the Administration will casually assert that is has merely modernized, clarified, improved, streamlined, and updated immigration rules.

“Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA, the Administration could send Congress a trade deal—or issue an executive action subsequent to a trade deal as part of its implementation—that increased foreign worker entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has never changed immigration law. The President has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity.

“But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting congressional checks against those actions. This runs contrary to our Founders’ belief, as stated in the Constitution, that immigration should be in the hands of Congress. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration policy.”

Sessions concluded the document by arguing that Congress should “slow down a bit” because Congress’ role—and the entire federal government’s role—is to protect Americans.

“Our government must defend the legitimate interests of American workers and American manufacturing on the world stage,” Sessions said. “The time when this nation can suffer the loss of a single job as a result of a poor trade agreement is over.”


Over the last ten years I have made more phone calls to my representatives than in the previous 63 years, and not once have I received any personal response. My calls are never transferred directly to my reps. And the people who answer the phone speak like robots. Their job is obviously to take notes and forward my message to someone who may or may not give them to my rep. Occasionally I receive an email reply that assures me my rep. is going to do what he thinks best, so obviously he could give a crap what I believe is best for America. There has never been any request for more information on my opinion, or why I doubt his. In other words they are going to do what their masters declare and I can go to hell. Perhaps it would be better to eliminate the middle men and find his home address, then send him documentation justifying my opinion, with a request for a personal response. BUT, I will not hold my breath!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM