The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech

06/30/2015

 http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82887b643445&id=f26bb38a89&e=84f74f6a6a

 By John W. Whitehead

“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society.

For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.”

We have entered a new age where, as commentator Mark Steyn notes, “we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells” and “the forces of ‘tolerance’ are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.”

In such a climate of intolerance, there can be no freedom speech, expression or thought.

Yet what the forces of political correctness fail to realize is that they owe a debt to the so-called “haters” who have kept the First Amendment robust. From swastika-wearing Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, and underaged cross burners to “God hates fags” protesters assembled near military funerals, those who have inadvertently done the most to preserve the right to freedom of speech for all have espoused views that were downright unpopular, if not hateful.

Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.

The Court’s ruling came on the heels of a shooting in which a 21-year-old white gunman killed nine African-Americans during a Wednesday night Bible study at a church in Charleston, S.C. The two events, coupled with the fact that gunman Dylann Roof was reportedly pictured on several social media sites with a Confederate flag, have resulted in an emotionally charged stampede to sanitize the nation’s public places of anything that smacks of racism, starting with the Confederate flag and ballooning into a list that includes the removal of various Civil War monuments.

These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, thanks to the rise of political correctness, the population of book burners, censors, and judges has greatly expanded over the years so that they run the gamut from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. By eliminating words, phrases and symbols from public discourse, the powers-that-be are sowing hate, distrust and paranoia. In this way, by bottling up dissent, they are creating a pressure cooker of stifled misery that will eventually blow.

For instance, the word “Christmas” is now taboo in the public schools, as is the word “gun.” Even childish drawings of soldiers result in detention or suspension under rigid zero tolerance policies. On college campuses, trigger warnings are being used to alert students to any material they might read, see or hear that might upset them, while free speech zones restrict anyone wishing to communicate a particular viewpoint to a specially designated area on campus. Things have gotten so bad that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.

Clearly, the country is undergoing a nervous breakdown, and the news media is helping to push us to the brink of insanity by bombarding us with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days.

In this way, it’s difficult to think or debate, let alone stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peopleregularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms. These sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions are how you control a population, either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing a political agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,” wrote Ellul.

Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.

Already, the outrage over the Charleston shooting and racism are fading from the news headlines, yet the determination to censor the Confederate symbol remains. Before long, we will censor it from our thoughts, sanitize it from our history books, and eradicate it from our monuments without even recalling why. The question, of course, is what’s next on the list to be banned?

It was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, when we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In Ray Bradbury’sFahrenheit 451, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.

And in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thought-crimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

All three—Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell—had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to1984:

The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts….

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go. Our backs are to the walls. From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and our selves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

What’s missing here is a direct accusation to those who believe they know everything and love to argue, when the only thing they know is how to argue, and they do it for the recognition they think they will get. They unknowingly reveal their socialist tendencies and try desperately to show their gib debating superiority. The bottom line is they will give up every form of liberty for an ounce of safety. They are chicken shit liars and tyrants.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Gary Hart: America’s Founding Principles Are in Danger of Corruption

06/29/2015

http://time.com/3937860/gary-hart-america-corruption/

By Gary Hart

 June 26, 2015

Welcome to the age of vanity politics and campaigns-for-hire. What would our founders make of this nightmare?

Gary Hart is a former United States senator

Four qualities have distinguished republican government from ancient Athens forward: the sovereignty of the people; a sense of the common good; government dedicated to the commonwealth; and resistance to corruption. Measured against the standards established for republics from ancient times, the American Republic is massively corrupt.

From Plato and Aristotle forward, corruption was meant to describe actions and decisions that put a narrow, special, or personal interest ahead of the interest of the public or commonwealth. Corruption did not have to stoop to money under the table, vote buying, or even renting out the Lincoln bedroom. In the governing of a republic, corruption was self-interest placed above the interest of all—the public interest.

By that standard, can anyone seriously doubt that our republic, our government, is corrupt? There have been Teapot Domes and financial scandals of one kind or another throughout our nation’s history. There has never been a time, however, when the government of the United States was so perversely and systematically dedicated to special interests, earmarks, side deals, log-rolling, vote-trading, and sweetheart deals of one kind or another.

What brought us to this? A sinister system combining staggering campaign costs, political contributions, political action committees, special interest payments for access, and, most of all, the rise of the lobbying class.

Worst of all, the army of lobbyists that started relatively small in the mid-twentieth century has now grown to big battalions of law firms and lobbying firms of the right, left, and an amalgam of both. And that gargantuan, if not reptilian, industry now takes on board former members of the House and the Senate and their personal and committee staffs. And they are all getting fabulously rich.

This development in recent years has been so insidious that it now goes without notice. The key word is not quid-pro-quo bribery, the key word is access. In exchange for a few moments of the senator’s time and many more moments of her committee staff’s time, fund-raising events with the promise of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars are delivered.

Corruption in a federated republic such as ours operates vertically as well as horizontally. Seeing how business is conducted in Washington, it did not take long for governors of both parties across the country to subscribe to the special-interest state. Both the Republican and Democratic governors’ associations formed “social welfare” organizations composed of wealthy interests and corporate executives to raise money for their respective parties in exchange for close, personal access to individual governors, governors who almost surely could render executive decisions favorable to those corporate interests. A series of judicial decisions enabled these “social welfare” groups, supposedly barred from political activity, to channel virtually unlimited amounts of money to governors in exchange for access, the political coin of the realm in the corrupted republic, and to do so out of sight of the American people. Editorially, the New York Times commented that “the stealthy form of political corruption known as ‘dark money’ now fully permeates governor’s offices around the country, allowing corporations to push past legal barriers and gather enormous influence.”

Frustrated, irate discussions of this legalized corruption are met in the Washington media with a shrug. So what? Didn’t we just have dinner with that lobbyist for the banking industry, or the teachers’ union, or the airline industry at that well-known journalist’s house only two nights ago? Fine lady, and she used to be the chairman of one of those powerful committees. I gather she is using her Rolodex rather skillfully on behalf of her new clients. Illegal? Not at all. Just smart . . . and so charming.

There is little wonder that Americans of the right and many in the middle are apoplectic at their government and absolutely, and rightly, convinced that the game of government is rigged in favor of the elite and the powerful. Occupiers see even more wealth rising to the top at the expense of the poor and the middle class. And Tea Partiers believe their tax dollars are going to well-organized welfare parasites and government bureaucrats.

Recent months have seen, in effect, the legalization of Watergate. Who would have thought, forty years after the greatest political scandal and presidential abuse of power in U.S. history, that the Supreme Court of the United States would rule the practices that financed that scandal were now legal?

That is essentially the effect of the Citizens United decision. Bets may be taken as to the length of time that will expire before this tsunami of political money ends up in the pockets of break-in burglars, wiretap experts, surveillance magicians, and cyberpunks. Given the power and money at stake in presidential and congressional elections, it is inevitable that candidates or their operatives with larceny in their hearts will tap into the hundreds of millions of dollars that their campaigns are awash in to game the system in highly illegal ways.

And, of course, the ultimate victims of the corruption of the democratic process are not defeated candidates and parties but America’s citizens. Perhaps Supreme Court justices should have to experience a corrupted election process firsthand to recognize a hollowed-out democracy. As one who experienced Watergate in its multi-tentacled form, I know it is not pleasant to be placed under surveillance, to have your taxes audited, and to experience dirty tricks. All this happened to me, among a number of others, simply because we worked for an honest presidential candidate who dared challenge the authority and power of a president who had long since forgotten the integrity the democratic process requires.

The advent of legalized corruption launched by the Supreme Court empowers the superrich to fund their own presidential and congressional campaigns as pet projects, to foster pet policies, and to represent pet political enclaves. You have a billion, or even several hundred million, then purchase a candidate from the endless reserve bench of minor politicians and make him or her a star, a mouthpiece for any cause or purpose however questionable, and that candidate will mouth your script in endless political debates and through as many television spots as you are willing to pay for. All legal now.

To compound the political felony, much, if not most, campaign financing is now carried out in secret, so that everyday citizens have a decreasing ability to determine to whom their elected officials are beholden and to whom they must now give special access. As recently as the 2014 election, the facts documented this government of influence by secrecy: “More than half of the general election advertising aired by outside groups in the battle for control of Congress,” according to the New York Times, “has come from organizations that disclose little or nothing about their donors, a flood of secret money that is now at the center of a debate over the line between free speech and corruption.”

The five prevailing Supreme Court justices, holding that a legal entity called a corporation has First Amendment rights of free speech, might at least have required the bought-and-paid-for candidates to wear sponsor labels on their suits as stock-car drivers do. Though, for the time being, sponsored candidates will not be openly promoted by Exxon-Mobil or the Stardust Resort and Casino but by phony “committees for good government” smokescreens.

To add to the profound misdirection of American politics by the Supreme Court, we now have what might be called convergence in the garden of government influence.

Back in the 1960s Flannery O’Connor wrote the short story “Everything That Rises Must Converge.” It had to do with generational insensitivity between a mother and son, and between generations on the issue of race in society. In reading a piece by Thomas B. Edsall (“The Lobbyist in the Gray Flannel Suit,” New York Times, May 14, 2012), this title came to mind in a totally different context. The context is the lobbying maze in Washington and the convergence of dozens of noxious weeds in the garden of government into a handful of giant predator thornbushes now devouring that garden.

Of this handful, the largest by far is WPP (originally called Wire and Plastic Products; is there a metaphor here?), which has its headquarters in London and more than 150,000 employees in 2,500 offices spread around 107 countries. It, together with one or two conglomerating competitors, represents a fourth branch of government, vacuuming up former senators and House members and their spouses and families, key committee staff, former senior administration officials of both parties and several administrations, and ambassadors, diplomats, and retired senior military officers.

WPP has swallowed giant public relations, advertising, and lobbying outfits such as Hill & Knowlton and BursonMarsteller, along with dozens of smaller members of the highly lucrative special interest and influence-manipulation world. Close behind WPP is the Orwellian-named Omnicom Group and another converger vaguely called the Interpublic Group of Companies. According to Mr. Edsall, WPP had billings last year of $72.3 billion, larger than the budgets of quite a number of countries.

With a budget so astronomical, think how much good WPP can do in the campaign finance arena, especially since the Citizens United decision. The possibilities are almost limitless. Why pay for a senator or congresswoman here or there when you can buy an entire committee? Think of the banks that can be bailed out, the range of elaborate weapons systems that can be sold to the government, the protection from congressional scrutiny that can be paid for, the economic policies that can be manipulated.

The lobbying business is no longer about votes up or down on particular measures that may emerge in Congress or policies made in the White House. It is about setting agendas, deciding what should and should not be brought up for hearings and legislation. We have gone way beyond mere vote buying now. The converging Influence World represents nothing less than an unofficial but enormously powerful fourth branch of government.

To whom is this branch of government accountable? Who sets the agenda for its rising army of influence marketers? How easy will it be to not only go from office to a lucrative lobbying job but, more important, from lucrative lobbying job to holding office? Where are its loyalties if it is manipulating and influencing governments around the world? Other than as a trough of money of gigantic proportions, how does it view the government of the United States?

America’s founders knew one thing: The republics of history all died when narrow interests overwhelmed the common good and the interests of the commonwealth.

O’Connor took her story title from a belief of the French Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard de Chardin believed that all good would rise and that all that rose would eventually converge. We pray that he was right for, at the present moment, we have only prayer and no evidence. In the realm of twenty-first-century American politics, the opposite is surely coming true.

Welcome to the Age of Vanity politics and campaigns-for-hire featuring candidates who repeat their sponsored messages like ice-cream-truck vendors passing through the neighborhood. If the current Supreme Court had been sitting during Watergate in 1974, it would not have voted 9–0 to require the president to turn over legally incriminating tapes but instead would have voted to support the use of illegal campaign contributions to finance criminal cover-ups as an exercise in “free speech.”

What would our founders make of this nightmare of corruption? We only know, in Thomas Jefferson’s case, for example, that his distrust of central government had to do with the well-founded and prescient suspicion that its largesse would go to powerful and influential interests, especially financiers, who knew how to manipulate both the government and the financial markets. In particular, Jefferson envisioned sophisticated bankers speculating in public-debt issues with some if not all the interest incurred going into their pockets.

He was way ahead of his time. The limits of his imagination would not have encompassed the early twenty-first-century financial world where vast sums of money are manipulated like the world’s greatest three-card-monte game and nothing tangible is being produced—except fees and more money. Even the titans ruling over this game confessed, after the 2008 financial collapse, that they did not know what collateralized debt obligations, bundled derivatives, and other tricky instruments devised by clever twenty-eight-year-olds were about. All they knew was how to respond to their industry lobbyists’ requests for very large contributions to compliant members of congressional finance committees and to do so quickly and often. And they did get their money’s worth.

The scope and scale of this genuine scandal (as distinguished from vastly more mundane behavior that passes for scandal in the media) is the single greatest threat to our form of government. It is absolutely incompatible with the principles and ideals upon which America was founded. At the very least, we Americans cannot hold ourselves up to the world as the beacon of democracy so long as we permit, as long as we acquiesce in, corruption so far beyond the standards of the true republic that our government cannot be proclaimed an ideal for other aspiring nations.

On a more personal level, how can public service be promoted as an ideal to young people when this sewer corrupts our Republic? At this point in early twenty-first-century America, the greatest service our nation’s young people could provide is to lead an army of outraged young Americans armed with brooms on a crusade to sweep out the rascals and rid our capital of the money changers, rent seekers, revolving door dancers, and special interest deal makers and power brokers and send them back home to make an honest living, that is, if they still remember how to do so.

What angers truly patriotic Americans is that this entire Augean stable is legal. Even worse, recent Supreme Court decisions placing corporations under the First Amendment protection of free speech for political purposes compounds the tragedy of American democracy. For all practical political purposes, the government of the United States is for sale to the highest bidder.

A harsh judgment? Indeed. But it is impossible to claim to love one’s country and not be outraged at how corrupt it has become. For former senators and representatives to trade a title given them by the voters of their respective states and districts for cash is beyond shameful. It is outrageous.

“I tremble for my country when I contemplate that God is just.” Those words of Thomas Jefferson, enshrined on the walls of his memorial, referred to the institution of slavery. Today he might readily render the same judgment about corruption in and of the American Republic.

Imagine if you will the response of George Washington, James Madison, Jefferson, John Adams, and even the financial pragmatist Alexander Hamilton were they to observe today’s lobbyists at work, especially former government officials, organizing fund-raising events and delivering bundles of checks. They would be appalled. Even more, they would be ashamed.

Can this bazaar of special interest stalls in the halls of Congress, the money changers in the temple of democracy, be justified by the realities of modern times? If so, it is not readily apparent how. America can be a mass democracy of 330 million people. It is engaged commercially, diplomatically, and militarily all over the world. We live in an age of instant communication and international travel. The amounts of money involved in administering our government are staggering, with appreciably more zeros than even in the 1970s and ’80s. But none of these facts lift the burden of ethics in public life, what the founders called virtue, from the shoulders of public servants.

It is an error of serious proportion to dismiss corruption in twenty-first-century American democracy on the grounds that this has all been going on from the beginning, that boys will be boys, that politicians are always on the take. Past incidents of the violation of public ethics provide no argument for accepting the systemic and cancerous commercialization of modern American politics.

For that is what it is. Political office, public service, and engagement in governance must not be monetized. Even if no laws are broken, even if a public servant can walk out the door one day and cash in his or her experience and title for cash the next, that does not make it right. Everything strictly legal is not therefore ethical. When the founders discussed virtue, they were harking back to ancient Athens and the ideal of the republic. And, as scholars of ancient Greek and Roman political texts, they knew in their minds and in their hearts that a republic with leaders who lacked virtue would not long survive.

That is the issue. With the dubious endorsement by the Supreme Court of the United States, which will have its own history to answer to, using First Amendment protection of free speech to legitimize the most egregious violations of the principles of the republic is to invite the eventual erosion of the ideal of the American Republic, to reduce this great nation and its heritage to the worst kind of mundane governance, to prostitute a noble experiment on the altar of expediency and greed, and to leave coming generations to ponder what went wrong.

“Just because it is legal doesn’t make it right” should be carved above every congressional doorway, every cabinet department, and even the White House itself. Contrast the fact that upon returning to Independence, Missouri, in 1953, Harry Truman refused to take even a pencil from the White House (“It didn’t belong to me,” he said, by way of explanation) with modern presidents whose political networks have graciously waited until they departed the White House to make them rich.

Though quaintly used in recent times to denote proper behavior for ladies, virtue as applied to public service is a powerful standard. It genuinely does require having no personal interest in the public’s business, not only at the time one is involved in decision making but also thereafter. The fact that many former presidents and prime ministers of European democracies have enriched themselves in questionable ways after leaving office does not justify similar behavior on the part of American politicians. We hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Our ancestors did not depart Europe and elsewhere to seek freedom and self-government alone. They came to these shores to escape social and political systems that were corrosive and corrupt. Two and a quarter centuries later, we are returning to those European practices. We are in danger of becoming a different kind of nation, one our founders would not recognize and would deplore.

Even as politicians and pundits alike pummel the fiscal deficit, we are developing an integrity deficit of mounting proportions. And one is not disconnected from the other. Because of the erosion of the integrity of our governing system, and the principles and ideals underlying it, the fiscal deficit increases. The government spending so many conservatives claim to abhor includes not only the social safety net of Roosevelt and Johnson, but also the war-making excursions of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It is all government spending. And it includes favorite pork-barrel projects of every member of both houses of Congress of both political parties, and every one of those most loudly condemning “wasteful government spending.” Those projects are produced by the lobbying interests that raise money for those members of Congress in direct proportion to their effectiveness at bringing government-financed projects to their states and districts. By definition, if it is a project in my state or district, it is not wasteful.

Restoration of the Republic of Conscience requires reduction and eventual elimination of the integrity deficit. Virtue, the disinterestedness of our elected officials, must replace political careerism and special interests. The national interest, what is best for our country and coming generations, must replace struggles for power, bitter partisanship, and ideological rigidity. This is not dreamy idealism; it is an idealism rooted in the original purpose of this nation.

We were not created to be like other nations. We were created as an alternative to monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and corrupt political systems. The more we follow the easy path, the one paved for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful, the more we stray from our originally intended purpose and the more we lose our unique purpose for existence.

Will America continue to offer a comfortable life for many? I hope so. Will we continue to have a strong army? If we are willing to pay for it, yes. Will we continue to provide the world’s entertainment? I presume so. But these are not the real questions.

The question is: By adhering to its highest principles and ideals, will America continue to have the moral authority to lead all people of goodwill? The answer remains to be seen. And that answer will have much to do with whether we have the courage to drive the money changers from the temple of democracy and recapture government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

In addition to the rise of the national security state, and the concentration of wealth and power in America, no development in modern times sets us apart more from the nation originally bequeathed to us than the rise of the special interest state. There is a Gresham’s law related to the republican ideal. Bad politics drives out good politics. Legalized corruption drives men and women of stature, honor, and dignity out of the halls of government. Self-respecting individuals cannot long tolerate a system of election and reelection so dependent on cultivating the favor of those known to expect access in return. Such a system is corrosive to the soul.

Some years back a prominent senator was fond of saying with regard to the relatively modest lobbying influence of the day: “If I can’t take their money and drink their whiskey, and then vote against them, I shouldn’t be here.” That was then. And then campaigns cost much less than they do today. Few if any can now claim to take their money and drink their whiskey and vote against them. Anyone who does will soon find closed wallets and fleeing contributors.

Campaign funds now go to feed an army of consultants (or “strategists” in the coinage of the day), media advisors, media producers, television-time buyers, speechwriters, schedulers, advance specialists, crowd raisers, and more specialized campaign bells and whistles than everyday citizens can imagine. Campaigning is a major industry now that consumes hundreds of millions of dollars and, in national campaigns, billions of dollars. Almost all of it goes to the media, the same media whose commentators regularly deplore the costs of campaigns.

The headquarters of the permanent campaign industry in Washington are but a stone’s throw, if that, from the offices of the lobbying firms. The treasurers of most campaigns have only to funnel the checks from lobbyist-bundlers (those who collect bundles of checks) into the accounts of the campaign management companies. It is a great hydra-headed monster, one that is rapidly devouring American democracy.

The significant issue is the effect of this relatively recent conversion of a democratic process to a major industry that devours money. That industry and all it represents is a departure from the American ideal that is different not only in scale but also in kind.

We are not the same country we started out to be. We cannot conduct our political process the way we are doing in the twenty-first century and claim to adhere to our earliest principles. We must decide who we are. And if that decision is to restore our highest ideals, then major changes must be made in the way we elect our presidents and our members of Congress.

Gary Hart is a former United States senator and presidential candidate and the author of 21 books.

From THE REPUBLIC OF CONSCIENCE by Gary Hart. Published by arrangement with Blue Rider Press, a member of Penguin Group USA. Copyright © 2015 by GaryHart.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

While it is extremely difficult for me to support anyone who has ever held a federal office, because I don’t believe they could hold that office without knowing about our subjection to the British Crown and other special interest. All of which any Senator would surely have been informed about and been coerced into keeping private. However, what he has revealed in this article rings of truth, and I give him credit for that. But! I do so with tongue in cheek.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


The United States is still a British Colony Revisited

06/28/2015

http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony2.html

Introduction by Olddog

It has been many years since the first time I read this as hundreds of other articles and subjects have served to divert my attention from the most informative and convincing of them all. Since foul political manipulations are like rotting flesh and give off detestable odors, one should rely on their sense of smell to guide their mind to the source. This master-piece of research is really all one needs to locate the rotten corpse. Now you will know what, where, when, why, and how we are living in a Nation Beguiled. Since the cultural Marxists who dominate so much of American politics, the media and the universities have captured our attention with trivial lies and exaggerations in an insane effort to keep our minds off the obvious location of tyranny, we must now concentrate on the truth. I have only one suggestion for the fastest total comprehension, and that is to read part 3 first. Read it and weep, it’s damning evidence of our apathy!

 

Originally by James Montgomery: A real living Patriot!

The trouble with history is, we weren’t there when it took place and it can be changed to fit someone’s belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the judge and don’t let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth.

I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I’m going to discuss a few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 (footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition for license is as follows.

“In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects. So you can better understand what I’m going to tell you, here are the definitions for subject and citizen.

“In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

“Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.

“The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, “In right of the crown,” Black’s forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss.

If you’ll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of the king’s declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded to America.

This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan “Don’t Tread On Me” was the standard borne by the militias.

The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.

“Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown….for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman.” Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

“Esquire – In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others.” Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3)

Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that “a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown.”….”in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire.”

All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:

-CITE-

26 USC Sec. 1491

HEAD-

Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

-STATUTE-

There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of –

(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over

(2) the sum of –

(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus

(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)

-MISC1-

AMENDMENTS

1978 – Pub. L. 95-600 substituted ‘estate or trust’ for ‘trust’ wherever appearing.

1976 – Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.

(1) ‘property’ for ‘stocks and securities’ and ’35 percent’ for ’27 1/2 percent’ and in par.

(1) ‘fair market value’ for ‘value’ and ‘property’ for ‘stocks and securities’ and in par.

(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT

Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: ‘The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.’

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT

Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: ‘The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.’

A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.

(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared “That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend.” The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons.

In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion “That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain.” The rest of the debate can be found in (footnote 4). What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.

The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of “A Country Defeated In Victory,” go into detail about how this was done and exposes some of the main players.

Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.

The following is the definition of tribute (tax).

“A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter.” Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677

As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA – Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won’t find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the OMB’s paper – Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.

Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay’s Treaty of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American people about this Treaty.

In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe. In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?

That’s right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I’ll explain.

Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor.

The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.

PART II

Bend Over America

It’s not an easy thing having to tell someone they have been conned into believing they are free. For some, to accept this is comparable to denying God Almighty.

You have to be made to understand that the United States is a corporation, which is a continuation of the corporate Charters created by the king of England. And that the states upon ratifying their individual State constitutions, became sub corporations under and subordinate to the United States. The counties and municipalities became sub corporations under the State Charters. It is my duty to report further evidence concerning the claims I made in “The United States is Still a British Colony, part 1.”

I have always used a copy of the North Carolina Constitution provided by the State, I should have known better to take this as the finial authority. To my knowledge the following quote has not been in the Constitution the State hands out or those in use in the schools. The 1776 North Carolina Constitution created a new corporate Charter, and declared our individual freedoms. However, the same corporate Charter, reserved the king’s title to the land, which restored, and did not diminish, his grants that were made in his early Charters. If you remember, I made the claim that legally we are still subject to the king. In the below quote you will see that the king declares our taxation will be forever, and that a fourth of all gold and silver will be returned to him.

“YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found.”

(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.)

The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

I know Patriots will have a hard time with this, because as I said earlier, they would have to deny what they have been taught from an early age. You have to continue to go back in historical documents and see if what you have been taught is correct. The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights.

And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.

Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution, Footnote #8

Can it be any plainer? Nobody reads, they take what is told to them by their schools and government as gospel, and never look any further. They are quick to attack anyone that does because it threatens their way of life, rocks the boat in other words. Read the following quote from a court case:

“* * * definition given by Blackstone, vol. 2, p. 244. I shall therefore only cite that respectable authority in his own words: “Escheat, we may remember, was one of the fruits and consequences of feudal tenure; the word itself is originally French or Norman, in which language it signifies chance or accident, and with us denotes an obstruction of the course of descent, and a consequent determination of the tenure by some unforeseen contingency, in which case the estate naturally results back, by a kind of reversion, to the original grantor, or lord of the fee.”

Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property of the soil within the limits of this State. Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of Paris. But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? Might it not be stated with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King of Great Britain from the Aborigines, when he drove them off, and took and maintained possession of their country? At the time of the revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people had neither right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to, and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great Britain; but they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the people, who had no power to grant any part of it. After the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Constitution, the people may be said first to have taken possession of this country, at least so much of it as was not previously appropriated to individuals. Then their sovereignty commenced, and with it a right to all the property not previously vested in individual citizens, with all the other rights of sovereignty, and among those the right of escheats. This sovereignty did not accrue to them by escheat, but by conquest, from the King of Great Britain and his subjects; but they acquired nothing by that means from the citizens of the State Ä each individual had, under this view of the case, a right to retain his private property, independent of the reservation in the declaration of rights; but if there could be any doubt on that head, it is clearly explained and obviated by the proviso in that instrument. Therefore, whether the State took by right of conquest or escheat, all the interest which the U. K. had previous to the Declaration of Independence still remained with them, on every principle of law and equity, because they are purchasers for a valuable consideration, and being in possession as cestui que trust under the statute for transferring uses into possession; and citizens of this State, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and at the time of making the declaration of rights, their interest is secured to them beyond the reach of any Act of Assembly; neither can it be affected by any principle arising from the doctrine of escheats, supposing, what I do not admit, that the State took by escheat.”

MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70

There was no way we could have had a perfected title to this land. Once we had won the Revolutionary War we would had to have had an unconditional surrender by the king, this did not take place. Not what took place at Yorktown, when we let the king off the hook. Barring this, the king would have to had sold us this land, for us to have a perfected title, just as the Indians sold their land to the king, or the eight Carolina Proprietors sold Carolina back to the king. The treaty of 1783 did not remove his claim and original title, because he kept the minerals. This was no different than when king Charles II gave Carolina by Charter to the lords that helped put him back in power; compare them and you will see the end result is the same. The Charter to the lords is footnote #6, where eight proprietors were given title to the land, but the king retained the money and sovereignty for his heirs. The king could not just give up America to the colonialist, nor would he. He would violate his own law of Mortmain to put these lands in dead hands, no longer to be able to be used by himself, or his heirs and successors. He would also be guilty of harming his heirs and successors, by giving away that which he declared in the following quotes, and there are similar quotes in the other Charters:

“SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;…” The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

“KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground, Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of our Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from henceforth will have it called…”
The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

The U.S. Constitution is a treaty between the states creating a corporation for the king. In the below quote pay attention to the large “S” State and the small “s” state. The large “S” State is referring to the corporate State and it’s sovereignty over the small “s” state, because of the treaty.

Read the following quote:

“Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of confederation, expressly, “the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances”; and being ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and law of every state.

If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled.”

“By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, “That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State.”

Treaties are the “Law of the Land” HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641(1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN. Ä 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.)

Your presence in the State makes you subject to its laws, read the following quote:

“The states are to be considered, with respect to each other, as independent sovereignties, possessing powers completely adequate to their own government, in the exercise of which they are limited only by the nature and objects of government, by their respective constitutions and by that of the United States. Crimes and misdemeanors committed within the limits of each are punishable only by the jurisdiction of that state where they arise; for the right of punishing, being founded upon the consent of the citizens, express or implied, cannot be directed against those who never were citizens, and who likewise committed the offense beyond the territorial limits of the state claiming jurisdiction. Our Legislature may define and punish crimes committed within the State, whether by citizen or strangers; because the former are supposed to have consented to all laws made by the Legislature, and the latter, whether their residence be temporary or permanent, do impliedly agree to yield obedience to all such laws as long as they remain in the State;”

STATE v. KNIGHT, 1 N.C. 143 (1799), 2 S.A. 70

Do you understand now? The treaty, the corporate Charter, the North Carolina Constitution, by proxy of the electorates, created residence in the large “S” State. Not by some further act you made. So how can expatriation from the United States, remove your residence in The “State”, which was created by treaty, ratified by our Fore Fathers. As soon as the corporate Charter (treaty) was ratified we returned to subjection to the king of England, through the legal residence created by the treaty. Remember in the quote I gave earlier, by treaty we recanted our declared freedom, and returned to the king his sovereignty and title. In the following quote you will see that the State supreme court sits by being placed by the general assembly:

NC Supreme Court History Supreme Court of North Carolina A Brief History:

“The legal and historical origins of the Supreme Court of North Carolina lie in the State Constitution of 1776, which empowered the General Assembly to appoint; Judges of the Supreme Courts of Law and Equity; and; Judges of Admiralty…..The first meeting of the Court took place on January 1, 1819. The Court began holding two sittings, or ; terms, ; a year, the first beginning on the second Monday in June and the second on the last Monday in December. This schedule endured until the Constitution of 1868 prescribed the first Mondays in January and July for the sittings. Vacancies on the Court were filled temporarily by the Governor, with the assistance and advice of the Council of State, until the end of the next session of the state General Assembly.”

From the internet, address can be made available.

Council of State

What is the Council of State, and where did it originate?

III. “The one of which councils, to be called the council of state (and whose office shall chiefly be assisting, with their care, advice, and circumspection, to the said governor) shall be chosen, nominated, placed, and displaced, from time to time, by us the said treasurer, council and company, and our successors: which council of state shall consist, for the present only of these persons, as are here inserted,…”

  1. “The other council, more generally to be called by the governor, once yearly, and no oftener, but for very extraordinary and important occasions, shall consist for the present, of the said council of state, and of two burgesses out of every town, hundred, or other particular plantation, to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants: which council shall be called The General Assembly, wherein (as also in the said council of state) all matters shall be decided, determined, and ordered by the greater part of the voices then present; reserving to the governor always a negative voice. And this general assembly shall have free power, to treat, consult, and conclude, as well of all emergent occasions concerning the public weal of the said colony and every part thereof, as also to make, ordain, and enact such general laws and orders, for the behoof of the said colony, and the good government thereof, as shall, from time to time, appear necessary or requisite;…” An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. Footnote #4

The job of the 1st Council of State was to make sure the governor followed the king’s wishes. The 2nd was the general assembly, the laws they passed had to conform to the king’s law.

Read the following quote:

  1. Whereas in all other things, we require the said general assembly, as also the said council of state, to imitate and follow the policy of the form of government, laws, customs, and manner of trial, and other administration of justice, used in the realm of England, as near as may be even as ourselves, by his majesty’s letters patent, are required.
  2. Provided, that no law or ordinance, made in the said general assembly, shall be or continue in force or validity, unless the same shall be solemnly ratified and confirmed, in a general quarter court of the said company here in England, and so ratified, be returned to them under our seal; it being our intent to afford the like measure also unto the said colony, that after the government of the said colony shall once have been well framed, and settled accordingly, which is to be done by us, as by authority derived from his majesty, and the same shall have been so by us declared, no orders of court afterwards, shall bind the said colony, unless they be ratified in like manner in the general assemblies. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our common seal the 24th of July, 1621. . . .An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. footnote #4

The Council of State still exists to day, although it has been modified several times. The first major change came in the 1776, North Carolina Constitution, read the below quotes:

  1. “That the senate and house of commons, jointly, at their first meeting, after each annual election, shall, by ballot, elect seven persons to be a council of state for one year; who shall advise the governor in the execution of his office; and that four members shall be a quorum; their advice and proceedings shall be entered in a journal, to be kept for that purpose only, and signed by the members present; to any part of which any member present may enter his dissent. And such journal shall be laid before the general assembly when called for by them.” footnote #9
  2. “The governor, for the time being, shall have power to draw for and apply such sums of money as shall be voted by the general assembly, for the contingencies of government, and be accountable to them for the same. He also may, by and with the advice of the council of state, lay embargoes, or prohibit the exportation of any commodity, for any term not exceeding thirty days, at any one time in the recess of the general assembly; and shall have the power of granting pardons and reprieves, except where the prosecution shall be carried on by the general assembly, or the law shall otherwise direct; in which case, he may, in the recess, grant a reprieve until the next sitting of the general assembly; and he may exercise all the other executive powers of government, limited and restrained, as by this constitution is mentioned, and according to the laws of the State. And, on his death, inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the senate, for the time being, and in case of his death, inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the house of commons, shall exercise the powers of government, after such death, or during such absence or inability of the governor, or speaker of the senate, or until a new nomination is made by the general assembly.” footnote #9
  3. “That, in every case, where any officer, the right of whose appointment is, by this constitution, vested in the general assembly, shall, during their recess, die, or his office by other means become vacant, the governor shall have power, with the advice of the council of State, to fill up such vacancy, by granting a temporary commission, which shall expire at the end of the next session of the general assembly.” footnote #9

Also take notice who was not allowed to serve as Council of State:

  1. “That no treasurer shall have a seat, either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, during his continuance in that office, or before he shall have finally settled his accounts with the public, for all the moneys which may be in his hands, at the expiration of his office, belonging to the State, and hath paid the same into the hands of the succeeding treasurer.”
  2. “That no officer in the regular army or navy, in the service and pay of the United States, of this State or any other State, nor any contractor or agent for supplying such army or navy with clothing or provisions, shall have a seat either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, or be eligible thereto; and any member of the senate, house of commons, or council of state, being appointed to,and accepting of such office, shall thereby vacate his seat.”
  3. “That no member of the council of state shall have a seat, either in the senate or house of commons.”
  4. “That no secretary of this State, attorney-general, or clerk of any court of record, shall have a seat in the senate, house of commons, or council of state.” footnote #9

The king continued to rule through the Council of State until several things were in place, his bank, his laws and tradition. The king succeeded by the acceptance of the American people that they were free, along with the whole of our history not being taught in our schools. The next change to the Council of State came at the conquest of this country, I referred to this in part 1, and in A Country Defeated In Victory.

Read this quote from the 1868 North Carolina constitution, Article 3, sec 14:

SEC. 14. “The Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Works, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall constitute ex officio, the Council of State, who shall advise the Governor in the execution of his office, and three of whom shall constitute a quorum; their advice and proceedings in this capacity shall be entered in a Journal, to be kept for this purpose exclusively, and signed by the members present, from any part of which any member may enter his dissent; and such journal shall be placed before the General Assembly when called for by either House. The Attorney General shall be, ex offici, the legal adviser of the Executive Department.” footnote #10

After the Civil War, the conquest of America, you see those that were allowed to be Council of State, were elected officials. Under the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, it wasunlawful for these elected officials to be Council of State. Why? Because, the king could not trust the common man to obey him, now that they thought they were free. After the Civil War the Council of State was no longer needed to fulfill the public policy of the king, the Council of State still exists today, but in a reduced capacity as far as the king goes. Now he had the 14th Amendment, his lawyers in the government, his bankers in control of the governments money, and above all greed that causes most in office to continue the status quo.

The Federal Reserve, Taxes and Tax Court

What I will show you next will shock you. I made brief mention in part 1, that taxes paid in this country were under treaty to the king of England. How about if I told you that the law that created our taxes and this countries tax court go back in history to William the Conqueror. And to further help you understand the below definitions, exchequer is the British branch of the Federal Reserve.

Exchequer: “The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king’s debts and duties. It was called exchequer, “scaccharium,” from the checked cloth, resembling a chessboard, which covers the table.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Exchequer: “That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury department.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed.

Exchequer: “In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the collection of the king’s revenue.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

Court of Exchequer: “56.The court of exchequer is inferior in rank not only to the court of king’s bench, but to the common pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on account of its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity [44] also. It is a very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through regulated and reduced to its present order by King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king’s debts and duties. It is called the exchequer, scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chess-board, which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the king’s accounts are made up, the sums are marked and scored with counters. It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court of common law.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

Court of Exchequer: “An English superior court with jurisdiction of matter of law and matters involving government revenue.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Court of Exchequer: “A court for the correction and prevention of errors of law in the three superior common-law courts of the kingdom.

A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon writs of error from the common-law side of the exchequer court. It consisted of the chancellor, treasurer, and the “justices and other sage persons as to them seemeth.” The judges were merely assistants. A second court of exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27 Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the justices of the common pleas and the exchequer, or any six of them, which had jurisdiction in error of cases in the king’s bench. In exchequer chamber substituted in their place as an intermediate court of appeal between the three common-law courts and Parliament. It consisted of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the judgement in the court below. It is now merged in the High Court of Justice.”

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

It gets worse, are you just a little ticked off, or maybe you are starting to question what you have been taught all these years? It’s time to wake up America!

If you’ll look at the Judiciary Act of 1789 (I know most won’t take time to read it), you’ll see that all district courts are admiralty courts. This is the king’s court of commerce, in which he is the plaintiff, recovering damages done against him, or what belongs to him.

The equity court of the exchequer: “57. The court of equity is held in the exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne’ ones. These Mr. Selden conjectures to have been anciently made out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecture receives great strength form Bracton’s explanation of magna carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and barons be amerced by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer. The primary and original business of this court is to call the king’s debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney general; and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any goods, chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the crown. So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, king’s bench, and exchequer, was entirely separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide all controversies between subject and subject; the king’s bench to correct all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as such offenses are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his crown; and the exchequer to adjust [45] and recover his revenue, wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and nonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of civil actions are now allowed to be brought in the king’s bench, in like manner by another fiction all kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted in the court of exchequer. For as all the officers and ministers of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the privilege of suing and being sued only in their own court; so exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of persons in the same court of equity that they themselves are called into. They have likewise privilege to sue and implead one another, or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions (where the personalty only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the court of common pleas.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

The common-law court of the exchequer: “58. This gives original to the common-law part of their jurisdiction, which was established merely for the benefit of the king’s accountants, and is exercised by the barons only of the exchequer, and not the treasurer or chancellor. The writ upon which the plaintiff suggests that he is the king’s farmer or debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits are expressly directed, by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of the exchequer. And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer, contrary to the form of the great charter. But not, by the suggestion of privilege, any person may be admitted to sue in the exchequer as well as the king’s accountant. The surmise of being debtor to the king is therefore become matter of form and mere words of course, and the court is open to allthe nation equally. The same holds with regard to the equity side of the court: for there any person may file [46] a bill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the king’s accountant; but whether he is so or not is never controverted. In this court, on the nonpayment of titles; in which case the surmise of being the king’s debtor is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits, and annual tenths. But the chancery has of late years obtained a large share in this business.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555

Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions in law, see chapter II of Maine’s Ancient Law, and Pollock’s note D in his edition of the Ancient Law. Blackstone gives illustrations of legal fictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this book. Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 2d ed., 148) gives the following instance of a fiction in our practice:

“A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name may be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to the contrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.

There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes all the members are citizens of the state which created the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that presumption’; and that is the law now. (Authors note-by your residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the United States constantly entertain suits by or against corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.) It has been so frequently settled, that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from by the court. It has been repeated over and over again in subsequent decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it is the right ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to state to you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond, much beyond, these decisions to which I have referred.

So that when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming it correctly) was created by a law of the state; and that is exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that the corporation was a citizen of that state. According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the members of that corporation are citizens of Massachusetts. They have passed beyond that. You have only to say that the corporation was created by a law of the state of Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the same as if it were a citizen of that state” See Pound, Readings in Roman Law, 95n. Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553

Combine this with what I said earlier concerning power of the treaty and it’s creation of the corporate State, and you now know why you are not allowed to challenge residence or subjection in the State Courts. And because of the treaty, residence in the State is synonymous with residence in the district. I know this puts a sour taste in your mouth, because it does mine, but that is the condition we find ourselves in. The only way I see to change it, is to change the treaty and reinforce the original Declaration of Independence, but this would meet severe objection on the part of the international Bankers, and or course the king’s heirs in England. And most Americans, even if they were aware of this information, would have no stomach for the turmoil this would cause.

Still a little fuzzy on what has taken place, the word Exchequer is still used today? In Britain the Exchequer is the Federal Reserve, the same as our Federal Reserve. They just changed the name here as they have done many things to cloud what is taking place, hoping no one would catch on. Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and put it in place in this country? Bankers from the Bank of England with their counter part in New York!

Congressman McFadden: “I hope that is the case, but I may say to the gentleman that during the sessions of this Economic Conference in London there is another meeting taking place in London. We were advised by reports from London last Sunday of the arrival of George L.Harrison, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and we were advised that accompanying him was Mr. Crane, the Deputy Governor, and James P. Warburg, of the Kuhn-Loeb banking family, of New York and Hamburg, Germany, and also Mr. O. M. W. Sprague, recently in the pay of Great Britain as chief economic and financial adviser of Mr. Norman, Governor of the Bank Of England, and now supposed to represent our Treasury. These men landed in England and rushed to the Bank of England for a private conference, taking their luggage with them, before even going to their hotel. We know this conference has been taking place for the past 3 days behind closed doors in the Bank of England with these gentlemen meeting with heads of the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements, of Basel, Switzerland, and the head of the Bank France, Mr. Maret. They are discussing war debts; they are discussing stabilization of exchanges and the Federal Reserve System,I may say to the Members of the House.

The Federal reserve System, headed by George L. Harrison, is our premier, who is dealing with debts behind the closed doors of the Bank of England; and the United States Treasury is there, represented by O. M. W. Sprague, who until the last 10 days was the representative of the Bank of England, and by Mr. James P. Warburg, who is the son of the principal author of the Federal Reserve Act. Many things are being settled behind the closed doors of the Bank of England by this group. No doubt this group were pleased to hear that yesterday the Congress passed amendments to the Federal Reserve Act and that the President signed the bill which turns over to the Federal Reserve System the complete total financial resources of money and credit in the United States. Apparently the domination and control of the international banking group is being trengthened…. Congressional Record, June 14, 1934

What else does the Exchequer do? The government(Congress) puts up bonds (bills of credit) on the international market, that the Federal Reserve (Exchequer) prints fiat money, for which the government (Congress) is the guarantor for, read the following quote:

Exchequer Bills: Bills of credit issued by authority of parliament.

They constitute the medium of transaction of business between the bank of England and the government. The exchequer bills contain a guarantee from government which secures the holders against loss by fluctuation. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

Also re-read “A Country Defeated In Victory”. Who do you think the national debt is owed to? If that’s not bad enough the bond indebtedness allowed the king to foreclose on his colony when it was time for the one World government, the king/bankers caused us to reorganize under bankruptcy. The Bank of England allowed the United States to use you and I (our labor)for collateral and all the property in America, read the following quote:

Congressman Lemke: “….This nation is bankrupt; every State in this Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a whole, are bankrupt. The public and private debts of this Nation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other written instruments about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is estimated that there is about $50,000,000,000 of which there is no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and private debts. The total physical cash value of all the property in the United States is now estimated at about $70,000,000,000. That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction. In this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as bonds, mortgages, and so fourth. These are not physical property. They will have to be paid out of the physical property. How are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only $70,000,000,000?” Congressional Record, March 3, 1934, footnote #10

This debt was more than could be paid as of 1934, this caused the declared bankruptcy by President Roosevelt. Now the national debt is over 12,000,000,000,000. The government only tells you about 5,000,000,000,000, they don’t tell you about the corporate debt, which America is also guarantor for. Add to that the personal debt; you know credit cards and home loans, and it approaches 20,000,000,000,000, that’s trillion for those of you that miss read the number of zero’s. Mix this with a super inflated stock market and a huge trade deficit, and that is what brings you to understand my subtitle for this paper. BEND OVER AMERICA. What could possibly be the purpose of the international bankers allowing our nation to over extend so badly and not cut us off? When back in 1934 they could have legally seized the whole country. We are being used for the purpose of the international bankers which is loaning money to third world countries, to enslave them as we are, to colonize the world for Britain, and to use our military machine to control unruly countries and to collect the king’s debt. There will soon be a United Nations personal income tax for the whole world. The end purpose of the international bankers, is a one world government, with England as the center of government and the international bankers calling the shots.

I am going to share a dream I had, July 1992, at the risk of being ridiculed. I told my friend who is mentioned in the dream, the next day. At that time neither of us understood the dream, about a month later I started to understand when I began learning about admiralty law and where our admiralty law came from. As time has passed I have come to understand the dream, because of further information coming to light, such as the information contained in part 1, and part 2, which you are now reading. I new when I woke up that the dream was not the normal nonsense you can sometimes experience in a dream. And I might add I dream very seldom, after having this dream I was given the desire to write down and pass along the information that has been brought my way, via. the Holy Spirit. The information has defined the dream not the other way around.

MY DREAM

July 1992: A record of a dream I had. I was what appeared to be hovering above the below scene, and it appeared to be three dimensional, like the scene had texture. It was also in color, with the smell of war in the air. I awoke at 5:00 am, and was wide awake and immediately wrote down what took place in my dream.

A friend and I were among thousands of Christians that were massed together awaiting execution. I saw untold thousands of Christians executed before us. There were many troops guarding us, these troops were British; they had on Revolutionary War clothing and were carrying the old style muskets.

The people that went before us to be executed went voluntarily. They went out of some false sense of duty to this envisioned government, that was British controlled. These people were in ranks waiting to be lead away to their death. While standing in the ranks my friend and I kept looking at one another, but we were separated by what seemed to be hundreds of people.

Just before they called our number they lead us away (untold thousands) under guard to return later. I asked some of the people in the ranks to step aside so I could get next to my friend. I told him that while I was in the ranks awaiting death, the Holy Spirit told me not to listen to their reasons for death, but to consider His reasons (Holy Spirit’s) for the sanctity of life and that we were to do whatever it took to stay alive and defeat the beast. I saw myself tapping my friend on the head, and told him this was an example of how the Holy Spirit related to me, that He wanted our attention.

The Holy Spirit said we were to go and do the Holy Spirit’s bidding no matter where it lead us and that we would be protected. We both looked at each other and decided we could not die voluntarily as the other Christians. We looked at each other and said this is crazy, my friend said this is voluntary just like being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. We then walked out of the ranks right in front of the British guards, unseen and escaped.

Keep in mind you cannot control your dreams. Does God Almighty still communicate through dreams as he did with George Washington? The Bible makes it clear He does. Whether this dream is a product of uncontrolled imagination while asleep, or insight from the Holy Spirit, I will only say, let history decide. I am satisfied of the dreams origin, because of its fulfillment through recent knowledge, that wasn’t known at that time. I hope you will read the rest of the documentation in the footnotes following this commentary.

External Links

Footnote #1 – Chronology of North Carolina Governors and Original Virginia Colony, page 15

Footnote #2 – Virginia Charter, 1609, page 18

Footnote #3 – Virginia Charter, 1621, page 27

Footnote #4 – Charter creating the Council of State,1621, page 29

Footnote #5 – Carolina Charter, 1663, page 31

Footnote #6 – Carolina Charter granting Proprietorship to eight lords, 1669, page 42

Footnote #7 – Florida Charter, 1763, page 65

Footnote #8 – Hudson Bay Charter, 1670, page 69

Footnote #9 – North Carolina Constitution,1776, page 80

Footnote #10 – North Carolina Constitution, 1789, and latter amendments, page 88

Footnote #11 – Congressional Record, page 127

PART 3

Will the real government please stand up!

After writing British Colony parts 1 and 2, I was amazed how some people react, when confronted with information that goes against their prior programming. It is as if to even consider the possibility that their belief system may be incorrect, was a threat to their mental well being. They were going to deny any truth that threatens their belief structure. The good news is those with such a reaction were of the minority. This is promising, because it shows Americans can still think past years of incomplete teaching, concerning our history. Those in the negative believe the information had to be bogus and they could not believe the government could wrong them.

So this third part is for them, to show them that government has and does lie to them and violates their trust on major issues. As always this information and supporting documents, are given so the reader can form their own opinion. Other writers, I will mention one since he uses a pen name, the Informer, has also done extensive research on this subject and has been forced to come to the same conclusions. (Check out the latest work of the Informer, his new book called, THE NEW HISTORY OF AMERICA.)

The information the Informer and I have found is so clear and undeniable, even the doubting thomas’ will have to face reality. Not to make us right, but for America to become aware of lost history, that neither of us formed, but are willing to be criticized in its reporting to correct great error.

Guide to the Footnotes: External Links

NOTE: THESE LINKS CANNOT BE FOUND – – -Olddog

  1. Quotes on the fraudulent ramification of the 14th. Amendment.
  2. Tulane Law Review vol. 28 1953, The Dubious Origin Of The
    Fourteenth Amendment, by Walter J. Suthon, Jr.
  3. Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867.
  4. Reconstruction Act of March 11, 1868.
  5. Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867.
  6. Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867.
  7. President Lincoln’s Proclamation of Amnesty & Reconstruction.
  8. Veto message by President Johnson, March 2, 1867.
  9. Gen. Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, April 24 1863.

10.Court cases on Conquest and Military Occupation.

11.Letter I wrote to a local sheriff, August 27, 1995.

12.New Jersey’s removal of their ratification of the 14th Amendment.

  1. Addendum

I will begin with the touch stone of the patriot community, the Fourteenth Amendment. Everyone knows about the citizenship issue. I raised another issue concerning the 4th section of the Fourteenth Amendment in British Colony part 1, and issues regarding sec. 3, in court documents found in Footnote 13. Doubting thomas’ think this is a conspiracy theory.In the new propaganda movie called “Conspiracy Theory”, the establishment wants you to think that anyone that believes there is someone behind the scenes calling the shots is mentally unbalanced. What the doubting thomas’ do not realize, is this is a big puzzle and is hard to recognize, and can be incorrectly viewed. The biggest problem is, it can be put together more than one way, totally changing its appearance and outcome. The doubting thomas’ may say how is it you think you have the correct pieces? My answer is, I shoot a lot of archery, in archery you shoot for the bullseye, not the less important areas outside the bullseye. You have to stay focused on what are the core issues, not the side issues/collateral issues, where valuable time is lost. I conduct my research in this way. Two, I rely on God Almighty to keep me pointed in the right direction. Three, I always tell you not to take my word without checking the subject out for yourself. Most people if plagued with a recurring headache, take a pain reliever, and the headache appears to go away. When in fact all you have done is deal with a symptom, that caused the headache. You have not dealt with the cause. Many patriots today are dealing with the symptoms, like taxes, driving v. traveling and the zipcode, etc. etc. All are important issues and have their place, but they are not the root cause of our problem. Until the cause of the affliction is researched, exposed and then removed, nothing will change.

The lawful de jure united States government which was created by the 1787 Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was made null and void by the fraudulent Congress, that passed the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a bold and broad statement, but I will prove it.

“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.” Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

“Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest of subjugation.” Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

The Southern States could not lawfully cede from the Union without the other States being in agreement. In the last sentence you will notice the war was either a rebellion or, the States were made foreign and conquest and military rule took place during the Civil War. This is very important, because of what took place next, and what took place after the Civil War and March 9, 1933. March 2, 1867, President Johnson declared the rebellion to be over and the Southern States to be once again part of the Union, before the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment were passed. So the States were not foreign, they did not have to be readmitted, they picked up in Congress where they left off, with the same State governments they had before the rebellion. If the Southern States had ceded from the Union, without sanction by all the States, their Legislative Acts would have been null and void. In other words if a State or the federal government violates their corporate Charter, it makes any subsequent law void, unenforceable, other than by force of arms.

The following information should upset you greatly and at the same time amaze you, that Americans are totally unaware of this information. How is it in the freest country in the world, and a nation that prides itself on our history, could you have 200 plus million people ignorant of the truth, and that care so little about the destruction of our country? The information I am sharing with you is purposely not taught in the public schools. Why? It will become clear to you that, if the government taught this in the public schools, it would cause the rebirth of American patriotism. Americans would demand our former overthrown Republican form of government; and that the Laws of God Almighty be adhered to. We were promised in the Constitution a Republican form of government, and Benjamin Franklin when asked, said: you have been given a Republican form of government if you can keep it,(paraphrase). By the laziness and greed of the American people over the years our lawful government was stolen, but not without our help.

The Civil War was fought to free the slaves and reunite the Union, or so we have been told by selected history, taught by and through the government. The slaves just changed masters, as I have said before in other research papers, and the white people enfranchised, incorporated, and sold themselves into slavery. Whites along with blacks were made legal fictions so they could be owned and taxed by the king. However, the only way this could be done is by destroying the Constitution, but they had to do it in a way that no one would recognize its destruction, or care thanks to the offered benefits. Now the Proof.

December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by proclamation, amnesty and reconstruction for the southerners so they could be readmitted into the Union. Footnote #7 This action along with what Lincoln was doing with the money is why Lincoln had to be killed. The South could not be allowed back into the Union without their enfranchisement. Compare the readmittance oath in President Lincoln’s proclamation of 1863, to the following oath requirement required by Congress, under the Reconstruction Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5 and 6.

“An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States, passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall cause a registration to be made of the male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and upwards, resident in each county or parish in the State or States included in his district, which registration shall include only those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act aforesaid, and who shall have taken and subscribed the following oath or affirmation: “I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a citizen of the State of _____; that I have resided in said State for _____ months next preceding this day, and now reside in the county of _____, or the parish of _____, in said State, (as the case may be;) that I am twenty-one years old; that I have not been disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or of the United States; that I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me God;” which oath or affirmation may be administered by any registering officer.” Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867, supplement to Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867.

You will note that in the above oath Congress creates legal residence for anyone taking the oath and that this is done by registering to vote, and made a requirement in order to vote. The same legal disability still takes place today when you register to vote. Today you still have voting districts in every county in the America.

You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that you were not disenfranchised, by taking part in the Civil War. Which means that, before the Civil War Americans were franchised citizens, incorporated. I covered this in part 1; by the States adoption of the Constitution, those that lived in the States became legal residents, incorporated/enfranchised, instead of Sui Juris freemen. Which was granted to them by the Declaration of Independence, and in North Carolina, for North Carolinians this was reaffirmed by the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, see British Colony part 2.

Also, you will see in the following oaths where the language came from, for the creation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this language was also used in the 14th Amendment oath you just read. Wherein it declares that, elected officials, judges, legislators and police etc., cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy. The enemy is anyone unincorporated, because the king cannot legally tax you, without using the force of admiralty. The enemy is also anyone that refuses to swear the oath to the de facto government for the above reasons.

The following is the oath given to those that wanted to serve in the United States government.

An act to prescribe an oath of office. July 2, 1862

“Be it enacted, That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government of the United States either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: “I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto; and I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God;” which said oath, so taken and signed, shall be preserved among the files of the Court, House of Congress, or Department to which the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after, of holding any office or place under the United States.”

When the war was over President Johnson declared the States readmitted to the Union and hostilities to be over.

Furthermore; on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued a “Proclamation” that:

“The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded.”

Presidential Proclamation No. 153,

General Records of the United States,

G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.

On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed that the insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely ended and his “Proclamation”continued:

“The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State, as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-six.

“And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end, and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist, in and throughout the whole of the united States of America.”

Again the power behind the United States government would not stand for this, so Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5 and 6. President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were unconstitutional. Below are some excerpts from his veto message.

“It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall ‘punish or cause to be punished’. Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States- all persons, of every color, sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits- to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and colored persons….”

“I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer, ‘Certainly not’, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which is imposes.”….

“…The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen without judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest without warrant, at pleasure of a military commander. The Constitution declares that ‘no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment of a grand jury’. This bill holds ever person not a soldier answerable for all crimes and all charges without any presentment. The Constitution declares that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law’. This bill sets aside all process of law, and makes the citizen answerable in his person and property to the will of one man, and as to his life to the will of two. Finally, the Constitution declares that ‘the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it’; whereas this bill declares martial law (which of itself suspends this great writ) in time of peace, and authorizes the military to make the arrest, and gives to the prisoner only one privilege, and that is trial ‘without unnecessary delay’. He has no hope of release from custody, except the hope, such as it is, of release by acquittal before a military commission.”

“The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige of republican government in ten States and puts the life, property, and honor of all people in each of them under domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?”

“….,here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once. It is based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the 9,000,000 was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties were excluded from all participation in the trial. The conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large messes of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, from the rank of freeman to the condition of slaves.” Veto Message of President Johnson, March 2, 1867, Footnote #8

President Johnson did not realize the king ruled and that in 1845 Congress declared admiralty law to have come on land, nor did he realize the relevance of the Insular Cases. I cover these in “A Country Defeated In Victory” part 1 and in Footnote 11. Once the judiciary decided to look the other way, the De jure Constitution’s days were numbered.

“As a result of these decisions, enforcement of the Reconstruction Act against the Southern States, helpless to resist military rule without aid of the judiciary, went forward unhampered. Puppet governments were founded in these various States under military auspices. Through these means the adoption of new state constitutions, conforming to the requirements of Congress, was accomplished. Likewise, one by one, these puppet state governments ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which their more independent predecessors had rejected. Finally, in July 1868, the ratifications of this amendment by the puppet governments of seven of the ten Southern States, including Louisiana, gave more than the required ratification by three-fourths of the States, and resulted in a Joint Resolution adopted by Congress and a Proclamation by the Secretary of State, both declaring the Amendment ratified and in force.” Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 36

To regress just a moment, after the war, after the States rejoined the Union, the representatives of the South took their seats in Congress. Later the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in Congress by the Northern States and the Southern States. By the 1787 Constitution they were considered equal contracting partners of the Union. The powers controlling the government had to replace their republican form of government that had existed in the Southern States since they adopted the 1787 Constitution.

“Despite the fact that the southern States had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment , Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern States. It excluded Tennessee =66rom military occupation and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no Senator or Congressman from the occupied States could be seated in Congress until a new Constitution was adopted by each State which would be approved by Congress. The Act further provided that each of the 10 States was required to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the States be allowed to have seats in Congress.” Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

The way they chose to do it was pass the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Northern States that put the amendment up in Congress figured the Southern States would ratify. Wrong, the amendment fell short of passing the House and the Senate. The action taken next by the Northern States will go down in history as the most unlawful act ever taken by any government in the world. Since the amendment would not pass lawfully, the Northern States decided to rip the 1787 Constitution up and take over the government. How did they do this? They told the Southern States that refused to vote for the amendment they no longer were members of Congress, denying lawful States suffrage in the Union. In order to get the amendment through Congress the Northern Senators also removed a seated Senator from New Jersey to give them two-thirds in the Senate, and counted 30 abstention votes in the House as yes votes to pass the Fourteenth Amendment in the House. See Footnote #12

Observing how ‘a renegade group of men from the Northern States’, MY NOTE in quotes, actual text in brackets (Congress) had taken the Constitution into its own hands and was proceeding in willful disregard of the Constitution, on the 15th of January, 1868- Ohio, and then on March 24, 1868- New Jersey, voted to withdraw their prior ratifications and to reject.

The following, is an excerpt from Joint Resolution No.1 of the State of New Jersey of March 24, 1868, when they rescinded their prior ratification and rejected:

“It being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same, should be proposed by two thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty representatives form eleven States of the Union, upon the pretence that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said Houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of power, without the right and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the  said Houses.”

“The object of dismembering the highest representative assembly in the Nation, and humiliating a State of the Union, faithful at all times to all of its obligations, and the object of said amendment were one- to place new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it might absorb to itself all executive, judicial and legislative power, necessary to secure to itself immunity for the unconstitutional acts it had already committed, and those it has since inflicted on a too patient people.”

“The subsequent usurpation of these once national assemblies, in passing pretended laws for the establishment, in ten States, of martial law, which is nothing but the will of the military commander, and therefore inconsistent with the very nature of all law, for the purpose reducing to slavery men of their own race to those States, or compelling them, contrary to their own convictions, to exercise the elective franchise in obedience to dictation of a fraction in those assemblies; the attempt to commit to one man arbitrary and uncontrolled power, which they have found necessary to exercise to force the people of those States into compliance with their will; the authority given to the Secretary of War to use the name of the President, to countermand its President’s order, and to certify military orders to be by the direction of the President’ when they are notoriously known to be contrary to the President’s direction, thus keeping up the forms of the Constitution to which the people are accustomed, but practically deposing the President from his office of Commander-in-Chief, and suppressing one of the great departments of the Government, that of the executive; the attempt to withdraw from the supreme judicial tribunal of the Nation the jurisdiction to examine and decide upon the conformity of their pretended laws to the Constitution, which was the Chief function of that August tribunal, as organized by the fathers of the republic: all are but amplified explanations of the power they hope to acquire by the adoption of the said amendment.”

“To conceal from the people the immense alteration of the fundamental law they intended to accomplish by the said amendment, they gilded the same with propositions of justice…”

“It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the State to pass laws, and interdicts the execution of such part of the common law as the national judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions of the said amendment; made vague for the purpose of facilitating encroachment upon the lives, liberties and property of the people.”

“It enlarges the judicial power of the United States so as to bring every law passed by the State, and every principle of the common law relating to life, liberty, or property, within the jurisdiction of the Federal tribunals, and charges those tribunals with duties, to the due performance of which they, from their nature and organization, and their distance from the people, are unequal.”

“It makes a new apportionment of representatives in the National courts, for no other reason than thereby to secure to a faction a sufficient number of votes of a servile and ignorant race to outweigh the intelligent voices of their own.”

“This Legislature, feeling conscious of the support of the largest majority of the people that has ever been given expression to the public will, declare that the said proposed amendment being designed to confer, or to compel the States to confer, the sovereign right of elective franchise upon a race which has never given the slightest evidence, at any time, or in any quarter of the globe, of its capacity of self-government, and erect an impracticable standard of suffrage, which will render the right valueless to any portion of the people was intended to overthrow the system of  self-government under which the people of the United States have for eighty years enjoyed their liberties, and is unfit, from its origin, its object and its matter, to be incorporated with the fundamental law of a free people.”

(The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the threat that it poses to our democratic government, Pinckney G. McElwee, South Carolina Law Quarterly 1959)

Did the political outrage of all history stop there? No!
In order to ratify the amendment in the States, Congress declared war on the Southern States by passing the Reconstruction Acts. Declaring the Southern States had unlawful State governments. They placed the States under martial law, creating military districts which still exist today. Is not the Fourteenth Amendment still in existence today? Nothing has changed. They replaced the lawful State governments with puppet governments, so the Fourteenth Amendment would be ratified by the required 3/4 of the States and would not readmit any State until ratification of the amendment was complete. The illusion is since you vote for your officials, “we can’t be under military  occupation”. The privilege to vote would end if your State tried to remove the Fourteenth Amendment.

Back to President Johnson’s veto, the unlawful Congress then over road his veto. Now picture this, you have a lawful President who vetoed the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, passed by a de facto Congress. Then the unlawful Congress overrides his veto since they have a Republican majority in the Congress after denying the representation to the Democratic Southern States. This Congress under the 1787 Constitution had no lawful authority to conduct business under the 1787 Charter much less destroy the office of the President. What do you call this? It was a political take over, a coup d’etat.

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress to the States for adoption, through the enactment by Congress of Public Resolution No. 48, adopted by the Senate on June 8, 1866 and by the House of Representatives on June 13, 1866. That Congress deliberately submitted this amendment proposal to the then existing legislatures of the several States is shown by the initial paragraph of the resolution.” Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 28

  1. Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866
    (House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584 – Senate Journal 1866, p.471.).
  2. Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866
    (House Journal 1866, p 68 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
  3. Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866
    (House Journal 1866, p 76 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
  4. Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866
    (House Journal 1866. p. 210-213 – Senate Journal 1866, p.183.).
  5. North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866
    (House Journal 1866 – 1867. p. 183 – Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 138.).
  6. Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866
    (House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.).
  7. South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866
    (House Journal 1866, p. 284 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.).8. Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867
    (House Journal 1867, p. 60 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.).
  8. Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867
    (House Journal 1866-67, p. 108 – Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 101.).
  9. Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 9, 1867
    (“Joint Resolution” as recorded on page 9 of the “Acts of the General Assembly,” Second Session, January 28, 1867) (McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 194; “Annual Encyclopedia,” p. 452.).
  10. Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867
    (House Journal 1867, p. 223 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
  11. Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867
    (House Journal 1867, p. 1141 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
  12. Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867
    (McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 194.).
  13. Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868
    (House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 – Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.).
  14. New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868
    (“Minutes of the Assembly” 1868, p. 743 – Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.).
  15. California rejected the 14th Amendment on March 3rd, 1868
    (“Journal of the Assembly” 1867-8, p. 601).
  16. Oregon rejected the 14th Amendment by the Senate on October 6, 1868 and by the House on October 15, 1868 proclaiming the Legislature that ratified the Amendment to have been a “defacto” Legislature (U.S. House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 3rd session, Mis. Doc. No 12).

Did the military occupation ever come to an end? No!

Did the military presence leave the streets? Yes. Technically do you have to have a military presence visible in the streets, for military occupation and martial law to exist? No! Can the military/Commander-in-Chief/Congress, transfer this power to the civil authorities? Yes. Read the following cases, and Lincoln’s General order 100, Footnote #9

“But there is another description of government, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2) that while it exists it must necessarily be [229 U.S. 416, 429] obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force.” Thornington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, 19 L. ed. 361, 363. Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913

“While it is held to be the right of a conqueror to levy contributions upon the enemy in their seaports, towns, or provinces which may be in his military possession by conquest, and to apply the proceeds to defray the expenses of the war, this right is to be exercised within such limitations that it may not savor of confiscation. As the result of military occupation, the taxes and duties payable by the inhabitants to the former government become payable to the military occupant, unless he sees fit to substitute for them other rates or modes of contributions to the expenses of the government. The moneys so collected are to be used for the purpose of paying the expenses of government under the military occupation, such as the salaries of the judges and the police, and for the payment of the expenses of the army.” Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913

To also prove that military occupation still exists, ask yourself this. Is the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified under duress, military occupation; and written and passed by a de facto Congress still in existence? Yes! If a State would today remove the Fourteenth Amendment and the statutory laws this amendment created from their State laws, do you think the federal government would send in the military again? Of course it would. So did the military occupation end? I hope by now you know the answer to that.

Have you never wondered why the government sends your tax dollars all over the world via the IMF and the World Bank etc. etc., with Americans paying the bill, without ever putting this up for a vote? Read the following quote.

“In New Orleans v. New York Mail S. S. Co. 20 Wall. 387, 393, 22 L. ed. 354, it was said, with respect to the powers of the military government over the city of New Orleans after its conquest, that it had ‘the same power and rights in territory held by conquest as if the territory had belonged to a foreign country and had been subjugated in a foreign war. In such cases the conquering power has the right to displace the pre-existing authority, and to assume to such extent as it may deem proper the exercise by itself of all the powers and functions of government. It may appoint all the necessary officers and clothe them with designated powers, larger or smaller, according to its pleasure. It may prescribe the revenues to be paid, and apply them to its own use or otherwise. It may do anything necessary to strengthen itself and weaken the enemy. There is no limit to the powers that may be exerted in such cases, save those which are found in the laws and usages of war.” Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 1901

To drive home the relevance of British Colony part 1&2 and what I just said above about taxes, read and understand the below quotes from the Declaration of Rights, September 5, 1774. Maybe it will sink in, we are taxed by Britain and we have not only asked for it but, demanded the benefits supplied by the king, past and present.

GO FIGURE????

“Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without their consent.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774 (The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does not work that way Patriots.)

“Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty’s colonies, are likewise entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774

As further proof, are not all States divided into military Districts? At first glance you may not think so. However, look at your District Courts, in your State. They are the enforcement arm of the admiralty law/kings law and legislation passed on a daily basis. As I said before the voting Districts are also left over from the Reconstruction Acts. In every court room a military flag is flown, a war flag not the Title 4, flag of peace. Are you not required to obtain a license from the de facto government for every aspect of commerce, and the use of their military script/fiat money? Americans are taxed and controlled in the following ways, to name a few:

  1. Social Security number – license to work.
  2. Drivers license – permission to conduct commerce and travel on the military roads.
  3. Occupational license – permission to perform a God given right.
  4. State and local privilege license – license to work in the State, county or city.
  5. Marriage license – permission for a right granted by God Almighty.
  6. Hunting and Fishing license – government taxing property of God Almighty, etc.etc.etc.

Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery, you are controlled in every aspect of your life. All licenses came about after the Fourteenth Amendment and the military occupation, which we are now under. The reason all this has taken place in America is, to colonize the world for Britain. The United States has been the enforcement arm/cannon fodder for Britain since the Civil War.

“The decisions wherein grounds were found for avoiding a ruling on the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act leave the impression that our highest tribunal failed in these cases to measure up to the standard of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. If the Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional, the people oppressed by it were entitled to protection by the judiciary against such unconstitutional oppression.” Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 34

“The adversary or the skeptic might assert that, after a lapse of more than eighty years, it is too late to question the constitutionality or validity of the coerced ratifications of the Fourteenth Amendment even on substantial and serious grounds. The ready answer is that there is no statute of limitations that will cure a gross violation of the amendment procedure laid down by Article V of the Constitution.” Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 43

If you want to read more about the military occupation and the War Powers Act, read Footnote #11. This issue concerning the Constitution has to be understood by the Patriots, before you can help others see the illusion. We Patriots need to be able to tell others how we arrived in this condition. But, this will never happen as long as we defend a dead treaty, and expect a lawful remedy from a de facto government.

Is it any wonder why Americans look at us like were nuts. We defy a de facto government and take its benefits. We curse its judges and praise a de facto Constitution that, denies the judges the ability to give remedy to the enemy. We praise the legal document that gave Congress the power to declare us as enemies and curse the Congress for their action. Wake up Patriots! How do you expect Americans to listen to the truth, when we are so easily made to look like fools by the government propaganda machine, and we make it easy for them. We tell the American people the sky is falling, but never give them a remedy, other than keeping the same damn document that enslaved us. We do not tell the American people that there was life before the Civil War Occupation and the Fourteenth Amendment unlawful Constitution, so fear of the unknown will keep them from wanting to learn. The only remedy I see, except for God Almighty’s Judgement, is to expose the fraud. See Footnote 13.

Until you accept the truth about the Constitution you will not be able to understand the information in British Colony part 1&2. I will end this research paper in this way. Someone asked me, “are you not afraid to be killed by the government”? I told them what Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendnego said:

“If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king, But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Daniel 3:17-18

Mark Twain: “You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one’s country, not to institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing; it is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to; institutions extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags–that is a loyalty of unreason; it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy; was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose constitution declared “That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit, and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefensible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they think expedient.” Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks that the Commonwealth’s political clothes are worn out and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate, anyway, and it is the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does.”

submitted by colony@civil-liberties.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 

 


THE KOREAN WAR: ANOTHER CONFLICT THAT SERVED THE ILLUMINATI AGENDA

06/27/2015

http://jamesperloff.com/2014/03/29/the-korean-war-another-conflict-that-served-the-illuminati-agenda/

By James Perloff

On June 25, 1950, Kim Il-sung, North Korea’s communist dictator, sent his troops to invade South Korea. American forces, fighting under UN authority, came to South Korea’s defense, in a bloody three-year war that ended in stalemate.

But how did Kim Il-sung and the communists come to power in North Korea? U.S. foreign policy put them there, in a roundabout way.

During World War II, the U.S. fought the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. The Soviet Union, then under Joseph Stalin’s brutal rule, was America’s “ally” during this war. The Soviets, however, only fought Germany; they maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan.

But at the “Big Three” conferences at Teheran and Yalta, President Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his treaty with Japan and enter the Pacific war. Stalin agreed – on condition that the United States supply him with all the weapons, vehicles and materiel his Far Eastern army would need for the expedition. Roosevelt agreed, and some 600 shiploads of supplies were sent to Russia to equip Stalin’s army to fight Japan.

This was an absurd foreign policy decision. Stalin was a well-known aggressor. The 1939 invasion of Poland, which officially began World War II, had actually been a joint venture by the Germans and Soviets. In 1940, Stalin had invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, and annexed part of Romania. No one could seriously believe he would bring benevolence to Asia.

Stalin did not send his army into the Far East until five days before the war ended; Japan, already struck by the atomic bomb, was ready to surrender. Soviet forces moved into China, where, after very limited fighting, they accepted the surrender of huge Japanese weapons depots. They then turned these weapons, plus their own American lend-lease supplies, over to communist rebel Mao Tse-tung. Thus armed, the Chinese communists ultimately overthrew the Nationalist government.

Prior to this, Korea had been a Japanese protectorate. In April 1944, Foreign Affairs – journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) – published an article entitled “Korea in the Postwar World.” It suggested turning Korea into a trusteeship ruled by the Allies including Russia. Naturally, Stalin agreed with this idea when it was formally discussed, and the Soviets received power over North Korea, while the U.S. occupied Korea’s southern half.

Considering that the Soviets did almost nothing to win the Pacific war, North Korea was an enormous trophy to give the dictator Stalin, well known to have murdered millions of his own people. Stalin swiftly established a communist government under Kim Il-sung in North Korea, building a 150,000-man army with hundreds of tanks, hundreds of warplanes, and heavy artillery. When the United States departed South Korea, on the other hand, it left only a constabulary force of 16,000 South Koreans with small arms – they did not have a single tank or even one anti-tank gun.

Given communism’s record of insatiable expansionism, this arms imbalance made the invasion of South Korea inevitable. Kim-Il Sung waited until Mao Tse-tung consolidated communist control of China in 1949, securing Kim’s rear. In January 1950, Kim proclaimed this would be Korea’s “year of unification” and called for “complete preparedness for war.” Two weeks later, as if to sweeten the pot for Kim, America’s ever-intriguing Secretary of State Dean Acheson (CFR, Scroll & Key, Committee of 300) gave a speech on the Far East which placed South Korea beyond the U.S. “defensive perimeter.”

Should any attack occur outside the perimeter, Acheson declared, the victims would have to rely “upon the commitments of the entire civilized world under the Charter of the United Nations.” This remark intimated the role the Korean War was to play in the Illuminati agenda.

The Illuminati are Satanists. They seek world domination. The Bible predicts that the Antichrist or “beast” will have authority “over every tribe, people, language and nation” (Revelation 13:7). To govern the world requires a world government – this is self-evident.

The remarkably predictive Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion – whose uncritically accepted status as a hoax is discussed in Chapter 18 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior – openly proposed world government. In Protocol 5:11, for example, the authors declared that their cartel was “gradually to absorb all the state forces of the world and to form a super-government.”

In America, gradual establishment of world government was entrusted to the Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921 in direct response to the U.S. Senate’s rejection of the Versailles Treaty, which would have joined America to the League of Nations. After the League later failed, its successor was, of course, the United Nations. The plan for the UN was secretly contrived by a group of CFR members in the State Department. They called themselves the Informal Agenda Group, selecting this innocuous-sounding name to preempt any suspicions in Congress about what they were up to.

When the UN held its founding conference in San Francisco in 1945, most of the American delegates – 47 of them – were CFR members. Alger Hiss, who would later be exposed as a Soviet spy, was Secretary General at the conference. This time, the Illuminati were taking no chances that the Senate would reject the UN, as it had the League. Hiss flew directly from San Francisco to Washington, with the UN Charter in a locked safe. After glib assurances from delegates, the charter was ratified by the Senate after limited discussion. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated $8.5 million to purchase the land where the UN was built; his younger brother David, of course, was long chairman of the CFR and remains honorary chairman.

Once the UN was established, the next natural step was to try to empower it. This required that its credentials as a peacekeeper be validated, for the first purpose listed in the UN Charter is “To maintain international peace and security.” This was where the Korean War came into play.

Nearly two years into the Korean War, Adlai Stevenson penned the lead article for the April 1952 Foreign Affairs entitled “Korea in Perspective,” in which he summed up thus: “The burden of my argument, then, based on the meaning of our experience in Korea as I see it, is that we have made historic progress toward the establishment of a viable system of collective security.”

The term “collective security” was hypocrisy. During the Korean War, 90 percent of the UN’s forces were American. Although 15 other nations sent troops, their contribution was, numerically speaking, token. Tens of thousands of America soldiers would die under the UN flag.

Congressional opposition to the League of Nations had been largely based on the threat which a supranational government could present to American sovereignty. The UN action in Korea underscored just how justified those concerns had been.  The 10th section of the Protocols (published 1903) predicted: “In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents. . . . We shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war.” A president, of course, is far easier to control than an entire legislature. The U.S. Constitution had decreed that declaration of war was the responsibility of Congress. How, then, to steal this authority away? In 1944 the CFR prepared a memorandum for the State Department which stated: “A further possible difficulty was cited, namely, that arising from the Constitutional provision that only Congress may declare war. This argument was countered with the contention that a treaty would override this barrier, let alone the fact that our participation in such a police action as might be recommended by the international security organization [UN] need not necessarily be construed as war.”

When the Senate ratified the UN Charter, it effectively relinquished its authority to declare war – an authority that has not been invoked since. President Truman sent troops to Korea without so much as consulting Congress. At his press conference of July 29, 1950, Truman explained: “We are not at war; this is a police action.” The United States suffered over 100,000 casualties in Korea – but not to worry, this wasn’t war, just “police action,” surely a testimony to the power of Orwellian semantics.

Congress did not protest Truman’s action very vigorously because the Illuminati were playing a clever trump card. The strongest opponents of the UN in Congress were also staunch anti-communists. They had vigorously condemned the Truman State Department for allowing (in fact, pushing) China’s fall to Communism.  In the case of Korea, Truman now appeared to be atoning for that deed by sending American troops to halt communist aggression. Congressional conservatives faced a catch-22. If they tried to assert their Congressional prerogatives, Korea might be lost to Kim Il-sung’s rapidly advancing communist troops in the meantime.

But we can have no illusions. The backstage Illuminists controlling the American government had no intention of “fighting communism.” General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN forces, learned this the hard way. MacArthur not only succeeded in repelling the North Korean invasion, but – following his soldier’s instincts – he pursued victory, and liberated North Korea from communism nearly all the way to the Yalu River, which marks the border of China. At this point, Red China poured its troops into the conflict. MacArthur ordered the Yalu’s bridges bombed to keep the Chinese out, but within hours his order was countermanded by the Secretary of Defense, General George Marshall.

Marshall was the CFR’s military shill, a Judas in 5-star shoulder boards. He had betrayed the men of Pearl Harbor by withholding his foreknowledge of the 1941 attack; from 1945 to 1949 he had, as “special envoy” to China and then Secretary of State, helped condemn millions of Chinese to death through his manipulations on behalf of the Communists. Now as Secretary of Defense, he once again served as the Communists’ confederate by chaining GIs with the new concept of “limited war.” Victory had become an anachronism, replaced by “containment,” the idea originated in the famous “Mr. X” article in Foreign Affairs. Senator Joe McCarthy saw right through Marshall, condemning him in his 1951 book America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall. Predictably, McCarthy wound up dead and “disgraced,” while Marshall was awarded the 1953 Nobel Peace Prize.

General MacArthur said of Marshall’s order to leave the Yalu bridges alone – which cost thousands of GIs their lives – “I realized for the first time that I had actually been denied the use of my full military power to safeguard the lives of my soldiers and the safety of my army. To me, it clearly foreshadowed a future tragic situation in Korea, and left me with a sense of inexpressible shock.” MacArthur was soon dismissed from command in Korea. Like Patton, he was expendable once he had served his purposes.

We should not underestimate the importance of Harry Truman’s 1950 statement: “I have ordered the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary of this action I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. The Seventh Fleet will see that this is done.”

The joker in this deck was the “corollary.” Chiang Kai-shek and his nationalist army on Formosa (Taiwan) had been threatening to invade the mainland, in an effort to retake it from the communists, whose control there was still tenuous. By removing this threat, Truman freed up Chinese communist troops for their attack across the Yalu. In effect, Truman had the Seventh Fleet protect the communists’ flank while they killed American soldiers. (None of this would surprise any student of the subsequent Vietnam War’s realpolitik, in which Washington’s “rules of engagement” turned what could have been a 6-month victory into a 14-year defeat with 58,000 GIs dead.)

General Lin Piao, commander of Chinese forces in Korea, later stated: “I never would have made the attack and risked my men and my military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication.”

Perhaps the greatest irony of all: the Soviet Union could have prevented the UN action in Korea simply by exercising its veto power as a member of the Security Council. After all, Kim Il-sung was their puppet. However, on the day of the Korea vote, the Soviet delegation was absent. They were in the middle of a walkout they had staged over the failure of the UN to seat Red China. UN Secretary General Trygve Lie expressly invited Jacob Malik, Soviet Ambassador to the UN, to attend the Korea vote, but he declined. Establishment historians refer to this as a “Soviet blunder.” But politicians rarely blunder. If Malik (died 1980) had really goofed, Stalin would have had him nailed to a board.

The Korean War was not about victory on either side. It was about validating the UN as “peacekeeper.” Including civilian casualties, some three million people died on this altar to world government.  When the war ended in 1953, Korea’s North-South borders were restored to approximately where they had been at the outset: the 38th parallel. General Mark Clark commented: “In carrying out the instructions of my government, I gained the unenviable distinction of being the first United States Army commander in history to sign an armistice without victory.”

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 

 

 


ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority

06/26/2015
  • ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority
  • 6-26-2015 9-34-22 AMWhile America was distracted by a contrived, pre-planned Confederate flag distraction, the U.S. Congress forfeited the entire economic future of the country by quietly passing so-called “fast-track authority” which will allow President Obama to approve the TPP “free trade” agreement.
  • The TPP, as you may have heard, outright surrenders U.S. sovereignty to multinational corporations, handing them total global monopolies over labor practices, immigration, Big Pharma drug pricing, GMO food labeling, criminalization of garden seeds and much more. In all, the TPP hands over control of 80% of the U.S. economy to global monopolists, and the TPP is set up to enable those corporations to engage in virtually unlimited toxic chemical pollution, medical monopolization, the gutting of labor safety laws and much more.Plus, did I mention the TPP will displace millions of American works as corporations outsource jobs to foreign workers? While corporations rake in the profits from new global powers, everyday American workers will lose their livelihoods and their jobs (not to mention their pensions).

    Political sleight of hand: It was SOOOO easy to distract the American people with a flag flap!

    Essentially, America just got sold out by people like Marco Rubio. And it was incredibly easy to pull off, too. First, America was distracted by a contrived, pre-planned mass hysteria / outrage event now known as the Confederate flag flap. Hilariously, this literal false flag controversy doesn’t even involve the actual Confederate flag. It involves a battle flag that people mistakenly think is the Confederate flag. (But who needs historical accuracy when there’s hysteria to spread?)

    While Amazon.com was frantically deleting Confederate flag products from its website and everybody was going bat-crap insane over the 1970’s comedy TV series Dukes of Hazzard and its use of the so-called Confederate flag on a hot rod car, Republicans and the President were busy committing outright treason at the highest levels: surrendering American sovereignty and economically enslaving all of America’s future children.

    And that’s the tragic irony of all this: While the political left falsely believed it was denouncing slavery by pressuring every online retailer and government entity to ban the Confederate flag, the U.S. Congress was busy enacting a whole new level of total economic enslavement for everyone, regardless of their skin color.

    While ignorant “activists” ran around in mass hysteria, thinking they were banishing a symbol of enslavement to the history books, they were actually providing the necessary public distraction for quiet passage of the TPP’s  fast-track authority.

    In other words, they played right into the hands of the real slave masters: the globalist, monopolist corporations and their fascist government puppets who betray the People at every opportunity.

    Believe me: These corporations don’t care about the skin color of their slave workers. They gladly enslave everyone, including you and me, if we’re stupid enough to allow our own elected representatives to forfeit America’s future (which they just did).

    Screw the Confederate flag issue, folks: All Americans are now the “property” of multinational monopolist corporations that have turned national governments against their own people. The Confederate flag flap was merely a useful distraction to trick the population using political sleight of hand to fool everyone about the real agenda being pursued in Washington.

    America is now officially a nation of slave workers beholden to multinational corporate interests. How does your silly flag outrage feel now?

    Congress sneaks approval vote on fast-track TPA to eliminate national sovereignty on issues of food, GMOs, pesticides and more

    Amazon.com bans Confederate flag sales as ‘offensive’ but happily sells slave bondage simulated rape contraptions depicting women being tortured and physically abused (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O_Sbbeqfdw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzfxv2XQoPg]

  • 2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

The U.S. And E.U. Will Collapse Regardless Of Economic Contagion

06/25/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/the-us-and-eu-will-collapse-regardless.html

6-25-2015 8-19-06 AM

By Brandon Smith

In order to understand what is really going on around the globe in terms of the collapsing economy, we must set aside false mainstream versions of reality. When it comes to the EU and its current fiscal turmoil, it is very important to, in some respects, ignore Greece entirely. That’s right; forget about all the supposed drama surrounding Greek debt obligations. Will they find a way to pay creditors? Will they default? Will they make a deal with Russia and the BRICS? Will there be last-minute concessions to save the system? It doesn’t matter. It’s all a soap opera, an elaborate Kabuki theater run by international financiers and globalists.

It is most important to remember the fundamentals. Greece will default on its debts. Period. There is no way around it. Maybe Greece makes a deal today, maybe it makes a deal tomorrow; but eventually, the country’s ability to stretch out its resources in order to meet its exponential liabilities will end. It is inevitable, and no last-minute “deal” is going to change the math at the core of it all.

Why are so many economists so worried about a little country like Greece?

It’s all due to a great lie: a dishonest narrative being perpetuated by the establishment that if Greece falls, defaults or leaves the EU, this could trigger a domino effect of other nations hitting a debt wall and following suit. The lie embedded in this narrative is the claim that Greece will cause a “contagion” through the act of default. Let’s be clear – there is no contagion. Multiple countries within the EU have developed their own debt problems in spite of Greece over the past couple of decades, not because of Greece. Each of these countries, from Italy, to Spain, to Portugal, etc. has its OWN sovereign debt disasters to deal with caused by its own fiscal irresponsibility. The only legitimate reason for a so-called contagion is the fact that these countries have been forced into socialist interdependency through the EU structure.

Never forget this: The EU is in trouble not because of Greece, but because of forced supranational interdependency. The EU by all rights should not exist, nor should any centralized supranational single currency system.

I would also point out that globalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund are highly motivated to initiate disaster in the EU, despite some people’s assumptions that the EU is some kind of representative model of globalization. It’s not. If this were the case, then the IMF would not be stiffing Greece on debt aid while continuing to help Ukraine despite Ukraine’s similar inability to pay.

Why would the globalists want a partial breakup of the EU? What would they gain from such an event? That’s easy; they gain crisis, chaos and an opportunity to present a false dialectic.

Europe is not at all representative of what globalists really want in terms of economic and political structure, no matter what many people assume. It is a, rather, a kind of facsimile; a half measure. When Europe hits the bottom of the financial abyss and the bewildered public begins asking what the hell happened, the elites will be there with an immediate explanation. They will claim that it was not the EU’s interdependency that was the problem. Instead, they will assert that the EU was actually not centralized ENOUGH. They will claim that in order for a supranational economy and currency to work, we must also have supranational governance. In other words, the system failed because it needs to be stabilized by global government.

The Fabian socialists will argue that it was the barbaric and outdated institution of national sovereignty that caused the full-spectrum crisis. They will completely gloss over the negative effects of an interdependent economic system and the fact that a lack of redundancy leaves cultures simpering and impotent. We’re all one big human village after all, so we should accept the idea that we all succeed or fail together. Free markets and individual innovation apparently have nothing to do with a thriving economic structure. What we really need is a hive mind amalgamation that turns us all into easily replaceable parts in a massive rumbling lawnmower that chews up our heritage, history and principles for the sake of some arbitrary greater good and the promise of alchemical floating cities in the sky where no one has to work anymore.

The fall of the EU is a means to an end for globalists. There is almost no nation or institution they will not sacrifice if that sacrifice can be exploited to further their goal of total global political and economic dominance. They don’t just want a completely centralized system; they want all of us to BEG them to put that system in place. They want the masses to think it was all our idea. This is the most pervasive and effective form of slavery, when the slaves are manipulated into demanding their own enslavement. When the slaves are fooled into believing their enslavement is something to be proud of — a badge of honor in service of the collective, if you will.

The fall of the U.S. will be no different in this regard. We do not necessarily have a supranational structure like the EU. So our narrative for collapse will be slightly different, and the engineered lesson we are meant to learn will be carefully crafted.

You see, Americans are meant to play the role of the spoiled imperialists who are finally getting what we deserve, an economic punch in our tender parts. We are the new Rome, bread and circuses and all. And when the U.S. comes crashing down like Europe, the Fabians will be there yet again to admonish the greed inherent in national sovereignty and the destructive aspirations of power that must be squelched by a more evenhanded global political system. I don’t really know how many people out there realize this, but we are meant to play the bad guys in the global theater being put on by the elites. Americans are the villains, the rest of the world plays the role of innocent victim, and globalist centers like the IMF and the BIS are meant to play the heroes, coming to the rescue of humanity when all appears lost.

Our debt generation by far outmatches that of the whole of EU nations combined, a fact I outlined in Part 3 of my series One Last Look At The Real Economy Before It Implodes. Unlike Greece, though, the U.S. has the direct option to print fiat at will in order to prolong punishment for our massive debt spending. However, as we have seen with recent market reactions to the very notion of an interest rate hike by the Federal Reserve in September, such an event will trigger extensive outflows from stock markets and herald the end of the “new normal.” Again, why would the banksters do this? Why not keep interest rates at a constant near zero? It is not as if there is any public pressure to raise rates; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Why is the Fed ignoring the hundreds of signals showing that the U.S. is in a recession and pushing ahead with discussion of interest rate hikes despite what one might logically conclude would be in the Fed’s best interest?

The Fed knows that the only things propping up American markets are free money and blind faith by the public that banks and government will act to stop any pain or economic suffering, should such a potential for crisis arise. When the free money is gone and that faith disappears, then we will have an epic catastrophe on our hands. The globalists within the Fed know this, and they want this – at least , they want a controlled version of this. The elites NEED the fall of the current U.S. system exactly because this will make way for the rise of what they often term the “great economic reset.” This reset is the next stage in the plan for total global economic centralization.

This is not about contagion. There is no such thing. It is an excuse, a scapegoat designed to distract from the real problem. This is about a concerted effort over the past several decades by internationalists to maneuver Western cultures into a position of vulnerability. When people are weak and frightened, they become malleable. Social changes you would have never thought possible today become very possible tomorrow in the midst of a crisis. I believe we are now seeing the onset of the next great crisis, and the fundamentals of economy support my view. When the entire European system hangs by the thread of Greek debt and the entire U.S. system hangs by the thread of near zero interest rates and blind market faith, something is about to shatter. There is no going back from such a condition. There is only the path forward, and the path forward is not pleasant or comfortable and it cannot be ignored.

We cannot forget that crisis is in itself a distraction as well. Whatever pain we do feel tomorrow, or the next day, or the next decade, remember who it was that caused it all: the international banks and their globalist political counterparts. No matter what happens, never be willing to accept a centralized system. No matter how reasonable or rational it might sound amid the terror of fiscal uncertainty, never give the beast what it wants. Refuse to conform to the dialectic. This is the only chance we have left to get back to true prosperity. Once we cross the line into the realm of worldwide institutionalized interdependency, we will never know prosperity or freedom again.

You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market, where this article first appeared. If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations pagehere. We greatly appreciate your patronage. 

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution

10 13 11 flagbar


Officer Who Killed 17-year-old During Traffic Stop Feared He “May have been part of a sovereign nation or militia movement.”

06/23/2015

http://libertyfight.com/2015/sheriff_shot_boy_feared_sovereign_nation_militia_movement.html

6-23-2015 9-19-53 AM

By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
June 22, 2015

What began as a petty traffic stop over the flashing of bright headlights ended in a 17 year old young man’s death, shot seven times by a Eaton County Michigan Sheriff.

An official 19 page press release from the Eaton County Prosecuting Attorney Douglas R. Lloyd dated June 16, 2015 presents the reasons which no charges are being filed against the officer, Eaton County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Jonathan Frost. The shooting has been ruled as justifiable self defense, and the use of deadly force against 17-year-old Deven Lee Guilford “was legally justified in shooting Deven in self defense.” Deven is pictured at left.

“Deven was the initial physical aggressor, and presented an immediate danger of great bodily harm or even death to Sgt. Frost,” the report notes, adding “law enforcement officers have the same privilege of self defense as anyone else.”

In their ‘Detailed description of incident, traffic stop and attempts to identify driver,’ the report notes how on February 28, 2015, a driver earlier in the evening who was approaching Sgt. Frost had flashed his high beams at the officer in an attempt to let him know his brights were on. The report states that the driver“advised Sgt. Frost that the SUV’s headlights were very bright andf appeared to him to be on high beam.” This occurred at 8:21PM. Frost noted that exchange was “cordial” and that he let the driver go with a warning. Only four minutes later at 8:25PM, a Ford Focus driven by Guilford flashed his high beams at the officer.

The Michigan report reveals that Officer Frost feared Deven “May have been part of a sovereign nation or militia movement” and may have been calling for help at the outset of the conflict.

Sgt. Frost Attempts to Arrest Deven

Sgt. Frost explains in his written satement that, at this point, ecause of statements previously made by Deven during the traffic stop, he suspected that this driver may have been part of a sovereign nation or militia movement and feared that the phone call being made was to summon others to come to the scene. 3. Deven’s call was made immediately after Sgt. frost could be heard radioing for “priority” backup assistance. Sgt. Frost decided at this point to arest Deven for No Operator’s License in Possession.

Sgt. Frost opened the driver’s door, told Deven to “get out of the car” and grabbed Deven’s arm to pull him. Deven replied, “No”. Deven’s seat belt appeared to restrict him. Deven continued to hold his cell phone in his right hand as Sgt. Frost tried to control his left hand. Deven yelled, “Do not touch me, officer! Do not touch me, you cannot open my car!” As Deven remained in the car and appeared to be focusing on his cell phone, Sgt. Frost backed off and again commanded him to get out of the car.

[Footnote 3: MSP investigators confirmed that police bulletins had been sent to agencies to alert law enforcement of this danger. Some of the indicators encountered by Sgt. Frost were Deven’s refusal to comply with his requests for a driver’s license and registration, asking unusual questions relating to law enforcement authority or denying law enforcement authority over him, filming the encounter, and making a call during the encounter. Bulletins had warned that this could be a request for support from other sovereign citizen associates.”]

Recent Life events

As recorded on both the body-cam and Deven’s own cell ohone, Deven was defiant toward the officer’s authority. He challenged the reason for te traffic stop, questioned the legitimacy of the officer’s position as a law enforcement officer, refused to provide identification and other required vehicle information after numerous requests, refused to get out of the car when ordered to do so, did not comply with demands so he could be arrested and forcibly resisted, opposed or obstructed Sgt. Frost’s efforts to handcuff him; all while he was focused on documenting his encounter.

Deven’s father and girlfriend reported that, in the days and weeks preceding this traffic stop, Deven was focused on YouTube videos of police encounteres with citizens. While not expressing harsh anti-police rhetoric, Deven was supporting the videos as examples of police violating people’s rights and “how bad cops are.” They said that Deven’s focus on these videos was recent, sudden, out of the ordinary, and may have influenced Deven in this traffic stop. His father reported that, in recent days, he tried to counsel his son that these videos did not show how all police acted. Deven’s act of recording the traffic stop may have been intended for YouTube. Deven held his phone to focus on Sgt. Frost and narrated, “This is what American…” as Sgt. Frost ordered him to put the phone down and move his arms to his side so he could be handcuffed.

The family of Deven Lee Guilford issued a statement about the decision following the prosecutor’s announcement, saying“our family believes that our son should not have been killed on the night in question.”

Sorry CopBlockers, But Sometimes a Police Shooting Is Justified
There is a right and wrong way to assert your rights during encounters with police. Deven Guilford chose the very wrong way, and ended up dead, shot seven times by a county sheriff. If you

[Footnote 2: At no time did Deven guilford tell Sgt. Frost the simple truth: that he had borrowed his girlfriend’s car to play basketball with his brother at a Grand Ledge church, that he forgot his wallet and was driving back to his girklfriend’s home where the wallet was, that he could call his girlfriend so she could confirm the whereabouts oif his driver’s license and provide verbal information from the card to Sgt. Frost, or that his girlfriend might even be able to drive the license to their location in a few minutes.

[Footnote 3: MSP investigators confirmed that police bulletins had been sent to agencies to alert law enforcement of this danger. Some of the indictators encountered by Sgt. Frost were Deven’s refusal to comply with his requests for a driver’s license and registration, asking unusual questions relating to law enforcement authority or denying law enforcement authority over him, filming the encounter, and making a call during the encounter. Bulletins had warned that this could be a request for support from other sovereign citizen associates.”]

Sgt. Frost pulled his Taser and told Deven to get out of the car, warning him that he would be tased.

Deven turned and saw the Taser pointed at him. Sgt. Frost repeatedly commanded him to get out oif the car. Deven eventually got out of the car. Sgt. Frost commanded him at Taser-point to “Get on the ground now!” Instead, Deven knelt, holding his cell phone toward the officer. Sgt. Frost told him to “get on the ground”, or “on your belly”, “facing me.” Deven laid down prone on his belly, but remained propped on his elbows, and narrated into his phone. When Sgt. Frost told him to put his arms out to the side, Deven hesitated and put his left arm slightly toward the side but still held his right hand forward so the cell phone would face Sgt. Frost.

Sgt. Frost then appraoched Deven’s right side. Deven announced that he did not have a weapon. Sgt. Frost took the cell phone from Deven’s hand and tossed it a few feet ahead. 4. Deven responded “You can’t do that!” Sgt. Frost reached for Deven’s arms as he announced, “Son, get your hands behind your back, you’re under arrest,” Deven physically resistaed and said “You can’t do that.”

Sgt. Frost told Deven three times to “get your hands behind your back, you’re under (arrest)”, but he did not do so. Sgt. Frost then moved slightly backward and fired his Taser at Devin. Devin was still belly down on the edge of the roadway next to the car. The two Taser prongs embedded in Deven’s back, but only one probe embedded past the barb. The shot came from too close to achieve the necessary neuro-muscular incapacitation to immobilize Deven so that he could be handcuffed. It is unknown if any minimal “tasing” effect occurred. Deven was struck by the prongs and would have felt pain. He exclaimed, “Ow”, and then stood up and attacked Sgt. Frost.

Sgt. Frost’s body-cam recorded 14 seconds of this segment of the incident before its lens and wire were dislodged from the recording/battery pack during the altercation. But, a freeze frame sequence from the body-cam does show Deven rising swiftly and coming at Sgt. Frost with his hands and arms raised. The body-cam recording is difficult to interpret at this point because the amount of movement and close-proximity, but it appears to show movement from the clear, dark road surface into the snow covered ground off the roadway. The camera moves violently. Audio recordings of indistinct body movements, scuffling, and breathing can be heard. No more dislogue was recorded until Darren screams after being shot. All video and audio from Sgt. Frost’s body-cam ends at this moment.

Just before Deven’s screams, Sgt. Frost rapidly shoots his service gun three times. the body-cam’s audio did not record the sound of the shots. According to its manufacturer, the sound was too loud and the decibels exceeded the body-cam’s recording range. MSP technical services synchronized Deven’s celll phone recording to the body-cam recording. Deven’s cell phone recorded a 13-14 second gap between the sound of the Taser deployment and him yelling “Ow!” and the first gun shot. The first three gunshots are heard immediately before Deven screams. All seven shots were fired in less than five seconds.

[Footnote 4: the cell phone was not damaged and the video file continued to record for about twenty-five more minutes, until it reached the phone’s recording limit.

Sgt. Frost reported that Deven had quickly jumped from the ground and knocked him backwards after the taser deployment. Deven was swinging his fists. Sgt. Frost backpedaled from Deven and reached for his sidearm. Deven hit him in the head several times with his right fist. Sgt. Frost fell to the ground and Deven sat on his hips, repeatedly punching him in the head. Sgt. Frost’s head hurt, and he tasted blood in his mouth. His eyesight was blurred by blood running into his eyes. He reported feeling as though he was going to lose consciousness.

Sgt. Frost decided to shoot his attacker, in part because he feared that if he lost all consciousness Deven would take his gun and shoot him.

Sgt. Frost’s first attempted gunshot failed. the handgun jammed and the cartridge failed to fire. While he rolled slightly to his side and used both hands to clear the gun (ejecting the unfired cartridge), Sgt. Frost was still being hit on his head. Sgt. Frost then turned the gun toward Deven and fired seven times in rapid succession. Deven was shot seven times, as summarized in the Autopsy report section, below.

Once the shots were fired, the attack stopped, Deven fell to Sgt. Frost’s side but was still on top of him. Sgt. Frost pulled himself from underneath Deven and out of the snow. Sgt. Frost stated he was winded, semi-conscious and bleeding heavily. he radioed Central Dispatch that he had shot comeone and that he was injured. Sgt. Frost waited several minutes for officer Schlossberg to arrive and continued to cover (point his gun at) Deven’s body.

Others arrive

Officer Schlossberg arrived and found Sgt. Frost kneeling in the snow, covering Deven. Officer Schlossberg handcuffed Deven, but noted no signs of movement or apparent life at that time. Officer Schlossberg relieved Sgt. Frost, and continued to cover Deven. Officer Schlossberg reported that he was concerned that Sgt. Frost was going to lose consciousness. Officer Schlossberg recalled that Sgt. Frost said that the driver had him pinned down, was beating on him or “clobbering” him, and that he had no choice but to shoot.

GLPD Lt. Chris Blievernicht was the next officer to arrive. He found Deven lying prone in the snow, about fifteen feet off the roadway. Sgt. Frost was still kneeling on the snow, looking dazed and rarely raised his head. Lt. Blievernicht saw that Sgt. Frost’s holster was filled with snow, preventing him from holstering his weapon. He reported that Sgt. Frost said that the driver ha punched him numerous times in the face, and was “all over him.”

ECSD Sgt. Casey Tietsort was the next officer to arrive and found Sgt. Frost bleeding heavily from his head, and saw blood on the front of his uniform jacket and pants.

Sgt. Frost’s body-cam recorded events totaling 5 minutes and 39 seconds, as summarized above. Deven’s cell phone remained on the shoulder of the road and continued to record audio for about twenty-five more minuted. Sgt. Frost’s body-cam lense and wire were found in the snow near Deven’s body.

As the scene was being secured, Deven’s girlfriend (the registered owner of the motor vehicle that Deven was driving) arrived to the svene. She reported that Deven had left around 7:30 pm to play basketball and forgot his wallet. She had it in her possession when she spoke to police. She stated that, around 8:30 pm, she got a call from Deven’s phone but it sounded like someone was running or out of breath. She thought it might have been an accidental call during basketball. A few minutes later, she got another call and heard Deven yell her name and say “You don’t have the right to touch me” or “You can’t do that.” The call ended, and she called back without an answer. (Calling records on her cell phone confirm this chronology.)
Sgt. Frost goes to the hospital

Sgt. Frost was examined at Sparrow Hospital. He reported a near loss of consciousness during the incident and afterward, pain around his left eye, a head laceration, left-side jaw pain, and it felt like his teeth did not fit together. A Sparrow doctor examined Sgt. Frost. He found no loose teeth, but did find bruising to an area near the left eye, a laceration in the middle of his forehead, swelling of his upper lip, and an abrasion on his left forehead. The doctor characterized the injuries as “significant facial trauma” with a possible mandibular (jaw bone) and orbital (eye socket) fracture. Another doctor subsequently looked at CT scans, and found no actual jaw or eye fractures.

Deven had seven gunshot entrance wounds on his body, and two exit wounds (one in his back, one in his arm.) Holes in Deven’s t-shrt corresponded with injuries to his body. The autopsy report chronicled each of the following injuries but does not specify in which order the occurred:

Head – One bullet entered Deven’s upper right front scalp into his right cerebrum and cerebellum, causing multiple skull fractures, This bullet did not exit the body. The main mass of a jacketed bullet was found in the back of the neck, with fragments in the right forehead and brain. The trajectory was from the right-to-left, from the front-to-back, and downward. The shot occurred at close, near-contact range, as evidenced by soot on the skin. No muzzle imprint was noted. The medical examiner has advised that the unjuries caused by this wound would have been fatal.

Toxicology testing reported low levels of THC, the active ingredient in marihuana, and caffeine. .. active THC level (7.2 ng/mL) suggests that Deven last used marihuana within 3-4 hours or sooner… A pill bottle labeled “Green Crack, 90% Sativa / 10% Indicia, 1 gram” was found in the car’s arm rest. A partially smoked hand-rolled cigarette containing an unknown substance was found inside this pill bottle.

As recorded on both the body-cam and Deven’s own cell ohone, Deven was defiant toward the officer’s authority. He challenged the reason for the traffic stop, questioned the legitimacy of the officer’s position as a law enforcement officer, refused to provide identification and other required vehicle information after numerous requests, refused to get out of the car when ordered to do so, did not comply with demands so he could be arrested and forcibly resisted, opposed or obstructed Sgt. Frost’s efforts to handcuff him; all while he was focused on documenting his encounter.

Deven’s father and girlfriend reported that, in the days and weeks preceding this traffic stop, Deven was focused on YouTube videos of police encounteres with citizens. While not expressing harsh anti-police rhetoric, Deven was supporting the videos as examples of police violating people’s rights and “how bad cops are.” They said that Deven’s focus on these videos was recent, sudden, out of the ordinary, and may have influenced Deven in this traffic stop. His father reported that, in recent days, he tried to counsel his son that these videos did not show how all police acted. Deven’s act of recording the traffic stop may have been intended for YouTube. Deven held his phone to focus on Sgt. Frost and narrated, “This is what American…” as Sgt. Frost ordered him to put the phone down and move his arms to his side so he could be handcuffed.

Pg. 12 notes “Michigan’s Motor Vehicle Code prohibits a driver from using high beams or any lights that will project into oncoming drivers’ eyes within 500 feet of oncoming vehicles. MCL 257.700 states.. “that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming drive.”

The Taser was deployed too close to Deven’s body for the two prongs to separate at least four inches before attaching to him.. both prongs did not fully embed, as needed.

Deven was only stung by the prong and possible minimal tasing, and reacted with immediate rage against Sgt. Frost. It did not incapacitate him so that Deven could be handcuffed. Sgt. Frost’s response was measured and lawful under the circumstances. Sgt. Frost followed MCOLES guidelines on use of force, in particular his decision to use his taser.

Based on sound public policy to avoid public confrontations like this case, people are required to submit to police authority and challenge perceived errors later in court. If Deven had been ticketed or criminally charged, he could have challenged the reason for stop, or his excuse for not having his license. The judge or magistrate could have heard evidence and decided whether Deven was correct or not under Michigan law. Roadsides are not the proper venue for such debates.

Michigan law gives a person the right to use force or even take a life to defend him’herself or another person under certain circumstances… law enforcement officers have the same privilege of self defense as anyone else.

Decision not to charge – Based upon a review of the facts and the law, Deven was the initial physical aggressor, and presented an immediate danger of great bodily harm or even death to Sgt. Frost.

Sgt. Frost was not the aggressor, Deven was. .. as such, Sgt. Frost was legally justified in shooting Deven in self defense. .. Deven’s cell phone videos corroborate Sgt. Frost’s account of events, including when all seven gunshots occurred (all occurred in a 4-5 second time span.)

Upon review of the investigation concluded by the Michigan State Police, the Office of the Eaton County Prosecutor, Doug Lloyd, has determined that the evidence shows that Sgt. Frost acted in a lawful manner, and was reasonable in using deadly force to defend against the physical attack of him by Deven Guilford. While, in retrospect, both Deven and Sgt. Frost could have made different choices, ultimately this tragedy would not have occurred if Deven Guilford had not physically attacked Sgt. Frost.

[The full report may be found here:http://www.eatoncounty.org/images/Departments/Prosecuting%20Attorney/Press_Releases/Guilford_Press_Release.pdf.]

Note: LibertyFight.com often covers interesting historical documents, obscure reports, and legal briefs from local, state, and federal governments and other sources, which aren’t covered in the corporate or independent. Here is a brief sampling – you can subscribe to the LibertyFight.com Twitter feed below.

I have over 8 million views on my youtube channel. But the following video, with only 6,000 views, is still my absolute favorite and an inspirational tear jerker. Listen to the astounding true story of Vincent Arias, my friend who was shot by police, escaped in his bloody car, then was later apprehended only to be charged with ‘assault on a police officer’ and attempted murder on an officer. He spent two years in jail on over a million dollars bail and faced life in prison if convicted. He beat the case, PRO PER, after firing all his corrupt lawyers. An amazing story of redemption and true grit.

RELATED ARTICLES FROM LibertyFight.com:

Sovereign Citizen” Turns In Stray Dog To Animal Shelter, Killed By Police For Not Showing ID

Black man flying confederate flag arrested for living in national forest

Man Who Open-Fired On Cops With AK-47 Had “Resistance To Tyranny” Book In Car

LAPD Announces: “The Museum of Tolerance Will Provide Training For Patrol Officers Throughout 2015.”

Police who nearly killed Iraq vet at OCCUPY protests trained by Israeli military

Marine Unit in Los Angeles ‘Realistic Urban’ Military Drill Were Trained By Israeli IDF Forces Earlier This Year

“Louisville Purge” Cops Trained by Israeli Military, Ready To Purge Any Potential Troublemakers

Man who hit cop in self-defense is acquitted, with help of friend’s video footage

PSYCHO AMERICA: DHS ‘Use of Force Report’ Admits Agent’s “shots at suspect vehicles are taken out of frustration” involving “non-violent suspects who posed no threat”

Police Nationwide Spooked As Cops Shot & Killed in Texas, Missouri, Arizona, Florida, Puerto Rico, Ohio & New York in the Past Month

Ho Ho HO! Man Dies After DHS Agents Taze Him On Christmas Eve; San Diego Police Investigating

Man Shot By Cops Discusses His Acquittal, Freedom & the Current Police State of America: Vincent Arias

7 years of freedom: Vincent Arias, Shot by cops & facing life in prison, tells his story of Acquittal by Jury without a lawyer

How I beat a Speeding Ticket in California Superior Court of Appeals (Without A Lawyer) [Featured on LewRockwell.com and EconomicPolicyJournal.com.]

Filming Cops Archives

Beating Traffic Tickets Archives

Latest Articles from LibertyFight.com

Flashback: FBI’s ‘Active Shooter’ Report Documents Armed Citizen Took Out Shooter Before Police Arrived

 

2007: Armed churchgoing woman took out mass murderer who    sought to “kill as many Christians as I can”

 

Meet David Joseph Lenio, the 28 year-old 9/11 Truther/Holocaust Denier being Prosecuted in Montana for ‘Criminal Defamation’ of Jews 6/8/15

1938: Fr. Charles E. Coughlin calls out Rabbi for lying about Henry Ford & Jewish persecution in Germany12/18/12

J.P. Morgan war propagandists plot to control the media: U.S. Congressional Record, 1917 8/30/13

Father Charles E. Coughlin’s famous 1938 radio address entitled Not Anti-Semitism But Anti-Communism

1938: Fr Coughlin explains the cause of Jewish persecution in Germany, warmongers falsely attack him as an Anti-Semite & Nazi 12/1/13

When the U.S. government supplied ammo & military planes to kill thousands of Catholics 9/18/13

“Dancing Israelis” Arrested On 9/11 Later Sued The Govt, But Lost Their Case [Featured on Infowars.com.]

Historical details reemerge: U.S. Government supplied 10 Million rounds of ammo, 10,000 Enfield Rifles, military planes & tanks to Slaughter tens of thousands of Catholic Freedom Fighters 10/17/13

Rand Paul on Israeli groups: “I visit with them daily” (!!) 8/13/13

Pope Francis Explains How His Climate Change Encyclical Is Being Written 1/26/15

LAPD Announces: “The Museum of Tolerance Will Provide Training For Patrol Officers Throughout 2015.”

Read The Letter That The LAPD Arrested Two Concerned Black Mothers For “DARING” To Deliver [Meet Sha Dixon, who was arrested at LAPD Headquarters last week, and our exclusive copy of the letter she was trying to deliver to LAPD Chief Charlie Beck..]

Catholic Bishops From Around The World Visit Gaza: “Terrible Destruction, Shocking Scandal”: Israeli Settlements “Illegal Under International Law.. Simply Unjust” 1/16/15 – “Political leaders must defend the human dignity of the people in Gaza,” Bishops Say

50-Year-Old White Man Carjacked, Bashed In Head With Hammer 13 Times By 2 Blacks = Zero Media Coverage, No Follow-Up (Until Now.)

The First Flash Mob? Black Army Soldiers Mutiny & Attack Houston TX, 1917; 35 People Killed, 13 Soldiers Court-Martialed, Hanged & Burned As Punishment 12/29/14

Fr. Coughlin’s New Years Day Message, 1933: Not Despair, But Hope Of ‘Understanding The Flagrant Financial Abuse Of The Rothschild System’

Black Civil Rights Pioneer Was “Intimate Friends” with David Duke, Opposed the “Elite Ruling Class” 1/2/15

Documented History: WWI Letters Reveal “Old Jew” Sells Maggot & Vermin Infested Pies To WWI Soldiers: Put In Stockade With Only Water & His Pies To Eat 12/29/14

Letters of a Freemason WWI Soldier To His Zionist Mother concerning “a certain prophecy about the Jews” & “the new order that will be ushered in by and thru the Jews in their home- land – Palestine.” 12/29/14

1954 Govt ‘Report on Hate Groups’ Villified Eustace Mullins, Ben Freedman, Opponents of Water Flouridation, ‘Invisible Government’ & ‘Zionist Wars’

9/11 Widow & lawyer sanctioned for motions which “reflect anti-Semitism in a raw and ugly form.” LibertyFight.com obtained an exclusive copy of the court decision against 9/11 widow.

Jews Suing Jimmy Carter over Palestine book represented by ‘Dancing Israelis’ Lawyer. [I discussed this with Dr. Kevin Barrett on his radio show Part 1 here, Part 2 here.]

[Facebook does not allow links to my site. To post this article on Facebook, use this link:http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/officer-who-killed-17-year-old-during-traffic-stop-feared-he-may-have-been-part-sovereign-na.]

FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on LibertyFight.com may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC S. 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

You can follow LibertyFight.com on Twitter and re-tweet this article here.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Is This the Next Step in a Government Takeover?

06/22/2015

http://survivalinstitute.com/is-this-the-next-step-in-a-government-takeover/

6-22-2015 10-30-50 AM

Alan Morris
Editor

People on all sides of the political spectrum agree on one thing: the group that controls the money controls everyone else. Which makes a recent Supreme Court decision scary for those of us who support freedom.

recent court case, Tribble v. Edison, found that employers must protect their employees’ 401(k) plans from mutual funds that perform “poorly.” And Martin Armstrong, an economist who predicted (correctly) the Black Monday crash in 1987 and the Russian financial collapse in 1998, said,

“Between the court ruling and the Obama administration’s push for stronger fiduciary rules[…], [a] strong message that government can much easier seize the pension fund management industry of course to ‘protect the consumer’ [has been sent]. He also says that the ruling, “sets the stage to JUSTIFY government seizure of private pension funds to protect pensioners.”

Now, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that, if the Federal government takes control of pension plans, including 401(k)s, then they will effectively control the Baby Boomers, the largest active voting block in the country and, through fear and intimidation, ram through whatever legislation that they desire.

This sets up a dangerous possibility as the Feds continue to do things “for the people.” Funny, I seem to remember that Mao Tse Tung and Stalin committed the atrocities that they did to help the people.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

First of all, the so called Federal Government is NOT a legitimate sovereign Government, it is a for profit Corporation and as such is entirely illegal according to The Constitution FOR the united States of America. Do your home work and then support the   Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury movement. See here http://nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/7_mandamus_subversion.pdf

And here

Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years

 

For more information on the takeover of our Sovereign States and original Constitution between the States go here  Before Things Get Out of Hand Judge Anna von Reitz

There is only one way to return this Country to legitimate governance, and that is to educate at least one hundred million Americans on the real history of America, and pray they will revolt. Our biggest problem is in forming a legitimate National Militia and appointing its leaders. Who do you think will stand up to the powers that be and lead us back to freedom without being backed up by the people? If you are not willing to fight for freedom from tyranny God Help us.

Must read!

Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury:

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/7_mandamus_subversion.pdf

Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury: P.O. Box 59; Valhalla, New York, 10595; Fax – 888-891-8977

THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY JUDICIAL ACTION filed via U.S. Postal Service in all 94 Federal District Courts and served upon all parties listed below by fax. All Clerks are to perform their ministerial function under penalty of law USC 18 §2076 to file1 or deliver to the recipients listed below. Whoever intercepts, obstructs or impedes will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law 18 USC §1512(b).2 This is a matter of national security and it is expected that the recipients, being oath-takers read and understand the nature and gravity of the contents of these papers. This official judicial process executed by the Unified United States Common Law Grand Juries concerning treason against the People of the United States of America in violation of the • United States Constitution Article III Section 3 treason; • 18 USC §2385 advocating overthrow of Government; • 18 USC §2384 seditious conspiracy; • 18 USC §2382 misprision of treason; • 18 USC §2381 treason; • 18 USC §1349 attempt and conspiracy; • 18 USC §1622 subornation of perjury; • 18 USC §115 treason, sedition, and subversive activities; • 18 USC §4 misprision of felony.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Converting a 31 page PDF and restoring the original format was just to frustrating so please go to the link provided and down load it.

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/7_mandamus_subversion.pdf

It is well worth your time to study this document, if you have the courage to learn and use the info.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Humanity is Developing Survival Resistance to Government Lies

06/21/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/humanity-adapting-new-resistance-to.html

6-21-2015 12-59-19 PM

By Bernie Suarez

Throughout nature it is well known that species will experience changes in its DNA and adaptations in its physical expression and behavior solely for the purposes of surviving in its environment. There are numerous examples in nature of species genetically and physically adapting to its environment for survival reasons. So it’s not a far-fetched suggestion that humanity itself may now be experiencing a physiological mental and cerebral transformation which is changing its behavioral pattern and environmental response to the phenomenon of government.

That’s right, as humans we have an obligation to think critically and objectively when considering the plight of humanity as it struggles in these modern days against the new world order and the human control system. It is up to us to consider the objective expression of this battle for freedom against the oppressive and defective component of humanity known as government.

Whether you understand it or not, those that wish to control you are a parasite on the species. Their infective process is carried out by thought signals within other concurring members of the species. These thought signals of control, rules, laws, policing, and legal system of enslavement perpetuate itself within the species, and is the very system that we know as the controlling governmental system. It seeks to simply control and enslave others. There is really no other purpose for its existence. It generates the mental signals needed to perpetuate the control system of enslavement to take away your individual freedom and your wealth and money. It does all of this by the system of rules we logically understand today as government.

This same governmental system is a sophisticated apparatus. It didn’t just come about by any means. This concept of government, it turns out, is the very burden of life that ensures that life often is a struggle, is stress filled or not enjoyable. This control system is a challenge humanity has been trying to figure out for centuries. Anyone can read ancient history and see the exact same struggle humanity was in back then. It is not difficult to see the parallels throughout history showing how the history of freedom’s struggle is arguably the very history of humanity.

Unfortunately today, all of history is often taught to children from the point of view of the controllers. The concept of freedom is normally hidden from human consciousness from the start with the hope and intention that the human being will never comprehend what it means to be truly free. The control system’s logic instilled from youth is that life is what you are told it is by the control system and you are to obey. We are taught that freedom from controlling governments is not realistic, not possible and not even part of human history.

Realization and awareness

However, with the advent of the information age and the subsequent advancement in human awareness and consciousness, many within the species (those who are awakened) are realizing that the sky is the limit. Humanity is realizing that truth itself is realized, not expressed to you by a voice on TV or a billboard. Awakened humanity is realizing that we are what we believe we can be. The rules of old are quickly dissolving before our eyes even as the control system marches on with control tactics to keep the masses enslaved.

Reality and fiction are on a collision course. The controllers are intending to force their fiction on humanity even if it means going violent. Today, this forceful violence designed to intimidate and push their agenda is known by many names today including “false flags”. These false flags are now the norm in the eyes of those who are awakened, and spontaneous coincidences in the eyes of those still asleep in the matrix of lies.

This epic moment in human consciousness is leading to something big. What we are now seeing is a rash of staged government violent operations, staged false flag violence and everyday lies from the control system’s mainstream media. As awakened humanity fights off a now weak storm of verbal attacks (“conspiracy theorists”) designed to discredit those awakened, it is primed to usher in a new era which is already underway.

The new era of human consciousness has many features to it. It’s already in progress and it’s all around us even though most people don’t realize it. Humanity is mentally advancing and adapting very comfortably to government lies and propaganda. Yes, that’s right! I believe humanity is adapting so well to government lies and propaganda that the control system is desperate to do whatever it has to do to control, fool and convince those that are still asleep that the dream they are in is still real. They are throwing the kitchen sink at this prospect. The dream of controlling humanity is, after all, a dream to the controllers. The same way you and I have dreams of success and happiness is the same way the controller have dreams of controlling. Like any member of the species, we (they) are wired to not give up on our (their) dreams.

This functional commonality within humanity is a very important reality we must all keep in mind. The same tenacity that we have for fighting for freedom and truth is the tenacity the controllers have for fighting for enslavement and lies.

Rendering the control system powerless

I believe our similarities within the species is something that is allowing the species as a whole to adapt to the problematic control system. This diseased portion of humanity known as the control system is losing its mass influence, and the loss of influence is growing and becoming more pronounced with every day that goes by.

For example, as I’ve discussed in the past, more than ever we are now seeing repeated government lies, propaganda, entire operations including false flags and fake terror operations all being pushed on the masses at all-time rates, all the while a growing significant percentage of the human population is not even blinking at these events. It’s as if these false flag shootings, lies, propaganda and staged terror is not even happening. The anxiety it’s supposed to produce is not there and the lies they tell are not believed. Awakened humanity is increasingly seeing government and its lying apparatus as an irrelevant part of life.

We all know the control system is very capable of violence. Yes, they will do anything they can to put every single one of us in a cage (jail, prison) or to take away our money (taxes). Yes they will write thousands of laws to make it easier and easier to attack your freedom and steal your money. And yes they will continue to attack your mind with staged fear (terrorism, false flags and engineered natural events). Awakened humanity is aware of what it is dealing with and it is aware of its individual limitations so it tolerates what it sees, quietly marches on ignoring the fear and quietly awaits the moment when all the cards will fall apart for the control system.

Human progress

Many who are fully awakened realize that essentially all human progress occurs slowly and incrementally. That is the reason why we all have associates, friends and family who are still asleep in the matrix of lies. We understand it is a slow process. It’s the process of human mental, spiritual, and conscious evolution that we are seeing in motion in real-time. Its happening right now and it’s very real.

I firmly believe humanity is actually adapting to the problem of government. Advanced humanity sees the problem and now it is fully understanding what it’s dealing with. This new and evolving understanding is giving way to the evolutionary process of overcoming government. Humanity is intrinsically changing how it thinks in response to the problem of government. Think for a moment how just a century ago no one had any clue what a false flag was. Can you imagine that?

Here we are in the first quarter of the 21st century and humanity’s mentality is advancing beyond its years even as a huge segment is still stuck on the paradigm of entertainment allowing celebrities, Hollywood and TV to influence their perception of the world. Advanced humanity, nonetheless, is moving forward confidently. Those who are awakened cannot be un-awakened. The awakening process is a one-way street. It’s a process that moves forward not backward. Mathematically speaking there will be more (not less) awakened people on earth tomorrow than yesterday, and so on.

All of these factors put together define the evolution of humanity but not in the sense taught to children in public schools. This is the true and real evolution of the human thought process which includes its new awareness of itself, its new awareness of freedom, and full awareness of its enslavement to government and how it employs the current propaganda control system.

I believe this awareness alone is all that is needed for humanity to guarantee victory over the control system. It may sound crazy and exaggerated but this awareness alone will activate the spirit of freedom deep inside the minds of humans and it will activate the creativity in humanity to do whatever it takes to resist the control system. This resistance, when exercised on a mass scale will deal a blow to the control system in ways we can’t imagine.

So no one should be surprised that the control system will soon be using the U.S. military to practice intimidating Americans and pulling them out of their apartments (Jade Helm 15 operation officially starting soon). That’s because deep down the control system knows what it is up against. It’s up against a sophisticated species that is aware, is watching, is vigilant, loves freedom and most important, is evolving mentally. This new adaptation by the species to the problem of government will ultimately be the greatest threat to the control system. The controllers are hoping to overcome this by spreading fear. They know, however, that if they fail to spread their fear it is game over. Are you ready? Will you be ready when things get much worse? Is the greater picture finally coming together?

Bernie is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology. He has written numerous articles over the years about freedom, government corruption and conspiracies, and solutions. A former host of the 9/11 Freefall radio show, Bernie is also the creator of the Truth and Art TV project where he shares articles and videos about issues that raise our consciousness and offer solutions to our current problems. His efforts are designed to encourage others to joyfully stand for truth, to expose government tactics of propaganda, fear and deception, and to address the psychology of dealing with the rising new world order. He is also a former U.S. Marine who believes it is our duty to stand for and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. A peace activist, he believes information and awareness is the first step toward being free from enslavement from the globalist control system which now threatens humanity. He believes love conquers all fear and it is up to each and every one of us to manifest the solutions and the change that you want to see in this world, because doing this is the very thing that will ensure victory and restoration of the human race from the rising global enslavement system, and will offer hope to future generations.

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Comparing societal conceptions from the nineteen fifties to today’s is an exercise in mental flagellation, but it is now easy to understand how malleable the human mind is after years of reading the works of competent authors on the real state of the union. Humanity has degenerated into such a state of complacency as to be unbelievable.

As the art form of mental manipulation advanced, governments worldwide sucked more and more individualism from their constituents until voluntary obedience and support was normal, and self reliance was considered traitorous until freedoms greatest enemy became leviathan and overwhelming. Such is the present state of nation’s world wide. It reminds me of an internet video I saw where millions of people were compulsively jumping into a giant crater. This sad state of affairs is depressing beyond comprehension.

My mind keeps wondering how humanity could accept slavery too concepts born in the mind of lunatics and abhor self determination. Even as I know full well how it was accomplished, my mind still cannot accept such stupidity from my friends, family, neighbors, and fellow countrymen. After all, these are the people who designed and built products making life so enjoyable and productive that back breaking labor is seldom ever needed. How could they possibly accept an ideology so destructive to freedom of thought, speech, and action, when so many millions of their ancestors died to acquire it? What made them believe they had the right and responsibility to support the theft of individualism through public education and media conglomerates? Or, the governments power to kill people for disagreeing? Can anyone really support a government that kills their constituents for supporting freedom of thought and speech? Can any thinking human being justify giving a cop authority to kill someone for disagreeing with them? Dear readers, if your mind has have been twisted so far that you support the government’s right to send tyrants to my home to kill me for disagreeing with their tyrannical laws; you should also warn them to bring plenty of body bags. I’ve had all of this lunacy I will take, and your support of a tyrannical government has made the only solution financially impossible for me.

So Abram said to Lot, “Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers.  “Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me; if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left.” Genesis 13:9

The biggest difference between us is, when they come for all of us, you will be on your knees begging, and I will be on my feet shooting back. An honorable death is nothing to fear.

Here is another honorable mans words

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

Sipsey Street Irregulars

The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Statement by Mike Vanderboegh at the opening of the Arms Expo, Yakima WA, 20 June 2015

I’d like to speak to you about the uniqueness of what we are doing here today and the efforts we are making to deal with this unprecedented event and how it affects the way we’re handling the competing interests of the participants and the press.  First of all, I’d like to thank y’all for coming and taking your courage in your own two hands and braving the uncertainties to be here.  In looking out at you I see the Founders descendants, only the Founders didn’t have to deal with the modern surveillance state.  There were no cameras at the Boston Tea Party, the Green Dragon Tavern where the Sons of Liberty met was not bugged by the secret political police of Ministry of Homeland Security, the Committees of Correspondence did not have their communications photographed by the Royal Mail, General Gage did not possess surveillance drones and Captain Parker was not plagued by agents provocateurs within his own ranks working for the King and determined to discredit the Patriot cause by goading them into firing first.  It is fortunate for us that King George did not possess these instruments of tyranny.  But the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama and his minions do possess them.  So when you come here today, you are, I believe, exhibiting every bit as much courage as the Founders, for you do face these threats and still you refuse to comply.  By your very presence here today, you are sending the message: WE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUMENTS OF OUR OWN SLAVERY.

But how does this new reality impact us?  You are here.  The press is, or will be, here.  But the fact of the matter is that there’s gonna be some good old fashioned Sons of Liberty tyranny-breakin’ goin’ on here today and the event organizers are doing their best to balance the competing interests of the participants and the press.  How?  Well, first of all we have a First Amendment area set up for the press.  We will be providing folks for them to interview throughout the day but they will not be allowed to roam freely in the event area.  They will, I am sure, try to interview folks going in and coming out of the venue.  Whether you talk them or not is strictly up to you.  But I would urge caution because remember, there’s going to be some tyranny-defyin’ goin’ on here and anything you say, your identity, even your presence, may later be of interest to an unscrupulous state prosecutor who wants to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The other thing is that there are groups out there — and the Southern Poverty Law Center comes first to mind — who specialize in masquerading as press, or who circulate through crowds at these events, asking provocative questions whose answers they can later use out of context to discredit people.  Pretending to be participants, they take surveillance photos that they will later provide to their symbiotic agents of social control in the FBI and the DHS.  This should come as no surprise.  It is what they do.  It is not for nothing that we in Alabama call them the Southern Preposterous Lie Center.  But you should expect that.  They are collectivists therefore they are liars.  It is who they are.  You might as well blame a rattlesnake for biting.  But the thing is, they are not as noble as the rattlesnake because they give you no warning before striking.  These folks are copperheads, people, pretending to be what they are not, so be advised.

As for the real press, this situation puts them at some risk as well.  Anything they do here today, interviews, picture taking, video, may later haul them before a grand jury.  This is a direct danger to their First Amendment rights to do their job without threat or interference.  So as much as they might chafe under the restrictions of the First Amendment zone, I hope they understand that we’re trying to look out for their own interests as well as yours.  After all, at the Bundy Ranch the press agreed to a First Amendment zone so it’s not the first time they’ve experienced this.  So it’s not as great a challenge as, say, asking Hillary Clinton a serious question about Benghazi, or anything.

So, that being said, we will proceed as best we can to have a great event today, to celebrate our rights and responsibilities as free American citizens, and to nullify with our defiance Mike Bloomberg’s hateful unconstitutional law, purchased at the cost of his millions.  American jurisprudence has long held that an unconstitutional law is null and void.  But by your presence here today, you will nullify I-594 more directly and immediately.  If it is later found to be “officially” unconstitutional, it will be redundant — FOR YOU HERE WILL HAVE NULLIFIED IT LONG BEFORE.  And may God bless you for having the courage to be here.

Somewhere, Sam Adams and all the Founding generation are smiling.

Posted by Dutchman6

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Only The People Can Save America!

06/20/2015

http://nationallibertyalliance.com/

The difference between Common Law and the Law practiced in our courts today, called Statutory Law, is simply as follows: Common Law upholds the Constitution for the United States of America with its capstone Bill of Rights above all Statutory Law; Whereas Statutory Law is held above the Constitution for the United States of America and its capstone Bill of Rights, and therefore your rights are whatever our elected servants may choose it to be for you at the time. This is what NLA is endeavoring to change in our courts and thereby bring all our elected and appointed servants back under the chains of the Constitution because right now you are under the chains of your servants, this is the definition of tyranny.

DISCLAIMER: – WE ARE NOT PART OF THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS MOVEMENT We do not endorse or entertain the fiction such as bills of exchange, redeeming and/or discharging through trust accounts; nor do we involve ourselves with contracts, commercial liens and the exchanging of an oath of office for a value. We do not encourage or teach people to write declarations, drive without driver’s licenses, revoke their voters application, revoke their birth certificate or their social security numbers. The power of the Grand Jury is to write true bills of indictment, true bills of presentments and true bills of information.

THE LINE IN THE SAND

“When the People fear their government there is tyranny, when government fears the people there is liberty” – Thomas Jefferson

Now is the time to take back the rule from our oppressors! Due to extraordinary circumstances, on November 10, 2014 We the People from all fifty states unified as United States Common Law Grand jury for the purpose of saving America by returning Justice, and thereby the rule of Law, to our courts which will permeate all three branches of government.

Through the power vested in We the People by God, a Writ Quo Warranto was filed in all 94 Federal District Courts and served upon every elected state and federal servants and officers of the court, reminding them of their limited power; “In the United States, sovereignty resides in people… that Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared,” Perry v. US, 294 U.S330; and “The very meaning of sovereignty is that the decree of the sovereign makes law,” not the servant, American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.

Because of arrogance, greed and ignorance our Writ was met by “silence which can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading….,” U.S. v. Tweel. “Bad faith and fraud are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc.,” Joiner v. Joiner.

Therefore, on May 13, 2015 We the People re-filed Writ_Quo_Warranto pdf to be followed by a series of Writ Mandamuses, exposing in-depth violations; and commanding said servants to obey and perform specific actions, remember their sworn guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and to protect each of them against invasion, Article IV Section 4; failure to comply with their oaths makes them enemies of the People.

On May 20, 2015 We the People, the sureties of the Peace, filed Writ Mandamus_to_Sheriff pdf in order to prepare, inform, educate, and expose those conspiring to overthrow the United States Constitution; empower the county sheriff, the conservator of the peace to take action by performing their Constitutional duties and thereby join the American Peoples’ endeavor to save our nation, simply by obeying, enforcing and following the “law of the land.”

On May 23, 2015 We the People, the sureties of the Peace, filed Writ Mandamus_to Judges pdf to expose their tyranny and offer the final olive branch.

On May 27, 2015 We the People filed Writ of Mandamus Martial Law pdf concerning our servants, conscious or unconscious participation in the methodical destruction of the ordained government of the United States, using martial law, the final act of an overthrown government to control the People in order to transfer power to tyrants and kill their enemies; and We the People intend to prevent.

On May 30, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus Amendment II pdf revealing the true reason concerning governments that move toward gun control. In every case governments end up killing the people who dissent. Disarmed people are neither free nor safe; rather they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings; and We the People intend to prevent.

On June 2, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus concerning terrorism pdf exposing the fascist tactics being used by tyrants that have infiltrated our government at all levels in an effort to enslave the sovereign People of America; classifying sovereign citizens, a/k/a We the People, as terrorists or as having mental disorders for challenging authority and demanding their unalienable rights.

On June 6, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus concerning subversion revealing Jade Helm, a Trojan-horse to take America, and exposing foreign and domestic tyrants, posing as Americans, who have infiltrated our government at all levels in a concerted effort to overthrow the fifty governments of the united States. These tyrants have seized their seat of power (our Federal City a/k/a Washington DC) and thereby have covertly erected a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, political operations; through courts of fiction, contrary to the authority by which they claim (Article I Section 8 Clauses 17 and 18), prevent the execution of the Law of the Land resulting in the enslaving of the sovereign People of America;

Now is the time to pay attention, take a stand and prevent these tyrants from building their dark cities. Become empowered read the Writs because we must “educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” Thomas Jefferson; and then join NLA as we take this battle to the courts and our federal city.

Mutual Common Law Action Against CPS/APS

I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” Thomas Jefferson

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens.” Thomas Jefferson

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson –

Power of the Grand Jury – In a stunning 6 to 3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, see United States -v- Williams.

Watch The Video Below  

If we build a Grand Jury, the people will come.

The Line in the Sand – Breaking News November 10, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury in every State files writ_quo_warranto.pdf in every Federal District Court, United States Supreme Court and served upon every Federal Judge and all 9 US Supreme Court Justices. Information in the nature of a quo warranto. A proceeding against the usurper of a franchise or office. Jarman v. Mason, 102 Okl. 278, 229 P. 459, 460.; An extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct. 721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331. watch the Video below.

Breaking News – December 8th 2014 – Fifty Common Law Grand Juries filed Presentments indicting Code Enforcement Officer Pantaleo for the murder of Eric Garner in the United States District Court for the Southern District of NY: Read the Presentment HERE > Officer_Pantaleo_NY._Presentment.pdffor the murder of Eric Garner

If the government can select the jurors, it will, of course, select those whom it supposes will be favorable to its enactments. And an exclusion of any of the freemen from eligibility is a selection of those not excluded. It will be seen, from the statutes cited, that the most absolute authority over the jury box that is, over the right of the people to sit in juries has been usurped by the government“; Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, page 92; 1852AD:

There are 3141 counties in the United States of America. Our goal is to educate and organize in your county to reinstate and initiate the Common Law Grand Jury. Each county should eventually find four people (administrators) who will work full time (paid positions) to administrate and orient the jurist. These four people should partnership with the four in each county throughout your state.

In reality there is only one Grand Jury within a state with locations in each county. We can draw off the jury pool from any county if necessary. When the administrators of each county come together on an issue they can use the seal of each county on an arbitration or presentment document which can produce extraordinary results.

But in order to be successful we must first seek the blessings from the GOVERNOR OF THE UNIVERSEand build our endeavor upon Him and His principles (1) HONOR, (2) JUSTICE, and (3) MERCY. This is the only sure foundation, any other will succumb to tyrants.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.” – Benjamin Franklin

When we reinstate the Common Law Grand Jury in all the counties of a state then the people will have control of their state government. We presently have 48 States that have joined this project. To find out how watch the powerful video above. To become an organizer for your county click on “Yes” when you register to join.

DUTY OF THE “COMMON LAW” GRAND JURY – If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, we [the twenty-five] shall straightway restore them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five Grand Jurors, the sureties of the peace. MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15, A.D. 1215, 52.

It is the duty of all the People to share in the governing of themselves and to secure their government by participating as a Jurist:

THINK ABOUT THIS! If we the people can reinstate Justice and demand that elected officials and bureaucrats obey the law or be indicted, we would have then succeeded in reinstating the Constitution, and save our Republic!

Only the People can stand up and defend the Constitution because the Constitution cannot defend itself, and bureaucrats will never do it WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE AND FIND OUT HOW!

Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” – Daniel Webster

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt, Nov. 18, 1783

I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it.” – Thomas Jefferson

Blacks Law states; the word Justice is synonymous with virtue. Therefore only a virtuous People can return justice to our courts and save America. Since virtue, as is Liberty, is a gift of God it will require the blessings of God to be independent and virtuous. Blessings requires obedience, obedience requires knowledge of His will and knowledge of His will requires a relationship, without which there is no Liberty. Therefore to know God is to know Liberty and to the contrary no God no Liberty.

The Forefathers Monument: A Matrix of Liberty

Faith   –   Morality   –   Law   –   Education   –   Liberty

MUST READ:

Approximately ten days before Christmas, U.S. Marshals broke in the door of Carter’s rental property with their guns drawn. The tenant was a young mother with a new baby—home alone while her husband was at work. Sheriff London was called to the property to intervene. He advised the Marshals that Carter’s case was in appeal and he deserved due process. They threatened to arrest London, but he stood his ground and they backed off.

Kent Carter’s property was in the sights of the corrupt Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury has slated a sale of the properties in question for the 19th of February. When Sheriff London found out about it, he issued the following certified letter on February

6-20-2015 1-43-40 PM

Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding. For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law. For I was my father’s son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live. Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.” Prov 4:1-7

WHAT TO DO NEXT – JOIN OUR ENDEAVOR by clicking the Register link at the top right side of this page. After you log in click on the “Jurist Tab” that will appear on the navigation bar above and you will see Step by Step by step instructions on what to do next.

STAY INFORMED CLICK HERE

Please support our endeavor, help keep NLA on the web,
Donate $5.00 or more a month, and become a Premier Member, Thank you.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 

 


Obama Calls For Gun Control In Wake Of Charleston Church Shooting

06/19/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/obama-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of.html

6-19-2015 7-13-02 AM

By Brandon Turbeville 

As anyone with two brain cells moving in the same direction would have been able to predict, President Barack Obama and his mouthpiece media outlets have already begun calling for more gun control in the wake of the Charleston, SC church shooting.

Before the corpses of the victims were fully cold, the local Charleston oligarchs, mainstream media, and now the President immediately took to blaming the atrocity on the availability of guns.

Even before the international disgrace known as Barack Obama was able to practice the speech provided for him by well-paid writers, corrupt Charleston Mayor Joe Riley launched into a tirade against gun ownership.

As The Washington Post quotes Riley, he said,

“I personally believe there are far too many guns out there, and access to guns, it’s far too easy. Our society has not been able to deal with that yet.”

In the coming days, Riley said he would “continue to push on” and called the killings this week “another example of why” more gun-control measures should be enacted.
Riley went on to criticize the “easy ability for people to gain possession of them no doubt contributes to violent acts.”
Today, Obama followed suit with his typical and well-worn oratory by stating,

“We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hand on a gun.”

“It is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it’d be wrong for us not to acknowledge it, and at some point, it’s going to important for the American to come to grips with it and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.”

“I’ve had to make statements like this too many times. Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times.”

“Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.”

In fact, the rhetoric of Riley and Obama as well as other politicians and media mouthpieces sounded so familiar that it almost sounds like a script….

At the very least, it certainly is a propaganda campaign picked up once again at a tasteless but opportune time for gun-grabbers.

This article will far too short to address the overwhelming stupidity and falsehoods peddled by a President known for both. However, crocodile tears from a man who routinely orders the murder of children overseas – whether by drone or by terrorist – under the guise of protecting freedom, democracy, or innocent civilians from the very same terrorists his administration is supporting, is wholly unconvincing.

Typically, Obama describes the Sandy Hook shooting as one of the worst days of his Presidency, while simultaneous engaging in jokes about the drones he uses to kill children in Yemen, Pakistan, and other countries or bragging about the illegal and immoral murder of Muammar Ghaddaffi alongside cackling witch Hillary Clinton.

As for his claims that mass shootings do not happen in other countries, of course, he can easily be proven wrong. They do. And when they do, they are generally much more dramatic due to the disarmed nature of the public.

As for the increased frequency of mass shootings, it should also be mentioned that a high number of the mass shootings that Obama and the anti-gun campaign have piggybacked and taken advantage of in the last few years are questionable to say the least when it comes to their origins. One need only examine the facts surrounding the Sandy Hook shootings to see that the official story was untrue. (See here and here). In fact, the involvement of intelligence agencies is highly implicated in the Sandy Hook event as well as in a number of other shootings such as the Batman shooting. So, when trying to understand the reason behind the uptick in mass shootings, perhaps we should look at the Obama administration, US intelligence agencies, and other members of the US “deep state” before we look at Joe Bob in Texas.

Of course, whether or not the Charleston Church shooting is a staged provocation is yet to be determined. There are certain “coincidences” such as the fact that the race-based shooting occurred in a city where attempts to promote racial tension failed only months ago and that one of the victims was not only a prominent figure in South Carolina politics but also someone whom Obama actually claims he “knew.” However, there is not yet enough credible evidence to determine the true nature of the shootings. To declare the shooting a false flag, while certainly fitting with the track record of events, particularly in recent years, would be both premature and speculation at this point.

 

Given the history of the US government in these instances, one cannot rule such a possibility out. However, the possibility that this shooting was indeed a rogue psycho, probably encouraged by the relentless race-baiting and hate promotion of the media is also plausible. At this point, we will have to reserve judgement on the nature of the incident until further information is provided.

However, what is abundantly clear is that the US oligarchy is not letting a good crisis go to waste. No chance to disarm the American people will ever be missed.

In the meantime, it is important for those in Charleston to express compassion and provide comfort and assistance to their neighbors. But it is also the time to firmly resist any attempts at gun control and disarmament.

Recently from Brandon Turbeville:

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

In spite of what others are saying, this old dog would bet his last nickel that this was another planned event. I have followed these shootings from the beginning and I firmly believe they are betting on American’s being complacent enough to finally give in and be totally subjected to absolute tyranny by Local State, and federal law enforcement. Anyone with more than an inch between their ears should know they are financed by more money than one could live long enough to count, so remember this when you get too complacent to resist. Life is not worth living under their kind of control. Eventually you will have to get a permit to take a dump! If you don’t have the brains and balls to be free, get used to saying yesum massa!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Greek Debt Committee Just Declared All Debt To The Troika “Illegal, Illegitimate, And Odious”

06/18/2015

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-17/greek-debt-committee-just-declared-all-debt-illegal-illegitimate-and-odious

by Tyler Durden

It was in April when we got a stark reminder of a post we first penned in April of 2011, describing Odious Debt, and why we thought sooner or later this legal term would become applicable for Greece, because two months ago Greek Zoi Konstantopoulou, speaker of the Greek parliament and a SYRIZA member, said she had established a new “Truth Committee on Public Debt” whose purposes was to “investigate how much of the debt is “illegal” with a view to writing it off.”

Moments ago, this committee released its preliminary findings, and here is the conclusion from the full report presented below:

All the evidence we present in this report shows that Greece not only does not have the ability to pay this debt, but also should not pay this debt first and foremost because the debt emerging from the Troika’s arrangements is a direct infringement on the fundamental human rights of the residents of Greece. Hence, we came to the conclusion that Greece should not pay this debt because it is illegal, illegitimate, and odious.

As we predicted over four years ago, Greece has effectively just declared that it will no longer have to default on its IMF (or any other debt – note that the dreaded “Troika” word finally makes an appearance after it was officially banned) simply because that debt was not legal to begin with, i.e. it was “odious.”

If so, this has just thrown a very unique wrench in the spokes of not only the Greek debt negotiations, but all other peripheral European nations’ Greek negotiations, who will promptly demand that their debt be, likewise, declared odious, and made null and void, thus washing their hands of servicing it again.

And another question: when Greece says the debt was illegal and it no longer has to make the June 30 payment, what will be the Troika’s response: confiscate Greek assets a la Argentina, declare involuntary default, sue it in the Hague?

Good luck.

From the full just released report by the Hellenic Parliament commission:

Hellenic Parliament’s Debt Truth Committee Preliminary Findings – Executive Summary of the report

In June 2015 Greece stands at a crossroad of choosing between furthering the failed macroeconomic adjustment programs imposed by the creditors or making a real change to break the chains of debt. Five years since the economic adjustment programs began, the country remains deeply cemented in an economic, social, democratic and ecological crisis. The black box of debt has remained closed, and until now no authority, Greek or international, has sought to bring to light the truth about how and why Greece was subjected to the Troika regime. The debt, in whose name nothing has been spared, remains the rule through which neoliberal adjustment is imposed, and the deepest and longest recession experienced in Europe during peacetime.

There is an immediate need and social responsibility to address a range of legal, social and economic issues that demand proper consideration. In response, the Hellenic Parliament established the Truth Committee on Public Debt in April 2015, mandating the investigation into the creation and growth of public debt, the way and reasons for which debt was contracted, and the impact that the conditionality’s attached to the loans have had on the economy and the population. The Truth Committee has a mandate to raise awareness of issues pertaining to the Greek debt, both domestically and internationally, and to formulate arguments and options concerning the cancellation of the debt.

The research of the Committee presented in this preliminary report sheds light on the fact that the entire adjustment program, to which Greece has been subjugated, was and remains a politically orientated program. The technical exercise surrounding macroeconomic variables and debt projections, figures directly relating to people’s lives and livelihoods, has enabled discussions around the debt to remain at a technical level mainly revolving around the argument that the policies imposed on Greece will improve its capacity to pay the debt back. The facts presented in this report challenge this argument.

All the evidence we present in this report shows that Greece not only does not have the ability to pay this debt, but also should not pay this debt first and foremost because the debt emerging from the Troika’s arrangements is a direct infringement on the fundamental human rights of the residents of Greece. Hence, we came to the conclusion that Greece should not pay this debt because it is illegal, illegitimate, and odious.

It has also come to the understanding of the Committee that the un-sustainability of the Greek public debt was evident from the outset to the international creditors, the Greek authorities, and the corporate media. Yet, the Greek authorities, together with some other governments in the EU, conspired against the restructuring of public debt in 2010 in order to protect financial institutions. The corporate media hid the truth from the public by depicting a situation in which the bailout was argued to benefit Greece, whilst spinning a narrative intended to portray the population as deservers of their own wrongdoings.

Bailout funds provided in both programs of 2010 and 2012 have been externally managed through complicated schemes, preventing any fiscal autonomy. The use of the bailout money is strictly dictated by the creditors, and so, it is revealing that less than 10% of these funds have been destined to the government’s current expenditure.

This preliminary report presents a primary mapping out of the key problems and issues associated with the public debt, and notes key legal violations associated with the contracting of the debt; it also traces out the legal foundations, on which unilateral suspension of the debt payments can be based. The findings are presented in nine chapters structured as follows:

Chapter 1, Debt before the Troika, analyses the growth of the Greek public debt since the 1980s. It concludes that the increase in debt was not due to excessive public spending, which in fact remained lower than the public spending of other Eurozone countries, but rather due to the payment of extremely high rates of interest to creditors, excessive and unjustified military spending, loss of tax revenues due to illicit capital outflows, state recapitalization of private banks, and the international imbalances created via the flaws in the design of the Monetary Union itself.

Adopting the euro led to a drastic increase of private debt in Greece to which major European private banks as well as the Greek banks were exposed. A growing banking crisis contributed to the Greek sovereign debt crisis. George Papandreou’s government helped to present the elements of a banking crisis as a sovereign debt crisis in 2009 by emphasizing and boosting the public deficit and debt.

Chapter 2, Evolution of Greek public debt during 2010-2015, concludes that the first loan agreement of 2010, aimed primarily to rescue the Greek and other European private banks, and to allow the banks to reduce their exposure to Greek government bonds.

Chapter 3, Greek public debt by creditor in 2015, presents the contentious nature of Greece’s current debt, delineating the loans’ key characteristics, which are further analyzed in Chapter 8.

Chapter 4, Debt System Mechanism in Greece reveals the mechanisms devised by the agreements that were implemented since May 2010. They created a substantial amount of new debt to bilateral creditors and the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), whilst generating abusive costs thus deepening the crisis further. The mechanisms disclose how the majority of borrowed funds were transferred directly to financial institutions. Rather than benefitting Greece, they have accelerated the privatization process, through the use of financial instruments.

Chapter 5, Conditionality’s against sustainability, presents how the creditors imposed intrusive conditionality’s attached to the loan agreements, which led directly to the economic un-viability and un-sustainability of debt. These conditionality’s, on which the creditors still insist, have not only contributed to lower GDP as well as higher public borrowing, hence a higher public debt/GDP making Greece’s debt more unsustainable, but also engineered dramatic changes in the society, and caused a humanitarian crisis. The Greek public debt can be considered as totally unsustainable at present.

Chapter 6, Impact of the “bailout programs” on human rights, concludes that the measures implemented under the “bailout programs” have directly affected living conditions of the people and violated human rights, which Greece and its partners are obliged to respect, protect and promote under domestic, regional and international law. The drastic adjustments, imposed on the Greek economy and society as a whole, have brought about a rapid deterioration of living standards, and remain incompatible with social justice, social cohesion, democracy and human rights.

Chapter 7, Legal issues surrounding the MOU and Loan Agreements, argues there has been a breach of human rights obligations on the part of Greece itself and the lenders, that is the Euro Area (Lender) Member States, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, who imposed these measures on Greece. All these actors failed to assess the human rights violations as an outcome of the policies they obliged Greece to pursue, and also directly violated the Greek constitution by effectively stripping Greece of most of its sovereign rights. The agreements contain abusive clauses, effectively coercing Greece to surrender significant aspects of its sovereignty. This is imprinted in the choice of the English law as governing law for those agreements, which facilitated the circumvention of the Greek Constitution and international human rights obligations. Conflicts with human rights and customary obligations, several indications of contracting parties acting in bad faith, which together with the unconscionable character of the agreements, render these agreements invalid.

Chapter 8, Assessment of the Debts as regards illegitimacy, odiousness, illegality, and un-sustainability, provides an assessment of the Greek public debt according to the definitions regarding illegitimate, odious, illegal, and unsustainable debt adopted by the Committee.

Chapter 8 concludes that the Greek public debt as of June 2015 is unsustainable, since Greece is currently unable to service its debt without seriously impairing its capacity to fulfill its basic human rights obligations. Furthermore, for each creditor, the report provides evidence of indicative cases of illegal, illegitimate and odious debts.

Debt to the IMF should be considered illegal since its concession breached the IMF’s own statutes, and its conditions breached the Greek Constitution, international customary law, and treaties to which Greece is a party. It is also illegitimate, since conditions included policy prescriptions that infringed human rights obligations. Finally, it is odious since the IMF knew that the imposed measures were undemocratic, ineffective, and would lead to serious violations of socio-economic rights.

Debts to the ECB should be considered illegal since the ECB over-stepped its mandate by imposing the application of macroeconomic adjustment programs (e.g. labor market deregulation) via its participation in the Troïka. Debts to the ECB are also illegitimate and odious, since the principal raison d’etre of the Securities Market Program (SMP) was to serve the interests of the financial institutions, allowing the major European and Greek private banks to dispose of their Greek bonds.

The EFSF engages in cash-less loans which should be considered illegal because Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) was violated, and further they breach several socio-economic rights and civil liberties. Moreover, the EFSF Framework Agreement 2010 and the Master Financial Assistance Agreement of 2012 contain several abusive clauses revealing clear misconduct on the part of the lender. The EFSF also acts against democratic principles, rendering these particular debts illegitimate and odious.

The bilateral loans should be considered illegal since they violate the procedure provided by the Greek constitution. The loans involved clear misconduct by the lenders, and had conditions that contravened law or public policy. Both EU law and international law were breached in order to sideline human rights in the design of the macroeconomic programs. The bilateral loans are furthermore illegitimate, since they were not used for the benefit of the population, but merely enabled the private creditors of Greece to be bailed out. Finally, the bilateral loans are odious since the lender states and the European Commission knew of potential violations, but in 2010 and 2012 avoided to assess the human rights impacts of the macroeconomic adjustment and fiscal consolidation that were the conditions for the loans.

The debt to private creditors should be considered illegal because private banks conducted themselves irresponsibly before the Troika came into being, failing to observe due diligence, while some private creditors such as hedge funds also acted in bad faith. Parts of the debts to private banks and hedge funds are illegitimate for the same reasons that they are illegal; furthermore, Greek banks were illegitimately recapitalized by tax-payers. Debts to private banks and hedge funds are odious, since major private creditors were aware that these debts were not incurred in the best interests of the population but rather for their own benefit.

The report comes to a close with some practical considerations. Chapter 9, Legal foundations for repudiation and suspension of the Greek sovereign debt, presents the options concerning the cancellation of debt, and especially the conditions under which a sovereign state can exercise the right to unilateral act of repudiation or suspension of the payment of debt under international law.

Several legal arguments permit a State to unilaterally repudiate its illegal, odious, and illegitimate debt. In the Greek case, such a unilateral act may be based on the following arguments: the bad faith of the creditors that pushed Greece to violate national law and international obligations related to human rights; preeminence of human rights over agreements such as those signed by previous governments with creditors or the Troika; coercion; unfair terms flagrantly violating Greek sovereignty and violating the Constitution; and finally, the right recognized in international law for a State to take countermeasures against illegal acts by its creditors , which purposefully damage its fiscal sovereignty, oblige it to assume odious, illegal and illegitimate debt, violate economic self-determination and fundamental human rights. As far as unsustainable debt is concerned, every state is legally entitled to invoke necessity in exceptional situations in order to safeguard those essential interests threatened by a grave and imminent peril. In such a situation, the State may be dispensed from the fulfillment of those international obligations that augment the peril, as is the case with outstanding loan contracts. Finally, states have the right to declare themselves unilaterally insolvent where the servicing of their debt is unsustainable, in which case they commit no wrongful act and hence bear no liability.

People’s dignity is worth more than illegal, illegitimate, odious and unsustainable debt

Having concluded a preliminary investigation, the Committee considers that Greece has been and still is the victim of an attack premeditated and organized by the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission. This violent, illegal, and immoral mission aimed exclusively at shifting private debt onto the public sector.
Making this preliminary report available to the Greek authorities and the Greek people, the Committee considers to have fulfilled the first part of its mission as defined in the decision of the President of Parliament of 4 April 2015. The Committee hopes that the report will be a useful tool for those who want to exit the destructive logic of austerity and stand up for what is endangered today: human rights, democracy, peoples’ dignity, and the future of generations to come.

In response to those who impose unjust measures, the Greek people might invoke what Thucydides mentioned about the constitution of the Athenian people: “As for the name, it is called a democracy, for the administration is run with a view to the interests of the many, not of the few” (Pericles’ Funeral Oration, in the speech from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War).

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

In consideration of the millions of human being that the International Banking Cartel has murdered, I find the Greeks shameless for not sending them to their graves. Preferably; depositing their ashes in a sewer.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


The Two Contending Visions of World Government: The Origin and Broader Context of Obama’s “Trade” Deals

06/17/2015

The Two Contending Visions of World Government: The Origin and Broader Context of Obama’s “Trade” Deals

6-17-2015 10-10-42 AM

By Eric Zuesse

Global Research,

U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposed ‘Trade’ deals are actually about whether the world is heading toward a dictatorial world government — a dictatorship by the hundred or so global super-rich who hold the controlling blocks of stock in the world’s largest international corporations — or else toward a democratic world government, which will be a global federation of free and independent states, much like the United States was at its founding, but global in extent. These are two opposite visions of world government; and Obama is clearly on the side of fascism, an international mega-corporate dictatorship, as will be documented here in the links, and explained in the discussion.

Also as a preliminary to the discussion here is the understanding that if Obama wins Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, then all of his ‘trade’ deals will be approved by Congress and then be able to be considered seriously by other governments, and that if he fails to receive this Authority, then none of them will.

“Fast Track,” as will be explained in depth here, is, indeed, the “open Sesame” for Obama, on the entire matter. Without it, his deals don’t stand even a chance of passage.

I previously wrote about why it’s the case that “‘Fast Track’ Violates the U.S. Constitution.” The details of the case are presented there; but, to summarize it here: “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority,” which was introduced by the imperial President Richard M. Nixon in the Trade Act of 1974, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause — the clause that says “The President … shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” (In other words: otherwise, the President simply doesn’t have that power, the President cannot “make treaties.” Nixon wanted to make treaties without his needing to have two-thirds of the Senate vote “Yea” on them.) Fast Track abolishes that two-thirds requirement and replaces it by a requirement such as that for normal laws, of only a majority of the Senate approving, 50%(+1, which would be Vice President Joe Biden, so all that will actually be needed would be just that 50%). Obama’s ‘trade’ deals don’t stand a chance of receiving the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

What follows here will continue from that case, by providing the history of the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause, and of the successful modern movement, during the Twentieth Century, for its legislative overthrow, something (the legislated overthrow of a provision that’s in the Constitution) that in-itself is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution — an Amendment, or else a Constitutional convention, is instead required, in order to overthrow any provision of the U.S. Constitution) — but which the Trade Act of 1974 said can be done by means of a mere “Legislative-Executive Agreement,” to carve out an exception to the Constitution’s Treaty Clause (“The President … shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”), whenever the President and 50%+1 members of the Senate decide to do so.

Now, of course, each and every formalized international agreement, including agreements about “trade,” is a treaty and therefore it falls under this two-thirds rule. Furthermore, until 1974, every nation in the world, including the United States, accepted and did not challenge the view that every international agreement is a treaty, and that every treaty is an international agreement. In fact, even right up to the present day, every dictionary continues to define “treaty” as “an international agreement.” An international agreement is a treaty, and a treaty is an international agreement. Throughout the world, except in the United States starting long after the Constitution was written (i.e., starting in 1974), “treaty” = “international agreement.” It was always quite simple, until recently. However, after the Trade Act of 1974, starting in 1979, five such treaties have been set by the President and the Senate’s Majority Leader on “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority” under the Trade Act of 1974, which provision of that law requires only 50%+1 Senators to vote “Yea” in order for the proposed treaty to be able to become U.S. law. The question is whether that’s Constitutional. (We’ll show: it’s not.)

America’s Founders

America’s Founders instituted this Constitutional treaty-requirement, for any treaty to win two-thirds of the Senators instead of the mere majority (50%+1) that’s required for passing normal laws (such as the Trade Act of 1974 itself is), because the Founders recognized that an international agreement cannot be undone by simply passing a new law that reverses it. An international agreement — that is to say a treaty — cannot be undone unless all nations that are parties to it are willing to change it in a way which will allow one of the signatories to depart from that group. Each signatory had signed it partly because the others did. There are at least two sides to any “agreement,” including to any international agreement or “treaty.” The member-nations are thus an intrinsic part of the agreement (or “treaty”) itself (unlike the case with any normal, merely national, law), and so the agreement itself is changed whenever one of them departs from it. This fact distinguishes any treaty from any regular law — which can be cancelled at will by the single nation that passes it, because that nation is the only party to it.

America’s Founders were wise, and were extraordinarily learned about history; and the U.S. Constitution (the first-ever constitution for a democracy) embodies this wisdom and learning; the Treaty Clause’s two-thirds requirement exemplifies that. It is a crucial part of their determination to prevent any President from having too much power — from becoming a dictator (something that becomes even worse if the dictator has rammed through not only mere laws, but also treaties, since those are far harder to undo). For example: it was intended to block any President from making a treaty with a foreign nation if that treaty would be so bad that he couldn’t get two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to support it. (That’s tough, but a treaty is far more difficult than any other law is to cancel; so, passing it is passing a law that’s virtually permanent and virtually impossible to modify.) And their wisdom is why our constitution remains the world’s longest-lasting one.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote on 9 January 1796, defending the new Constitution, and especially its Treaty Clause: “I aver, that it was understood by all to be the intent of the provision [the Treaty Clause] to give to that power the most ample latitude to render it competent to all the stipulations, which the exigencies of National Affairs might require—competent to the making of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and every other species of Convention usual among nations and competent in the course of its exercise to control & bind the legislative power of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two thirds of the Senate with the President being required to make a Treaty. I appeal for this with confidence.”

He went further: “It will not be disputed that the words ‘Treaties and alliances’ are of equivalent import and of no greater force than the single word Treaties. An alliance is only a species of Treaty, a particular of a general. And the power of ‘entering into Treaties,’ which terms confer the authority under which the former Government acted, will not be pretended to be stronger than the power ‘to make Treaties,’ which are the terms constituting the authority under which the present Government acts.” So: there can be no doubt that the term “treaty” refers to any and all types of international agreements. This was the Founders’ clear and unequivocal intent. No court under this Constitution possesses any power to change that, because they can’t change history.

Furthermore, George Washington’s famous Farewell Address asserted that, ”It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”; and the third President Thomas Jefferson said in his equally famous Inaugural Address, that there should be “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson’s comment there was also a succinct tip-of-the-hat to yet another major concern that the Founders had regarding treaties — that by discriminating in favor of the treaty-partners, they also discriminate against  non-partner nations, and so endanger “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,” which was the Founders’ chief goal in their foreign policies. But, the Founders’ chief concern was the mere recognition that treaties tend to be far more “permanent” and “entangling” than any purely national laws. This was the main reason why treaties need to be made much more difficult to become laws. Though this thinking was pervasive amongst the creators of America’s democracy (or people’s republic), America’s aristocracy subsequently targeted this dilution of the President’s treaty-making power as being an impediment toward their re-establishing the aristocracy that the American Revolution itself had overthrown and replaced by this people’s republic. And, the big chance for the aristocracy to restore its position via an imperial President, and so to extend their empire beyond our shores, came almost two hundred years later.

America’s Post WW II Counter-Revolution

In order to understand why President Richard Nixon was able in 1974 to obtain the support of both of the then-solidly Democratic two houses of Congress to pass into law the un-Constitutional Fast-Track-initiating “Trade Act of 1974”, notwithstanding the then-ongoing investigations by Democrats regarding Nixon’s Watergate scandal, one must go back actually to the first meeting of the extremely secretive elite fascistic international Bilderberg group, in1954Here from wikileaks is a 1955 status report from Bilderbergs, on their early-stage results; and the man who wrote that report and hypocritically praised in it “the quintessence of democratic life” was actually a ‘former’ Nazi, Prince Bernhard, who went all the way to his grave in 2004 as a champion of global rule by the American and European aristocracies. (The group was subsequently expanded by Bilderbergers David Rockefeller and the Polish nobleman Zbigniew Brzezinski to include Japan in their Trilateral Commission.) Within just three years, the 1957 membership of the Bilderberg organization became far more American, far less European, but David Rockefeller and his Wall Street friend George W. Ball were two of the leading Bilderberg members from the very start.

The Bilderberg group turned away from the former Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s international goal for the post-WW II world (conceived in conjunction with Rexford Guy Tugwell, FDR’s chief policy-advisor), which international goal, building upon an already-existing grassroots movement, and entirely alien to the artificial concept of top-down aristocratic global control that the Bilderbergs promote, had been instead the gradual natural evolution, bottom-up, toward a democratic world government: a global confederation of free and independent states, not corporate at all but instead a United States of the World, in which the types of imperial international aggressions that the fascist powers had perpetrated and which had produced WW II would be outright banned, and this aggression-ban would be backed up by an international military force which would have the participation of each one of the world’s states. In other words: FDR’s co-conception, and his enduring goal, was of a democratic federal world government, not of a fascist or any other dictatorial and non-federal world government. It envisioned an international democracy, consisting of the world’s nations as its federal units, even if some of those nations might still be dictatorships, in which case the democracy at the federal level (and the pressure from the democratic nations of the world) would then encourage any dictatorial nations to change or evolve in the direction of democracy. This was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s hope. It was a reasonable one. And it was rooted not only in an existing grassroots American movement but in a conception of how future history could evolve toward peace as naturally as possible, and with a minimum of command-and-control from the top — no aristocracy in control. This was a vision that was fully in keeping with the goals of America’s Founders. But it sought to extend  that vision to the international sphere, in the modern age. The concept of a United States of the World was based on that. And the U.N. was to be the first step towards it.

Rex Tugwell was very active while teaching at the University of Chicago right after WW II, promoting democratic world government as being key to the establishment of peace on a more secure institutional basis. Thus, in 1946, Albert Einstein wrote an essay, “Toward a World Government,” which was published in his Out of My Later Years, (pp. 131-33), and it opened: “A conversation I had with three students of the University of Chicago has made a strong impression on me.” He then expressed his conviction that “A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it is ready to cede its military force to the international authorities and to renounce every attempt or even the means, of achieving its interests abroad by the use of force.” Einstein was specific: “This [world] government must be based on a clearcut constitution which is approved by the governments and the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons.” In other words: it must represent ultimately the people who elect the leaders of the various nations of the world, not international corporations, which answer instead to the families that hold the controlling blocks of stock in them. Einstein was anti-fascist, never pro-fascist. He was 100% in the FDR mold. He was 100% a democrat, small-“d”. That’s what this statement of his reflected; and as he understood, there must ultimately be both a global democracy, and also a global monopoly by that democracy on the control of all nuclear weapons. Otherwise, there will emerge a global dictatorship, and perhaps a nuclear war, which would destroy all civilization. He understood.

This immediate post-WW-II vision of an ultimate world government in the FDR democratic mold lasted unchallenged until Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who chose Nixon as Vice President) came into office in 1953, and (now that FDR and his power-heir Truman were gone) America’s large international corporations, and their tax-exempt foundations including think-tanks, started pressing for a world government in the Bilderberg mold, one that would be comprised instead mainly of international corporations which would help shape and would become subject to the same rules and laws and regulations in each and every ‘democratic’ country — that is, in each and every non-communist country. International corporations during the Cold War championed the goal of a bi-polar, capitalist-versus-communist, world, in which the international corporations would, themselves, ultimately become the world government on ‘our’ side (the ‘free world’s’ side), dictating not only international environmental rules, and international product-safety rules, and international labor-rules, and international rules on banking and finance, but also international rules on immigration and on the rights of refugees.

But, then, the Soviet Union and its communism ended, and yet the fascist Bilderberg group’s thrust for globalized international-corporate control continued on, even after the Cold War’s end, as also did what became their military extension, NATO — the international corporations’ global enforcement-arm. NATO continued on, even after the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact disappeared in 1991. NATO became, then, instead of an anti-communist alliance, an anti-Russian alliance, an alliance to conquer Russia. The imperial focus continued; but it had underlain the ideological gloss even during the early Cold War years. The 1955 summary by Prince Bernhard of the 1954 Bilderberg meeting mentioned that Article 2 of the 1949 founding document of NATO, the Atlantic Treaty, had been discussed there. That portion of NATO’s treaty said: “The Parties will … seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.” This was an early harbinger of the aristocracy’s thrust for what finally became U.S. policy, the Trade Act of 1974 and its results in such international treaties as NAFTA and, now, as Obama hopes, his TPP, TTIP, and TISA, treaties. Bernhard’s summary also devoted an entire section to “European Unity,” including passages such as:

A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority. A participant, speaking as a German industrialist, said that, having fought for integration before, German industry was still determined to pursue the same purpose, but he expressed considerable doubt as to the functional approach to integration by moving from one economic sector to another. In his view, the common problems of differences in labor standards and currencies and the various elements entering into the common market must be brought nearer to parity as a condition of further progress.

A major thrust of the early Bilderberg meetings was to establish uniform economic, environmental, and labor, regulations, and a common currency, throughout Europe: this goal of transferring to an ultimate European Union a substantial portion of each European nation’s sovereignty, started being realized in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, but some features of the Bilderberg plan were enacted only much later, such as the common currency, the euro, which began in 1999.

Another section of the 1955 Bilderberg summary was titled “Economic Problems,” and it opened: “A United States reporter, defining convertibility as a state of affairs in which there is a minimum of restriction on international trade, believed that a good deal of progress had been made in that direction since the war. … The increase in trade and prosperity both in Europe and the United States, however, was due in no small part to the steps which had been taken to reduce restrictions on trade.” So: both the U.S. aristocracy, and the various European aristocracies, aimed to transfer at least some of their individual nations’ sovereignty to supra-national treaties; but there was no discussion of how this was to be achieved — whether via democratic processes, or by dictatorial ones, or some mixture of the two.

Among the leading members of the Bilderberg group since its inception were David Rockefeller and George Ball. The latter was the first person on the Democratic side of American politics who championed as an ideal an anti-democratic, pro-aristocratic world government. Matt Stoller, on 20 February 2014, bannered, “NAFTA Origins, Part Two: The Architects of Free Trade Really Did Want a World Government of Corporations,” and he reported, from his study of the Congressional Record, that:

After the Kennedy round [international-trade talks] ended [in 1967], liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down. Ball was an architect of 1960s U.S. trade policy — he helped write the Trade Act of 1962, which set the stage for what eventually became the World Trade Organization.

But Ball’s idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade; it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. …

In the opening statement [by Ball to Congress in 1967], before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind.

As for David Rockefeller, he wrote in the 1 February 1999 Newsweek an essay “Looking for New Leadership,” in which he stated (p. 41) the widely quoted (though the rest of the article is ignored): “In recent years, there’s been a trend toward democracy and market economies. That has lessened the role of government, which is something business people tend to be in favor of. But the other side of the coin is that somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.” (Of course, by “business” there, he’s referring only to international corporations, but he doesn’t say that; he’s tactful enough not to make it explicit.) This has been his clearest statement endorsing the emergence of a future world government by international corporations, which will possess a sovereignty higher than that of any national government, which he says that he endorses because a lessening of the role of democratic government “is something business people tend to be in favor of.” (Of course, those “business people” are only the hundred or so who actually control the major international corporations; they’re not mom-and-pop-type “business people”; but he’s tactful enough not to make that explicit, either. The whole endeavor is a con.)

This was the basis upon which Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority was actually accepted by congressional Democrats in 1974. George Ball was the key person, but he was chosen for this role because he could be paraded as being a ‘Democrat,’ so that support for the position would be ‘bi-partisan,’ not merely “Republican.” (Similarly, the Wall Street ‘Democrat’ Bill Clinton in 1999 derailed and subverted FDR’s Glass-Steagall and other financial regulations.)

After the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO became the military arm of a hoped-for future no-longer bipolar world — instead a monolithically uni-polar global empire, which set out to conquer the former communist nations (first by corrupting their transitions into capitalism, but then increasingly by military means including NATO itself.) The ideological gloss was now gone, but the purpose of global domination by the international aristocracy didn’t go away. NATO became, far more clearly, simply the military arm of the global aristocracy, whose brain is located in Washington as to politics, and in Wall Street as to finance. America’s aristocracy would thus rule Europe’s and Japan’s. The great investigative historian F. William Engdahl recently presented a superb summary of how “In the early 1990s, Dick Cheney’s company, Halliburton, had surveyed the offshore oil potentials of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the entire Caspian Sea Basin.

They estimated the region to be ‘another Saudi Arabia’ worth several trillion dollars on today’s market. The US and UK were determined to keep that oil bonanza from Russian control by all means. The first target of Washington was to stage a coup in Azerbaijan against elected president Abulfaz Elchibey to install a President more friendly to a US-controlled Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline.” And that was all part of this operation: “Not long after the CIA and Saudi Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the end of the 1980’s, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union where their trained ‘Afghan Arabs’ [headed by Osama bin Laden] could be redeployed to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space.” In other words: after the Cold War against ‘communism’ had already ended by the collapse of the communist economies, the Bilderbergers and their agents continued the war as being merely a war of conquest and exploitation of the formerly communist nations and especially of resource-rich Russia — an anti-Russia war that has recently been intensified by ‘Democratic’ President Barack Obama.

The U.S. aristocracy, and, to a lesser extent, the European and Japanese aristocracies, within the Trilateral Commission which had been set up by the Bilderbergers (especially under Bilderberger David Rockefeller), all continue their international-corporate aim for unitary corporate global power, and for the crushing of democracy within all of the member-nations. President Obama’s proposed international treaties, the TPP, TTIP, and TISA, would replace national democratic laws and regulations regarding the environment, consumer protection, workers’ rights, and investor protection, by means of international-corporate control of those regulations, via panels of three ‘arbitrators,’ all of whom will be selected by or otherwise beholden to the international corporations that are being regulated; and, if any nation then tries to legislate stronger laws to protect the public than those panels approve under the given treaty, that nation will be fined by any corporation whose ‘rights,’ under these treaties (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), have been ruled by those panels to have been infringed by that violating nation. The basic idea is that the rights of the owners of the controlling blocks of stock in the international corporations take precedence over the rights of any mere nation, or of the public in any nation that participates in these vast American-dominated ‘trade’ deals. (The underlying ideology behind this is discussed in my 2015 book, Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.)

This new system, called “Investor State Dispute Resolution,” or ISDS, is only just starting to be employed and applied, from NAFTA and the few other such international agreements that are already in force. The following is from a Congressional Research Service report (which is generally heavily biased in favor of ISDS), in which is described one of the biggest cases yet that has been resolved by such panels:

A tribunal’s inability to change the laws or regulations of the United States directly does not mean that arbitration awards cannot be substantial. For example, in Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Ecuador, the tribunal ordered Ecuador to pay Occidental $1,769,625,000—over 1 billion dollars—in damages.63 The tribunal rendered that award, which is one of the largest awards in favor of a claimant under ISDS arbitration, after finding that Ecuador violated an investment agreement by expropriating Occidental’s property in response to Occidental transferring some of its economic interests under an oil production contract in contravention of Ecuador law.64 Therefore, although a tribunal lacks authority to alter a U.S. statute directly, some commentators believe that the possibility for such large monetary damages potentially could influence lawmakers and regulators when they consider proposed laws or regulations that may run afoul of IIA obligations.65

The arbitrators said that the Ecuadorean laws, and even the Ecuadorean Constitution, were irrelevant, because Ecuador’s signing on to ISDS was their signing away Ecuador’s sovereignty over these matters. Occidental sued and won against Ecuador’s enforcing Ecuador’s laws. Occidental’s stockholders won; Ecuador’s public lost. If this isn’t a warning to all subsequent signators to a treaty that has ISDS in it, nothing is.

Another case pits the tobacco company Philip Morris against Uruguay. “Philip Morris is saying that the percentage of warning labels that are required on cigarette packs in Uruguay goes beyond what is reasonable to protect people from the harmful effects of smoking.” Perhaps Uruguay won’t have the money to contest the allegation, and will thus be forced to eliminate the requirement — and Uruguayans won’t have the money to take care of the additional cancer and heart-attack cases.

This is what a fascist instead of a democratic world government is like. In the final years of Barack Obama’s U.S. Presidency, it’s what he turns out to be pushing with more intensity than he has pushed anything before, even his “Obamacare.”

Andrew Gavin Marshall posted an article on 16 June 2011 which provided a remarkably well-documented history of the Bilderberg group and of their plan to supplant the rule by national democracies, and to replace it with an international government by the owners of the controlling blocks of stock in the world’s largest international corporations. He notes there that the large foundations and think tanks already represent the large international corporations, and that they operate as tax-exempt extensions of them. One person that he cites sums this up well:

“Foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits society’s attention. They serve as “cooling-out” agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-class interests of philanthropists and phi anthropoids  – a system which… has worked against the interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World peoples.”

Barack Obama’s Role In This

As the great independent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has reported, in depth, in his many articles, such as (and these are repostings of originals from Madsen’s subscription-only website) “Obama’s CIA Pedigree” and “Details revealed about Obama’s former CIA employer” and “The Story of Obama: All in The Company,” and in his 2012 book The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House, Obama’s parents and grandparents were in the pay alternately of the U.S.-aristocracy-controlled CIA and of the U.S.-aristocracy-controlled Ford Foundation; and the boss of Obama’s mother at the Ford Foundation was none other than Peter Geithner, who was the father of Timothy Geithner, the Wall Street operative who ran the U.S. Treasury Department in Obama’s first term and who bailed out the investors in the megabanks while he refused to bail out the uneducated and poor mortgagees they had suckered with excessive loans, and the pension funds and other outside investors in the fraudulent resulting ‘AAA’-rated Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs, which the Federal Reserve is still buying up and transferring onto the backs of future U.S. taxpayers).

So, Obama was deep into service to America’s aristocracy, ever since he was in college; and his parents even raised him with money from the CIA and the Ford Foundation. Furthermore, Obama’s first employment was with the CIA front firm, Business International Corporation, in 1983 and 1984, though he might have been recruited by the CIA even as early as around 1980. (Going back even farther than Madsen, some terrific independent investigators, such as Joseph Cannon and the libertarian Robert Wenzel, were already exploring Obama’s CIA connections within mere months of his having won the U.S. Presidency in 2008. And, then, after Madsen, Andrew Krieg, in his 2013 blockbuster Presidential Puppetry, brought all of this together into a much broader, well documented, recent history of the U.S. as being an oligarchic instead of a democratic nation.)

So: Obama represents (not just in his policies, but even in his background) the U.S. aristocracy (or “oligarchs”), and he aspires to bring to ultimate fruition his predecessors’ dream, the dream of Bill Clinton, who did the largest previous Fast-Track-approved treaty, NAFTA, and, before him, of Richard Nixon, who created Fast Track (and before everything, there was the Bilderberg group): the goal of a fascist world government designed in Washington and signed by the aristocracies of the world’s countries that are subservient to the U.S. aristocracy — ’trade’ agreements that are actually a signing-away of democratic national sovereignties to this U.S.-aristocracy-dominated global international-corporate sovereign, which is both the treaty and its implementation — a world-government in the fascist style.

Other countries don’t have the U.S. Constitution’s two-thirds requirement to contend with; and, so, they don’t necessarily need to rape their constitutions in order to achieve this fascist conquest of their nation. Only the U.S. does; and this is the reason why, even the five international treaties that were passed via Fast Track are called, in every country that signed them, “treaty,” except in the United States, where they are instead called (in accord with “Fast Track”) merely an “international trade agreement.”

On 20 April 2015, InfoWars headlined, “Is Jeb Bush Going to Bilderberg 2015?” and reported that:

Infowars correctly predicted in 2007 that former Texas Gov. Rick Perry would run for president in 2012 after traveling to the Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey. Barack Obama also also reportedly visited the Bilderberg conference just prior to becoming the presidential frontrunner after he “infamously disappeared to a secret location with Hillary Clinton in June 2008 in Northern Virginia, at precisely the same time and location the Bilderberg Group were convening in Chantilly,” noted Infowars Paul Joseph Watson.

Basically, FDR’s post-WW-II agenda was highjacked by the fascists against whom FDR had led this country in order to defeat them; and, now, our Presidential candidates are needing to obtain the fascists’ approvals in order for them to be able to receive the campaign-funding that’s necessary in order to become ‘a serious candidate.’

Consequently, any Democrat who says, like the Democratic operative Michael Wessel did headlining in Politico on May 19th, “I’ve Read Obama’s Secret Trade Deal. Elizabeth Warren Is Right to Be Concerned,” that, “secretary [and she’s not ‘secretary,’ any more than she is ‘First Lady’] Clinton … should be commended … for raising a note of caution” about Obama’s proposed trade-deals (Wessel is implicitly recognizing there that she is trying to avoid having to say publicly that she supports Obama’s ‘trade’ deals, just like she long had avoided saying publicly that she had supported her husband’s), is merely sucking her up for a job in her campaign and/or in the White House (if she becomes President). Clinton is 100% sold already, to the highest bidders, just like every overtly Republican Presidential candidate is.

Trusting her word on what her policies would be if she were to win, would be ridiculous, because she’s not nearly as skilled a liar as Obama and her husband were, and she has a much lengthier career in public life than either of them did, and that career amply displays both her incompetency and her cravenousness. As a ‘servant of the people,’ she’d be a bad joke, not even a skilled con-artist, such as her husband and Obama were and are.

And, the only people who support any one of the Republican candidates are the 0.01% of them who are aristocrats, and the 99.99% of them who are their aristocrats’ suckers. And the only people who support the obviously fake ‘Democratic’ presidential candidates, the ones who haven’t already made clear to the public their intense opposition to the fake ‘Democrat’ Obama’s ‘trade’ deals (since they have no such intense opposition to them) — candidates such as Hillary Clinton are — are the Democratic Party’s mega-donor aristocrats, and their mass of suckers on the Democratic-Party side.

But that’s the way you get the money to be ‘a serious Presidential candidate’ in today’s America.

In other words: the origin of the un-Constitutional “Fast Track” is the war against the public that the aristocracy (both the Republican and the Democratic wings of it) has been waging, and increasingly winning, since 1953.

The Main U.S. Constitutional Issue

In June 1954, Morris D. Forkosch headlined in Chicago-Kent Law Review“Treaties and Executive Agreements,” and summarized the status of this issue up into the start of the Eisenhower Administration. It was a different nation then. He noted:

“Suppose, however, that a treaty conflicts with a provision of the United States Constitution or contradicts the terms of a federal statute. Which, then, governs? In the first of these situations, the United States Supreme Court has indicated, albeit the language is obiter, that the treaty would be ineffective.29” (His footnote included: “DeGeofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258 at 267, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 at 645 (1890), and Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525 at 541, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264 at 270 (1885).”)

So: according to U.S. Supreme Court decisions up till at least 1954, any one of the five Fast-Tracked international trade agreements that has been passed since the Fast-Track law, the Trade Act of 1974, was passed, would have been blocked by the Supreme Court, were it not for the Trade Act of 1974 — a mere law that, supposedly, has changed the Constitution without amending it, but that did this simply by asserting that when the Founders said “treaty” they weren’t referring to any and all forms of international agreement — which they clearly were referring to, in their era. Obviously, the power to interpret the Constitution rests solely with the U.S. Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the words that are in the Constitution as closely as possible to the way the Founders who wrote it intended those terms to be understood to mean. That’s just basic, to any constitutional democracy.

In February 2001, Michigan Law Review published John C. Yoo’s January 2000 article, “Laws as Treaties: The Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements,” in which Yoo, the lawyer who subsequently provided to George W. Bush the rationalization for Bush’s authorization to use torture after 9/11, argued that the two-thirds Senate rule needs, for practical purposes, to be nullified for certain types of international agreements, including for the five that had already been Fast-Tracked. Rather than his dealing with the question of whether the Executive and the Legislative branches possess Constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, he wrote there the argument that he would present to the Judicial branch, at the U.S. Supreme Court, if he were to be the attorney arguing there for the Constitutionality of Fast-Track. (Perhaps this paper was even one of the reasons why he was selected by Bush.) His entire argument was pragmatic as he saw it, such as, this: “Today, however, the Senate has about fifty percent more members than the first House of Representatives envisioned by the Constitution, suggesting that the Senate no longer has the small numbers that the Framers believed necessary for successful diplomacy.” This sort of thing constituted his argument for why treaties that don’t concern national security and so fall under the President’s Commander-in-Chief authority, shouldn’t be considered to be “treaties,” but only “Congressional-Executive Agreements.”

However, even Yoo noted, at the time, that the most-prominent scholarly argument in favor of the Constitutionality of Fast-Track, “Is NAFTA Constitutional?” by Bruce Ackerman and David Golove, in the February 1995 Harvard Law Review, was a “provocative and idiosyncratic theory of unwritten constitutional amendments,” whereas Yoo didn’t have the nerve to demean, but only to note, the article in that same publication by Laurence Tribe, which demolished the Ackerman-Golove article. In December 1998, Golove came forth in New York University Law Review, with a 152-page treatise, “Against Free-Form Formalism,” trying to overcome Tribe’s case. But, more recently, Michael Ramsey posted online his 13 August 2012 review of all of that, “Laurence Tribe on Textualism (and Congressional-Executive Agreements),” where he devotes most of his attention to the two original pro-and-con articles in the 1995 HLR, and says that Tribe’s case was far more persuasive than Ackerman-Golove’s; and, then, he notes parenthetically near the end: “(David Golove makes an attempt, in a reply article published at 73 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1791 (1998), but I don’t think he makes much headway against them [Tribe’s ‘points’]).” Golove’s 152-page treatise failed to impress anyone. Among the legal scholars, it’s pretty much a settled matter.

Thus: the current academic status of the issue is: The Supreme Court would have little choice but to overturn the Fast-Track provision of the Trade Act of 1974, if the matter were to be accepted by the Court for adjudication, unless the high Court were willing to be despised not only by the public but especially by legal scholars. If the Court were to decline to consider the case, then it would be accepting the authority of the Executive branch in conjunction with some members of the Legislative branch, to interpret the meaning of “treaty” in the U.S. Constitution — and, in the entire history of the United States, the Supreme Court has never done that.

Well, in a sense, that’s not entirely correct: the 2001 appeals-court case, Made in the USA Foundation v. U.S., was the only case to deal with this issue, and it concluded, citing as its chief authority a non-dispositive Supreme Court decision that was written by Justice William H. Rehnquist, in the 1979 case Goldwater v. Carter, which said that a certain action that President Jimmy Carter had done under both his treaty authority and his Commander-in-Chief authority could not be Constitutionally challenged by Senator Barry Goldwater.

But that Supreme Court decision, which was the supposed authority for this, concerned not international trade, but instead the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief, and so it wasn’t even a “trade” case at all; it wasn’t relevant, and thus really shouldn’t have been cited, because it dealt with different Constitutional provisions regarding what does and what does not reside within the President’s authority — namely, as Commander-in-Chief, and as the negotiator on mutual-defense treaties. So, there wasn’t even a question in this matter as to whether it concerned a “treaty.” On that shoddy basis, the appeals court said: “We nonetheless decline to reach the merits of this particular case, finding that with respect to international commercial agreements such as NAFTA, the question of just what constitutes a ‘treaty’ requiring Senate ratification presents a nonjusticiable political question.” It said this even despite denying that the meaning of the Constitutional term “treaty” should be determined by the Executive and the Legislative branches, instead of by the Judicial branch:

It is true that the Supreme Court has rejected arguments of nonjusticiability with respect to other ambiguous constitutional provisions. In Munoz-Flores, the Court was confronted with the question of whether a criminal statute requiring courts to impose a monetary “special assessment” on persons convicted of federal misdemeanors was a “bill for raising revenue” according to the Origination Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 7, cl. 1, in spite of the lack of guidance on exactly what types of legislation amount to bills “for raising revenue.” The Court, in electing to decide the issue on the merits, rejected the contention that in the absence of clear guidance in the text of the Constitution, such a determination should be considered a political question.

To be sure, the courts must develop standards for making[such] determinations, but the Government suggests no reason that developing such standards will be more difficult in this context than in any other. Surely a judicial system capable of determining when punishment is ”cruel and unusual,” when bail is “[e]xcessive,” when searches are ”unreasonable,” and when congressional action is “necessary and proper”  for executing an enumerated power, is capable of making the more prosaic judgments demanded by adjudication of Origination Clause challenges.

So: even that appeals court was not saying that the Legislative and Executive branches, working in concert, should determine what a “treaty” is and what it isn’t, but instead that court reaffirmed the exclusive authority of the Judicial branch to make such determinations. It simply refused to exercise the authority. Its argument on this was:

We note that none of these cases [the cited ones on the Supreme Court’s determinations regarding the meanings of specific terms and phrases in the Constitution], however, took place directly in the context of our nation’s foreign policy, and in none of them was the constitutional authority of the President and Congress to manage our external political and economic relations implicated. In addition to the Constitution’s textual commitment of such matters to the political branches, we believe, as discussed further below, that in the area of foreign relations, prudential considerations militate even more strongly in favor of judicial noninterference.

So, why didn’t those jurists even make note of the fact that their chief citation, Goldwater v. Carter, concerned military instead of economic matters, and not the meaning of “treaty,” at all? Stupidity, or else some ulterior motive — because no reason at all was cited by them.

Their decision closed by saying:

We note that no member of the Senate itself has asserted that body’s sole prerogative to ratify NAFTA (or, for that matter, other international commercial agreements) by a two-thirds supermajority. In light of the Senate’s apparent acquiescence in the procedures used to approve NAFTA, we believe this further counsels against judicial intervention in the present case.

This assertion totally ignored that “the Senate’s apparent acquiescence” had occurred, and been measured, only according to the 50%+1 Fast-Track standard, never according to the Constitution’s two-thirds standard. According to the Constitution’s standard, which was applied nowhere in the process along the road toward approval of any of the five Fast-Tracked treaty-bills into law, the Senate never actually ‘acquiesced in’ any of them. This court was simply accepting the Constitutional validity of that ‘acquiescence,’ so as to determine whether or not it was Constitutionally valid. Circular reasoning — prejudice.

However, in order to assist blockage of Fast Track for Obama’s proposed ‘trade’ treaties, it would greatly help if one or more of the very vocal opponents in the U.S. Senate,against Fast-Tracking these treaties — Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Harry Reid, for examples — would petition the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the provision in the Trade Act of 1974 that introduced Fast Track, and thus on Fast Track’s abolition of the Constitution’s two-thirds rule. Perhaps the case might become titled something like, “Warren v. United States,” where “Warren” stands for America’s public, and “United States” stands for America’s aristocracy.

The Bottom Line

What’s at stake here is nothing less than whether the future of the United States, and perhaps even of the world, will be democracy, or else fascism. That’s a lot.

Obama, in his trade-deals, aims to culminate the American aristocracy’s victory. If he wins all his trade-deals, then the Obama Library and the other Obama-operations will become enormous with the billions pouring in, even as he’ll go down in history as perhaps the worst President, probably (due to those trade-agreements) worse even than George W. Bush, or Harding, or Buchanan, or Grant, and with a far lengthier catastrophic result trailing after his Presidency, because those trade-deals will be very long-term catastrophes, which might end up destroying the hopes for democracy, not just internationally, but also nationally here in the U.S. The approval and resulting largesse from America’s aristocracy doesn’t come cheap, these days.

The American aristocracy has spent billions for these deals since 1953, and now they demand their trillions on that investment. Obama aims to give them the orgasms of power and money that they’ve been investing in, during many decades. This has been a lengthy rape, and they’ll be very grateful to Obama if he delivers this climax of it, to them — handing to them the world, as it were, on a golden platter, reeking from corruption, which is the sweetest smell they know, and which is by far the most profitable of all fragrances, in their nostrils, as they inhale it deep, and receive from it, this jolt, of sheer joy.

Alfred de Zayas is the U.N.’s Special Reporter on Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable World Order, which is the U.N.’s official who speaks for the global institution regarding current issues that are of concern to the achievement of the U.N.’s founding objectives. A report in Britain’s Guardian on 4 May 2015, titled “UN Calls for Suspension of TTIP Talks,” quoted him as saying that the reason why the U.S.-EU negotiations must be suspended is that, “We don’t want a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots.” But the international aristocrats do want that. De Zayas, the institutionalized spokesperson for the vision of FDR and of RGT, spoke for the great progressive leaders who were committed to the defeat of fascism. However, Obama, the Clintons, all Republicans, and most of the leadership around the world, are now again within the fascist camp.

In the long view of history, this matter is, on the global level, a continuation of WW II between democracy versus fascism; but, on the purely American national level, it is a continuation of the American Revolutionary War between democracy and aristocracy. Either way, what had been thought to have been a decisive victory for democracy has turned out to have been not so decisive after all; and the aristocratic, fascistic, forces have regrouped, and, at least up till June 12th, appeared to be heading for victory. But, this time, if they win, it might be final, because it truly would be a global victory for the aristocracy, and a global defeat for the public everywhere. This is what de Zayas warned of as “a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots.”

This is a global war, which has been waged since at least 1954, and Obama is aiming to negotiate the surrender of FDR and the Allies who had won WW II. But they’d be surrendering to him. One might call it “WW II, round 2.” But it’s also “The American Counter-Revolution.” By either name, it’s the same war, and the earlier victories for democracy are on the line, to be determined now, by our generation — or, perhaps, only by the aristocrats in our generation (if those few people will be its winners). If they win it, then what could a round 3, or an American counter-counter-revolution, conceivably be like — or would it be simply inconceivable? Or, perhaps, just inconceivably violent? “All the world’s a prison” might sound peaceful for the aristocracy, who would be luxuriously outside those prison-walls in their own gated compounds, and far from earshot of the explosions within; but, for the global public, what would there be left to lose in a global revolution? The aristocracy already own almost everything. (And here is another way of looking at this.) That’s not enough for them, but maybe it will finally become too much for everybody else. This type of “global warming” could thus become a global conflagration, even before the environmental one destroys everything.

This is not biblical-doomsday stuff, at all. In fact, any doomsday that could actually come, wouldn’t be at all mythological. Myths are designed to misinform people. Science is designed to inform them. One won’t find out what the real threats are, by reading myths. Myths are shaped by the aristocracy, to control the public. Myths helped cause today’s problems; they’re no solution to the problems. They’re part of the problems. Myths are propaganda. They do their jobs, for the deceivers, who generate them.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Trade treaties, mega-corporations, and worldwide socialism

06/16/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/trade-treaties-mega-corporations-and.html

6-16-2015 6-05-44 AM

By Jon Rappoport

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealedclick here.) 

“The ever-emerging popular image of socialism: a humane government colossus controls the means of production for the benefit of the people; and share-the-wealth at all levels of society comes alive. This is political theory for children in a condition of arrested development—for example, college students and Hollywood actors who long for lunch at the White House.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I use the loaded word “socialism” in the headline, because it’s important to understand that Globalism is a form of socialism.

That may not sit well with some people, because they believe in the socialism team and they think that team is against Globalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s about time they woke up.

Globalism was born out of the triumphs of cutthroat capitalists like Rockefeller, and out of the triumphs of international bankers like Rothschild and Warburg. These men made a decision quite natural for them: “By hook and by crook I’ve acquired my fortune; now I want a monopoly; I want to cut out the competition; I want empire; therefore, I have to control governments; I want to make governments more powerful, so by controlling them I control society.”

What better way to make governments more powerful than by forming a long-term (criminal) collaboration with mega-corporations, including major banks?

Governments plus giant corporations. Does that equal socialism?

You can quibble and say the corporations are really in charge and therefore this arrangement isn’t socialism. Call it oligarchy. Call it runaway capitalism or the corporate state.

The collaboration among governments, mega-corporations, and bankers is the triangle. It’s the engine of control. It grossly limits freedom. It claims, through propaganda, that its “government wing” is for the people. That’s utter nonsense, of course.

Today’s socialists believe government is the answer to the control of society by big money and big greed. That’s a delusion. The governments are on the side of big money.

Socialists also like to say that governments are weak sisters in the pocket of the corporations, and therefore the governments must become stronger. Another dangerous fantasy.

The last time I looked at America, for example, the government had an extensive military, a dizzying number of spying agencies, and a gigantic Justice Department that could make arrests and put criminals on trial. If that’s weak, what’s strong?

Who are the major money men of Wall Street the US government has thrown in prison? Who are the mega-corporate thugs the government has sent away for life terms?

The government is firmly in bed with the corporations. Committed. Purposefully.

All the trade treaties—GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP, etc.—are basically instruments of the government-corporate collaboration. They strengthen the corporations and they strengthen the de facto global management system, which is government on a far larger scale.

Securing monopoly requires controlling governments and making those governments more and more repressive, in order to put populations under control.

It makes perfect sense, if you’re a billionaire/ trillionaire sociopath.

When I say “Globalists controlling governments,” I’m talking about a partnership, and if one partner, equipped with armies, spies, and prosecutors, surrenders to the other partner, that’s a form of extreme cowardice.

Just one example: the current Globalist TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) negotiation is secret, as are the details of the treaty. But any legislator in any of the 12 member nations could step out of the shadows and communicate everything he knows about what’s in the treaty…if he wanted to.

In the US, a senator might, at the extreme, spend a night in jail for violating Executive Branch regulations on classified data.

He would also spark a much needed Constitutional crisis, and he would become a popular hero.

But no; so far, no US Senator or Congressman has dared to spill all the beans.

Voluntary surrender of power.

Of course, when government surrenders its powers long enough (since roughly 1913 in the US), and when Globalists/Socialists are brought into one key government position after another, up to and including the Presidency, the corruption runs very, very deep.

Does this sound like a benign State that wants to do everything it can to help the people?

Does this sound like “heraldic Socialism” determined to build a peaceful and fair society?

Right now, President Obama is running around in a panic, trying to put together enough Congressional votes to pass the TPP. Does that sound like a man who wants to rescue the American people from the mega-corporations?

The so-called classic definition of socialism: government controls the means of production.

Just change that a bit: government, in criminal collaboration with mega-corporations, controls the means of production.

Split hairs if you want to; but it’s a distinction without a difference.

George Bush the Elder (Globalist), who briefly served as the director of the CIA and a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (Rockefeller/Globalist powerhouse), ran for a second term in the White House against neophyte Bill Clinton (Globalist). Under ordinary circumstances, there was no way Bush could have lost. But it was Globalist vs. Globalist. A distinction without a difference.

There are still hope-and-change people out there who wonder how their man, Obama, could be supporting Monsanto. They haven’t gotten the memo yet. Obama is a Globalist. Monsanto is a mega-corporation. GMO crops? Roundup? The health dangers of GMOs and pesticides? Irrelevant.

None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, 1971:

“…most of us believe socialism is what the socialists want us to believe it is—a share-the wealth program… Here in the reality of socialism you have a tiny oligarchial clique at the top, usually numbering no more than three percent of the total population, controlling the total wealth, total production and the very lives of the other ninety-seven percent.

“…If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.”

In America, untold numbers of young college students are being conscripted into the illusion of government-as-savior. Matriculating on the basis of government student loans, having to go deep into debt to pay back those loans, these young people are already wards of the State. For them, the only question is: how can they minimize the interest on the loans? Otherwise, they see government and its support of politically correct behavior and speech as conditioning mechanisms leading to “a better world.” This is Pathetic Mind Control 101.

As part of this political correctness, the students are taught to rail against big corporations, never realizing their adored Mommy-Daddy Government is an active partner in crime with the corporations.

“Reform government.” “Make government better.” Make government more responsive to the people.” This is like hoping to stage a conciliatory dialogue with a T-Rex in Jurassic Park.

Socialism—the nightmare it represents—is the premier vehicle for those super-rich men who have limitless political goals that add up to population control.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, andPOWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here. This article may be re-posted in full with attribution. 

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


The Scariest Trade Deal Nobody’s Talking About Just Suffered a Big Leak

06/15/2015

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement

By David Dayen @ddayen

The Obama administration’s desire for “fast track” trade authority is not limited to passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In fact, that may be the least important of three deals currently under negotiation by the U.S. Trade Representative. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would bind the two biggest economies in the world, the United States and the European Union. And the largest agreement is also the least heralded: the 51-nation Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).

On Wednesday, WikiLeaks brought this agreement into the spotlight by releasing 17 key TiSA-related documents, including 11 full chapters under negotiation. Though the outline for this agreement has been in place for nearly a year, these documents were supposed to remain classified for five years after being signed, an example of the secrecy surrounding the agreement, which outstrips even the TPP.

Would You Feel Differently About Julian Assange If You Knew What He Really Thought?

TiSA has been negotiated since 2013, between the United States, the European Union, and 22 other nations, including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and others scattered across South America and Asia. Overall, 12 of the G20 nations are represented, and negotiations have carefully incorporated practically every advanced economy except for the “BRICS” coalition of emerging markets (which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

The deal would liberalize global trade of services, an expansive definition that encompasses air and maritime transport, package delivery, e-commerce, telecommunications, accountancy, engineering, consulting, health care, private education, financial services and more, covering close to 80 percent of the U.S. economy. Though member parties insist that the agreement would simply stop discrimination against foreign service providers, the text shows that TiSA would restrict how governments can manage their public laws through an effective regulatory cap. It could also dismantle and privatize state-owned enterprises, and turn those services over to the private sector. You begin to sound like the guy hanging out in front of the local food co-op passing around leaflets about One World Government when you talk about TiSA, but it really would clear the way for further corporate domination over sovereign countries and their citizens.

Reading the texts (here’s an example, the annex on air transport services) makes you realize the challenge for members of Congress or interested parties to comprehend a trade agreement while in negotiation. The “bracketed” text includes each country’s offer, merged into one document, with notations on whether the country proposed, is considering, or opposes each specific provision. You need to either be a trade lawyer or a very alert reader to know what’s going on. But between the text and a series of analyses released by WikiLeaks, you get a sense for what the countries negotiating TiSA want.

First, they want to limit regulation on service sectors, whether at the national, provincial or local level. The agreement has “standstill” clauses to freeze regulations in place and prevent future rulemaking for professional licensing and qualifications or technical standards. And a companion “ratchet” clause would make any broken trade barrier irreversible.

It may make sense to some to open service sectors up to competition. But under the agreement, governments may not be able to regulate staff to patient ratios in hospitals, or ban fracking, or tighten safety controls on airlines, or refuse accreditation to schools and universities. Foreign corporations must receive the same “national treatment” as domestic ones, and could argue that such regulations violate their ability to provide the service. Allowable regulations could not be “more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service,” according to TiSA’s domestic regulation annex. No restrictions could be placed on foreign investment—corporations could control entire sectors.

This would force open dozens of services, including ones where state-owned enterprises, like the national telephone company in Uruguay or the national postal service of Italy, now operate. Previously, public services would be either broken up or forced into competition with foreign service providers. While the United States and European Union assured in a joint statement that such privatization need not be permanent, they also “noted the important complementary role of the private sector in these areas” to “improve the availability and diversity of services,” which doesn’t exactly connote a hands-off policy on the public commons.

Corporations would get to comment on any new regulatory attempts, and enforce this regulatory straitjacket through a dispute mechanism similar to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process in other trade agreements, where they could win money equal to “expected future profits” lost through violations of the regulatory cap.

For an example of how this would work, let’s look at financial services. It too has a “standstill” clause, which given the unpredictability of future crises could leave governments helpless to stop a new and dangerous financial innovation. In fact, Switzerland has proposed that all TiSA countries must allow “any new financial service” to enter their market. So-called “prudential regulations” to protect investors or depositors are theoretically allowed, but they must not act contrary to TiSA rules, rendering them somewhat irrelevant.

Most controversially, all financial services suppliers could transfer individual client data out of a TiSA country for processing, regardless of national privacy laws. This free flow of data across borders is true for the e-commerce annex as well; it breaks with thousands of years of precedent on locally kept business records, and has privacy advocates alarmed.

There’s no question that these provisions reinforce Senator Elizabeth Warren’s contention that a trade deal could undermine financial regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act. The Swiss proposal on allowances for financial services could invalidate derivatives rules, for example. And harmonizing regulations between the U.S. and EU would involve some alteration, as the EU rules are less stringent.

Member countries claim they want to simply open up trade in services between the 51 nations in the agreement. But there’s already an international deal governing these sectors through the World Trade Organization (WTO), called the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The only reason to re-write the rules is to replace GATS, which the European Union readily admits (“if enough WTO members join in, TiSA could be turned into a broader WTO agreement”).

That’s perhaps TiSA’s real goal—to pry open markets, deregulate and privatize services worldwide, even among emerging nations with no input into the agreement. U.S. corporations may benefit from such a structure, as the Chamber of Commerce suggests, but the impact on workers and citizens in America and across the globe is far less clear. Social, cultural, and even public health goals would be sidelined in favor of a regime that puts corporate profits first. It effectively nullifies the role of democratic governments to operate in the best interest of their constituents.

Unsurprisingly, this has raised far more concern globally than in the United States. But a completed TiSA would go through the same fast-track process as TPP, getting a guaranteed up-or-down vote in Congress without the possibility of amendment. Fast-track lasts six years, and negotiators for the next president may be even more willing to make the world safe for corporate hegemony. “This is as big a blow to our rights and freedom as the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Larry Cohen, president of the Communication Workers of America in a statement, “and in both cases our government’s secrecy is the key enabler.”

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Our back is now against the wall, and if you want to be a corporate slave the rest of your life then do nothing, but if you want to be governed by a peoples government, accountable only to the people, then you are going to have to go after the corporations with all your might until they are dead broke. They claim we are their slaves by their bastardized court system and there is nothing left to do but fight to the death if you want to be a free human being.

WE HAVE ALL BEEN BEGUILED!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Towards a Militarized Police State in America Explosive New Revelations over Jade Helm 15 Exercise and Potential False Flags

06/12/2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-a-militarized-police-state-in-america-explosive-new-revelations-over-jade-helm-15-exercise-and-potential-false-flags/5451965

6-12-2015 9-42-37 AM

By Joachim Hagopian

Global Research, May 27, 2015

A growing segment of the American population is waking up to the implications of the Jade Helm 15 military operation to be conducted by Special Forces in conjunction with local law enforcement, the FBI, DHS, the DEA and Border Patrol across the entire Southwest. This massive unprecedented exercise will also commence in June sooner than first announced and last for 10 weeks through the summer till September 15.

The risk of it triggering civil unrest or that it may coincide with a potential false flag scenario followed by another possibly timed crisis situation is both feasible and real, despite mainstream media’s ridicule dismissing any such possibilities as pure paranoid conspiracy theory. What we do know for sure is this nation has turned into a militarized police state and that both the military and the government lie all the time.

We also are aware of the globalists’ long planned agenda of a national crisis that would induce Obama to quash civil unrest by declaring martial law. A recent poll of Americans found that near half (45%) see Jade Helm as imposing more control over the states. If martial law doesn’t actually come to pass this time around, it certainly sets the stage for next time in this incrementally increasing militarization of America.

We also know that a specific Department of Defense manual FM 3-39.40 has existed since 2010 delineating how the federal government in cooperation with the UN will respond to civil disturbance that includes FEMA camp roundups to fill waiting empty Haliburton-refurbished prison camps after a $385 million no bid contract during the former CEO Cheney’s vice presidency. We also know that each prison camp includes a tribunal section and a mortuary section along with psychological officers responsible for reprogramming US detainees. Despite this layout presented so matter-of-fact and by-the-book, Americans will be killed. During the upheaval of a national crisis, a lethal outcome is also most probable. Meanwhile, countdown to global war appears to be ticking away as troops from virtually every nation are busily training in preparation for a likely West versus East endgame scenario of World War III.

President Kennedy spoke of subversive forces operating inside the shadow government several months prior to those same forces killing him. And those demonic forces posing as our international crime syndicate government boldly went on unconsequenced by the JFK assassination to stage the worst false flag in history on 9/11 giving birth to the neocons’ war on terror. And it’s been all downhill ever since with nonstop wars, a runaway deficit (over $18 trillion), a fragile and broken global economy, and within a few years after 9/11 a militarized totalitarian police state. Long gone is America’s once democratic republic, replaced by a fascist oligarchy controlled by a military-security-prison complex. As Obama’s personal army, Homeland Security has grown gluttonously evil bringing tyranny and oppression to the United States of America as never before.

But to those of us aware enough to study and learn from history, there are no accidents and no surprises here. Armed with the latest technology, the global elitists in control have done their homework, long in advance manipulating everything in its Orwellian place for these shuttering events and developments to unfold. From the overreaching CIA grooming their Manchurian Candidate president to his unqualified meteoric rise to puppet power, Obama was the perfect made man for the job. Obscured by a shadowy, made over past that includes a fake birth certificate, he was steeped in Communist ideology and socialist collectivism by his deep connection with ex-terrorist Bill Ayers (who also was the Common Core architect responsible largely for dumbing down public education) and fellow mentor Saul Alinsky. Obama displayed dazzle as an early orator on the big stage of big politics, wore the right skin color to prey on people’s hope for change and progress, appearing as a different kind of leader who many thought would represent the common people, a unifier and uplifter for the downtrodden. Boy were they dead wrong!

Once elected, Obama became the Manchurian Trojan Horse presidential imposter occupying the White House. This is the same man as presidential candidate who bragged and promised as a former constitutional law professor for over 10 years that he’d be the most open and transparent president in US history after the criminal Bush regime. Then once Obama became president, he only demonstrated that he is the most secretive and closed off president in history. Even worse, in the same speech he denounced Bush and Cheney for violating America’s rule of law, he proposed to develop “an appropriate legal regime for indefinite prolonged detention of American citizens” prior to ever breaking the law based purely on the government’s suspicion that they may become a future threat to national security. This statement uttered early in his first term ominously spelled out his sinister agenda to lock up and throw away the key to any citizen that he and his minions believe might become a future threat.

Based on Obama and his administration’s subsequent actions, their definition of “future threat to national security” is simply anyone who disagrees with his treasonous policies, DHS declaring them a greater threat than even ISIS, which is really quite telling. Those citizens honest and brave enough to expose the criminal truth about his evil agenda betraying our Constitution, nation and people have been singled out and targeted on dissident watch lists.

Americans believing in our Constitution who object to the feds’ criminality of constantly violating the nation’s rule of law that used to protect citizens with privacy rights over unlawfully invasive surveillance and search and seizure, the right to peaceful assembly to public protest, the right to own a gun, the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to due process, the right to habeas corpus dating back to the 1066 Magna Carta, all these previously guaranteed civil liberties under Bush-Obama were usurped and denied Americans. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act was a traitorous package deal depriving us of all these rights, as well as violating and repealing the 1878 Posse Comitatus law prohibiting US military from involvement in civil matters that fall under state National Guard and law enforcement jurisdiction.

This president and his DHS in one fell swoop have equated US patriots who are returning veterans from warfronts(regardless of war) as potential home grown terrorists. So after placing their life on the line for their nation in combat, risking and often incurring serious life threatening injuries while experiencing the trauma of witnessing their comrades die sacrificing their lives for their nation, upon return home from US Empire’s blood for oil wars, their nation turns on them in betrayal, calling them terrorist threats and developing a criminally subversive plan to remove not only their private weapons violating their Second Amendment right, but physically removing them from society by locking them away in prison or worse killing them under false suspicion they might become homegrown terrorists. This is how our diabolically treasonous and insane government led by our current commander-in-chief repays our veterans. It’s unbelievably despicable that America’s come to this.

On to another targeted population, Obama has harassed, threatened, accused and locked up more journalists and whistleblowers than any previous administration ever. Moreover, he has charged more whistleblowers with violating an antiquated 1917 espionage act for treason than all past presidencies combined, sentencing them to jail time 25 more times than all previous combined. The least transparent president in history also denied more Freedom of Information Act requests in 2014 than all previous administrations, only proving himself to be the most vindictive, revengeful, secretive despot president in history.

When Obama came to power everything was in place for the globalist war machine to continue uninterrupted, unleashing the same imperialistic US Empire aggression launched by the war criminal invaders and occupiers Bush and Cheney. Following his globalist marching orders, Obama seamlessly maintained the Empire’s role as world policeman and murderous bully around the globe. He prolonged the war in Iraq for another three years in time to claim credit for ending the Iraq War during his reelection campaign. In the other decade-long war he ensured the fighting in Afghanistan would continue unabated for another half dozen years. Then with the help of Israel and Saudi Arabia, he created ISIS, which conveniently provided the fine print disclaimer ensuring the US-NATO military presence in both war ravaged nations would be on an as needed, permanent basis.

In the meantime hidden from public view, Obama guaranteed the proliferation of new, sneakier kind of lower intensity, out of sight, out of mind wars around the world fought by none other than the killer elite Special Forces. Now Americans cannot even tell you who the US is at war with because it’s all a deep state secret. Did I mention Obama’s the most secretive prez in history? Investigative reporter and author Nick Turse has determined the exponential growth of US Special Operations at last count over a year ago is deployed in more than 134 nationsaround the globe with the highest concentration throughout most of Africa and much of Central and East Asia. That’s most nations on earth along with a thousand US military posts around the world.

Expanding the presence of US proxy wars, Obama refined a new and improved formula for churning out the most barbaric, savage, seemingly unstoppable monster enemy of them all – the Islamic State (IS). Pretending IS jihadists are the most evil enemy since Russian Communists, complicit in showcasing their staged youtube beheadings to horrify the world for effect, Obama secretly engineered their expanding global dominance in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and possibly just eight miles from the US border near El Paso in Mexico where reports from Judicial Watch recently claimed a high ranking Mexican police and a military officer stated ISIS is currently undergoing joint training operations with the drug cartel ostensibly to potentially terrorize Americans on US soil during Jade Helm. Of course the US government vehemently denies the presence of Islamic State in Mexico yet speculation still lingers based on US FBI and DHS meetings with Mexican authorities. In any event, the bottom line if the US really wanted to destroy ISIS, as the most lethal killing force on earth, it could eliminate Islamic State forces within a month.

Apparently it was two homegrown ISIS fighters from Arizona that showed up in Dallas bent on a shooting spree at a cartoon contest lampooning Islam earlier this month in what seemed a staged event, the same state deemed “hostile” by the Jade Helm game plan. Then came the bizarre mass biker gang shootout killing 9 in Waco, Texas a week ago. Evidence is coming to light that hidden ISIS recruiters are presently embedded in US, UK and Canada college campuses around those Western nations attempting to entice non-Muslims to join their cause. Based on a recent UN report almost two months ago, more than 25,000 new recruits did join from most countries in the world just since June last year. Whether ISIS is really here in North America amongst us or not, Washington’s been hyping the eminent dangers posed by right wing domestic terrorists lurking to kill government authorities like police, almost as if to prep us for an upcoming false flag that could occur during Jade Helm.

As the US-created hired gun, after training, arming and financing Obama’s secret ally that holds a calling card reading “Terrorism-R-Us-Will-Travel,” Obama and his globalist puppet masters have been increasingly outed with incontrovertible evidence of newly declassified documents that the so called ISIS enemy is actually a mere extension and creation of the US, its Western allies and their oligarch masters. It was just released that the Pentagon had devised a plan back in August 2012 for the rise of ISIS (that we never even knew existed then) to later take over two key Iraqi cities Mosul and Ramadi. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces simply cut and ran without a fight from both cities?

The latest disturbing revelations surfacing are disclosures from whistleblowers inside the military high command and a recently retired Homeland Security officer. One recently purged lieutenant general among the 270 high ranking military officers Obama has forced out of the service has just revealed in an email that this summer’s Jade Helm will in fact bring not only dissident extraction but the start of “a ground war, city by city, street by street” to America. The anonymous retired three star general went on to write:

Additionally what is coming will be unlike any civil war in history, it will be very personal, the government will call the Patriots forces terrorists and traitors, they will arrest, intern, torture and murder suspected terrorists families, this will result in bloody reprisals which will start a vicious cycle lasting for years.

Lending credibility to his dire prediction was the general’s assignment in 2012 to be part of a Pentagon study assessing the rank and file personnel in all the US armed forces on whether they would be willing or not to fire upon and kill US citizens in a civil war scenario. He revealed that 80% of the National Guard would side with the American people, 90% of the Marines also, 60% of the Army would, the Navy would remain on active patrol in defense to interdict any possible foreign intervention and only the Air Force will side with Obama’s government at 75%. So from his email he believes the majority of US military would fight right alongside Americans against the government oppressors. It was alluded that a number of veterans up and down the ranks would also be armed as patriots actively resisting the government attack on its own citizens, which would far outnumber the treasonous government forces. But the bottom line according to this high ranking flag officer, an all-out civil war is fast approaching where many US citizens are likely to die and be imprisoned.

Another anonymous career insider from Homeland Security just admitted:

Preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against US citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama.

The whistleblower described the atmosphere inside the DHS mega-bureaucracy as forebodingly paranoid where no one trusts anyone and workers are leaving in droves. Afraid of information leaks, conditions have become so oppressive to create an ultra-hostile, toxic work environment. The DHS retiree maintains that the upcoming crisis will be “rooted in an economic collapse.” He said a key precursor just before the crash to look for will be falling gold and silver prices. The orchestrators behind it are the Wall Street bankers who of course like with every fixed crash in the past will be busily buying up all the precious metals for untold illegal profiteering. The insider maintains that America’s already sliding into crash mode though most people don’t realize it yet, adding:

The ‘big bang’ comes at the end, when people wake up one morning and can’t log in to their bank accounts, can’t use their ATM cards, and find out that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated.

He states that the above scenario of a cyberattack on the US banking system is but one possible plan he was privy to. Though the whistleblower admitted that DHS, the NSA and IRS are all militant, totalitarian arms of the White House, he doubly emphasized that it’s not Obama pulling all the strings:

[Obama] is a creation of the globalists who have no allegiance to any political party. He is the product of decades of planning, made for this very time in our history. He was selected to oversee the events I just disclosed. Who has that ability? He’s a product of our own intelligence agencies working with the globalists. He should be exhibit ‘A’ to illustrate the need to enforce the Logan Act.

Unlike the whistleblowing general, the former Homeland Security employee said he did not know the exact timing of when he foresees the plan being executed with high probability of two near simultaneous false flags triggering martial law and the violence directed against US citizens. But the general did, feeling certain that Jade Helm would go live in response to government induced crises. Because we live in an interconnected global economy, the disaster that will soon afflict the US will reverberate with ripple effects around the globe. And though many Americans will refuse to believe any such malevolent harm can possibly come to the United States that relative to most of the world has had it so good for so long, the globalists responsible are heartless evildoers who have no compassion or guilt for the atrocities and suffering they directly inflict on humankind. Bringing down America puts them one huge step closer to one world government. It will be up to us patriots like the revolutionaries of our War of Independence to fight for our liberty and life for a rebirth of a new nation fashioned after what originally was our Founding Fathers’ lasting legacy.

 

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com/He is also a regular contributor to Global Research and a syndicated columnist at Veterans Today.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Ok, now you know exactly how your country is being taken down, and what to expect from your SO CALLED ELECTED LEADERS. There remains one more problem. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PERSONALLY DOING ABOUT IT?

EDUCATE YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


New Obama Policy Would Make Merely Posting Firearm Information on the Internet a Crime +

06/11/2015

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/new-obama-policy-would-make-

merely-posting-firearm-information-on-the-internet-a-crime_06102015

6-11-2015 12-05-32 PM

By Mac Slavo

The blogosphere is sounding off about a pending new Obama policy that would impact not only the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st Amendment as well.

As incredible as it seems, individuals would be in violation by “merely posting information on the Internet about common firearms” which “could be interpreted as illegally sharing sensitive information with foreign nationals”

Applying issues related to “exporting” and “foreign nations” under an international treaty to individual on-line speech (under the guise of improperly sharing technical data about firearms) may seem like a stretch, but it is apparently what is happening, unless public opposition is voiced before this oh-so quiet regulation sets in towards the end of summer.

While it remains to be seen if such a policy would be enforceable, the mere redefinition of Internet activities – now under FCC regulation – is startling, suggesting that the “bark” about guns may be just as threatening to this anti-gun administration as the “bite” of ‘military-style weapons’ like the AR-15 that so frequently drives media coverage. According to theWashington Times:

Gun control and control of free speech would be combined in a new Obama administration plan that could send Second Amendment advocates to prison.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is furious about new regulations announced last week. The plan uses national security as an excuse to threaten gun advocates with prison time for sharing information about “military-style weapons. The problem is that almost every firearm is considered “military-style” by President Obama and the gun-control crowd.

These new restrictions involve commonly and legally available personal firearms.

Under the new proposal from the State Department, merely posting information on the Internet about common firearms could be interpreted as illegally sharing sensitive information with foreign nationals. So Mr. Obama’s plan is two-for-one in restricting constitutional rights: He would combine gun control with control over free speech.

And the penalty for violating this policy could be drastic if upheld:

The penalty? 20 years in prison plus a $1 million fine for each violation. Each time that any foreign national accesses the data is considered a separate violation.

Wow… I guess that’s pretty severe – enough to discourage even chance encounters with loose talk about one of the most sacred items that many Americans own.

The NRA is charging that the interpretation of language in the proposal would have the State Department treating online speech about firearms in the same way it treats actual firearms when it comes to the regulation of their “export.”

It’s happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.

[…] the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

The rationale is technical, but maybe that’s the point. The potential to enforce gun speech all about catching people on the technicalities, and is tied to the history of participation of in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). None of that will stop it from creating consequences for those it would go after:

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

[…]

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

The end run around the 2nd Amendment is nearly complete, giving Obama until the end of his administration to set in place legal hurdles that even a gun-toting, pro-2nd Amendment, NRA- and Tea Party-backed politician would be hard pressed to undo completely.

Yikes.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

I’ll see ya’all in jail,,,,,, or the morgue!


 

 In the “Land of the Free” You Can Face 20 Years in Prison for Clearing Your Web Browser History

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/us-normal-task-clearing-browser-

data-land-jail-20-years/?utm_source=The+Free+Thought+Project+

Weekly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8f9d52e934-RSS_FEED_

NEWSLETTER12_18_2014&utm_medium=email&utm

_term=0_ae40e945ed-8f9d52e934-206282549

6-11-2015 12-09-10 PM

image: http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/upload

s/2015/06/20-Years-in-Prison-for-Clearing-Your-Web-Browser-History.jpg

By Matt Agorist

Boston, MA — Khairullozhon Matanov, a former taxi driver, is scheduled to appear in US Federal Court next week to face sentencing on charges of obstruction of justice related to the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing.

Matanov did not participate in or have any prior knowledge of the bombings, according to U.S. authorities. However, those facts are irrelevant.

Matanov could be locked in a cage for 20 years because he cleared his browser history in the days following the attacks.

Grand Jury indictment issued on May 29, 2014, states that Matanov “deleted a large amount of information from his Google Chrome Internet cache” following the bombing, including “references to the video of the suspected bombers [later identified as the Tsarnaevs],” “two of the photographs of the bombers released at approximately the same time,” and “a photograph of Officer Sean Collier, who had been allegedly killed by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.”

For those who may be unfamiliar, if you browse the web, you have a cache. A cache is a repository for stored data that is used to expedite the process of retrieving data. Caches are used to speed up a process so that data does not have to be recomputed or fetched from its original location and, therefore, saves time.

Because Matanov deleted his cache, he was charged with “Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records, Documents, and a Tangible Object in a Federal Investigation” which could land him in a cell for 20 years.

The government has admitted and the indictment makes clear they have “no evidence that Matanov had foreknowledge or participated in the bombings.” Yet he’s been in jail this entire time.

Matanov is seemingly being prosecuted for just knowing the alleged bombers.

Because Matanov does not want to spend decades behind bars he pleaded guilty to all of the charges, while asserting his innocence the entire time.

“You’re afraid if you go to trial you could be found guilty of all four of these charges and the sentence might be longer than the 30 months?” the judge asked. “Is that it? That you think you are not a guilty person but given the circumstances you’d rather [not] go to trial?”

To which Matanov replied, “I signed a deal and I found guilt most fitting for my situation.”

The law used to ruin this man, who claims he’s innocent, dates back to 2002 and was enacted by Congress under Bush. It’s called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

In a report last week for the Nation, Juliana DeVries explained the nature of such legislation.

“Prosecutors are able to apply the law broadly because they do not have to show that the person deleting evidence knew there was an investigation underway,” she wrote. “In other words, a person could theoretically be charged under Sarbanes-Oxley for deleting her dealer’s number from her phone even if she were unaware that the feds were getting a search warrant to find her marijuana. The application of the law to digital data has been particularly far-reaching because this type of information is so easy to delete.”

TechDirt’s Tim Cushing explains that under Sabanes-Oxley, “U.S. citizens are almost expected to hold onto everything, just in case… and if you’ve ‘destroyed’ any data prior to the examination of your electronic devices, you could face felony charges for performing simple computer maintenance.”

Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury agreed, telling The Nation that the U.S. government wants and believes it deserves access to all online data for policing purposes, according to CBC.

Fakhoury said that the government’s “underlying theory” is this:

“Don’t even think about deleting anything that may be harmful to you, because we may come after you at some point in the future for some unforeseen reason and we want to be able to have access to that data. And if we don’t have access to that data, we’re going to slap an obstruction charge that has as 20-year maximum on you.”

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

 

“LAND OF THE FREE”, MY ASS! If the average American had peanut size balls the scumbags in DC would be headed to china. FREEDOM IN AMERICA HAS BEEN LOST FOR ONE SIMPLE REASON. MOST AMERICANS ARE CHICKEN SHIT!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 

 

 


Guess How Many Nations In The World Do Not Have A Central Bank?

06/10/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/guess-how-many-nations-in-world-do-not.html

6-10-2015 10-39-45 AM

By Michael Snyder

Central banking has truly taken over the entire planet.  At this point, the only major nation on the globe that does not have a central bank is North Korea.  Yes, there are some small island countries such asthe Federated States of Micronesia that do not have a central bank, but even if you count them, more than 99.9% of the population of the world still lives in a country that has a central bank.  So how has this happened?  How have we gotten the entire planet to agree that central banking is the best system?  Did the people of the world willingly choose this?

Of course not.  To my knowledge, there has never been a single vote where the people of a nation have willingly chosen to establish a central bank.  Instead, what has happened is that central banks have been imposed on all of us.  All over the world, people have been told that monetary issues are “too important” to be subject to politics, and that the only solution is to have a group of unelected, unaccountable bankers control those things for us.

So precisely what does a central bank do?

You would be surprised at how few people can actually answer that question accurately.  The following is how Wikipedia describes what a central bank does…

A central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is an institution that manages a state’s currency, money supply, and interest rates. Central banks also usually oversee the commercial banking system of their respective countries. In contrast to a commercial bank, a central bank possesses a monopoly on increasing the monetary base in the state, and usually also prints the national currency, which usually serves as the state’s legal tender. Examples include the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve of the United States and the People’s Bank of China.

In the United States, we are told that we have a free market system.  But in a true free market system, market forces would determine what interest rates are.  We wouldn’t need anyone to “set interest rates” for us.
And why have we given a private banking cartel (the Federal Reserve) the authority to create and manage our money supply?  The U.S. Constitution specifically delegates that authority to Congress.

It is not as if we actually need the Federal Reserve.  In fact, the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history happened during the decades before the Federal Reserve was created.

Unfortunately, a little over 100 years ago our leaders decided that it would be best to turn over our financial future to a newly created private banking cartel that was designed by very powerful Wall Street interests.  Since that time, the value of our currency has diminished by more than 96 percent and our national debt has gotten more than 5000 times larger.

But despite all of the problems, the vast majority of Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans are not even willing to consider slightly curtailing the immense power of the Federal Reserve.  And the idea of getting rid of the Fed altogether is tantamount to blasphemy to most of our politicians.

Of course the same thing is true all over the planet.  Central banks are truly “the untouchables” of the modern world.  Even though everybody can see what they are doing, there has not been a single successful political movement anywhere on the globe (that I know about) to shut a central bank down.

Instead, in recent years we have just seen the reach of central banking just continue to expand.

For example, just look at what has happened to some of the countries that were not considered to be “integrated” into the “global community”…

– In 2001, the United States invaded Afghanistan.  In 2003, Da Afghanistan Bank (who picked that name?) was established by presidential decree.  You can find the official website of the bank right here.  Now Afghanistan has a modern central bank just like the rest of us.

– In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq.  In early 2004, the Central Bank of Iraq was established to manage the Iraqi currency and integrate Iraq into the global financial system.  The following comes from the official website of the Central Bank of Iraq

Following the deposition of Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi Governing Council and the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance began printing more Saddam dinar notes as a stopgap measure to maintain the money supply until new currency could be introduced.

The Banking Law was issued September 19, 2003. The law brings Iraq’s legal framework for banking in line with international standards, and seeks to promote confidence in the banking system by establishing a safe, sound, competitive and accessible banking system.

Between October 15, 2003 and January 15, 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued new Iraqi dinar coins and notes, with the notes printed using modern anti-forgery techniques, to “create a single unified currency that is used throughout all of Iraq and will also make money more convenient to use in people’s everyday lives. Old banknotes were exchanged for new at a one-to-one rate, except for the Swiss dinars, which were exchanged at a rate of 150 new dinars for one Swiss dinar.

The Central Bank of Iraq (Arabic: البنك المركزي العراقي) was established as Iraq’s independent central bank by the Central Bank of Iraq Law of March 6, 2004

– In 2011, the United States bombed the living daylights out of Libya.  Before Muammar Gaddafi was even overthrown, the U.S. helped the rebels establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company.

Central banks are specifically designed to trap nations in debt spirals from which they can never possibly escape.  Today, the debt to GDP ratio for the entire planet is up to an all-time high record of 286 percent.  Humanity is being enslaved by a perpetual debt machine, but most people are not even aware that it is happening.

It is time for an awakening.  We need to educate as many people as possible about why we need to get rid of the central banks.  For those living in the United States, my previous article entitled “On The 100th Anniversary Of The Federal Reserve Here Are 100 Reasons To Shut It Down Forever” is a good place to start.  In other countries, we need people to write similar articles about their own central banks in their own languages.

The global elite dominate us because we allow them to dominate us.  Their debt-based system greatly enriches them while it enslaves the remainder of the planet.  We need to expose their evil system and the dark agenda behind it while we still have time.

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

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

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


INTO A DARK NIGHT: THE END OF OBJECTIVE JOURNALISM AND THE RISE OF THE CORPORATE-MEDIA STATE

06/09/2015

http://www.newswithviews.com/Baruch/benjamin100.htm

PART 1 of 3

By Benjamin Baruch

June 9, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

The Industrial Age ended in the 1960’s with the beginning of a new era which would be called the Information Age; an era which promised the liberation of humanity from a world of labor and economic hardship, and which heralded the dawn of a new age of knowledge, understanding and prosperity. The changes brought about by the Information Age are ultimately transforming the balance of power between the individual and our social institutions as more information is now available to everyone, yet control of this information is accumulating in the hands of an increasingly small group of global corporations. The impact of this concentration of media power is altering the very soul of our society while also changing the relationship between these corporations and the state.

One the most profound changes have been the impact upon the profession of Journalism and its primary domain, the media. Modern journalism evolved during the enlightenment, based upon the core principles that mankind is by nature basically good, rational and intelligent, and that men can differentiate between what is important from what is irrelevant, what is good from what is bad, and ultimately between truth and lies or what may be more appropriately called propaganda. These core principles were codified in the standards of professional journalism which include truth, accuracy, reliability, balance and objectivity termed the Journalist Model. In essence, “the nature of journalism is to seek the truth.”[1]

The Information Age has brought about fundamental changes to the Journalist Model and to the world of media; with the most profound being the complete transfer of dominant media power from the written journalistic forms (newspapers, periodicals and books) to the elevation of television as the uncontested monopoly over what is today called mainstream media. It is through the medium of television that the most profound changes in the Journalist Model have occurred.

THE TOTAL DOMINANCE OF TELEVISION

The total dominance of television as a media monopoly cannot be overstated. To this point, Chris Hedges in his book, The Empire of Illusion writes: “Television, a medium built around the skillful manipulation of images, ones that can overpower reality, is our primary form of mass communication… Television speaks in a language of familiar, comforting clichés and exciting images. Its format, from reality shows to sit-coms, is predictable. It provides a mass, virtual experience that colors the way many people speak and interact with one another. It creates a false sense of intimacy with our elite – celebrity actors, news people, politicians, business tycoons, and sports stars. And everything and everyone that television transmits is validated and enhanced by the medium. If a person is not seen on television, on some level he or she is not important. Television confers authority and power. It is the final arbitrator for what matters in life.”[2]

Television and the advancing technologies of the Information Age have murdered objective journalism; It died a martyr’s death, going silently into the night, somewhere between the first Gulf War and the disaster marathon coverage of the attack on 911, while only a few seemed to observe its passing. Experts in media studies noted the death of the editorial function, the loss of objectivity and editorial inquiry as the media format of television news has evolved into a type of Reality TV show, exemplified by the “Disaster Marathon” news reporting and the now all too common “Breaking News” genre.

The public no longer watches the news to understand the day’s events, but rather is glued to television’s live footage to experience the news; objective analysis, editorial review, or even understanding the context of the new is no longer relevant. The public only desires to experience the profound video footage, sharing the emotional impact of events, or the pain of the victims, while gazing at the high definition images of the latest disaster event, whether natural or man-made.

As the technology of television has advanced, viewers are now treated to a “real life experience” of the news. Up close and personal, the events are viewed as if “live” in the viewer’s own living room, and as the volume of news sources has grown exponentially; from CNN and the other devoted news networks, to the video footage captured by the latest citizen reporting on the smart phone or video camera, the public is exposed to an avalanche of news images which has left them adrift in a flood of high tech news content, enabling the viewer to see and hear, and even “feel” the events, just like being there.

Lost within this sensory overload of images which are largely understood only for their emotional content is any objective analysis of what is actually happening. And rarely do any of the national media sources ever deviate from the official narrative explaining the color images flashing in front of the viewer’s eyes. The world where “less is more” has been replaced with a world where “more” is now the goal of news content; more spectacular video footage, more breaking news, more live action and more emotion framing yet, in reality, “more” has become a disaster.

Kampf writes: “Viewers and internet users around the globe follow events, literally and metaphorically, on ‘wide’ and ‘flat’ screens, in ‘high definition’. Paradoxically, as we will show, the better the quality of viewing, the less the understanding of what we see.”[3] “To cite Martin Bell, the admired British journalist, in contemporary television coverage of armed conflict, “the screens become screens also in the traditional sense of blocking the view and filtering out the light”.[4]

SAY GOOD NIGHT TO THE EDITORS

Also lost to viewers’ attention is the profound absence of editorial content in the steady flow of the daily news. The editor, whose role was central to maintaining the balance of objectivity in the Journalistic model, has been lost. And once the center failed to hold, the whole model was easily destroyed.

“The success of CNN is the symbol of failure… it represents the beginning of the end of journalism as we have known it… it also uses the satellite to distribute the news as quickly as possible. At first glance, this sounds like the ideal deployment of the new media technology. The only trouble is that it eliminates the editor. Rather than collecting information and trying to make sense of it in time for the evening news broadcast, the CNN ideal is to do simultaneous, almost-live editing, or better yet, no editing at all. CNN journalism almost wants to be wrong.”[5]

Kampf states, “The move to television had a massive impact on the profession …. It did not take long for journalists to understand that the order of the day has become authenticity, live action and drama, all of which have contributed to creating a new model, that we entitle ‘performance journalism’. In the new environment, ‘liveness’, the moving image, and the penetrating voice, replace the printed word. It is an environment of images, not of letters; of stories, not of issues; of people, emotions and actions, and not of cognitive analysis.”[6]

THE CORPORATE-MEDIA STATE – A GLOBAL NEWS MONOPOLY

Beyond the move to television and the transition from objective journalism to emotional reporting, live action and drama; another more powerful change was occurring outside of the view of most observers. Globalist corporations have been consolidating ownership of the world’s major news organizations. Even more alarming than the consolidation of global media power into the hands of a few organizations is the fact that 18 out of the top 20 global media giants are also corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a private globalist think tank, whose openly stated agenda is the promotion of a global government, which by definition necessitates the subversion of state sovereignty, along with the advocacy of a global socialist agenda. The executives who control the global media giants also share membership within several of the world’s secret societies such as the Skull and Bones Fraternity and the various globalists groups such as The Bilderberg Group.

“The Bilderberg membership is made up of Kings, Queens, Princes, Chancellors, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Ambassadors, Secretaries of State, Wall Street investors, international bankers, news media executives, and wealthy industrialist. Their meetings are by ‘invitation only’, and no ‘outsiders’ are allowed, except by special invitation… the news media are always present at these meetings. Even though the media moguls attend these secret meetings, they do not file reports about the Elite Bilderberg activities during their meetings.”[7]

“For over 14 years, Daniel Estulin investigated and researched the Bilderberg Group’s far-reaching influence … in his book, ‘The True Story of the Bilderberg Group’ he reveals the Group is ‘a shadow world government…. Bilderbergers want to supplant individual nation-state sovereignty with an all-powerful global government, corporate controlled, and check-mated by militarized enforcement…. The global media giants control everything we see, hear and read – through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, films, and large portions of the Internet. Their top officials and some journalists attend Bilderberg meetings – on condition they report nothing.”[8]

“The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly.”[9]

Scholars in the media field argue the end of objective journalism is the result of many factors: commercialism of the news, competition for ratings, and the new technologies which support an action oriented “live reporting” of the news. Each of these factors have clearly influenced the change in format, but it is the global media corporations who, having consolidated ownership of the global media, now control virtually all content; they now have direct control over the news content and media format, which has by design, killed objective journalism.

Hedges states this quite clearly: “Corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch, or hear. It imposes a bland uniformity of opinion. It diverts us with trivia and celebrity gossip… Television journalism is largely a farce. Celebrity reporters, masquerading as journalists make millions a year and give a platform to the powerful and the famous so they can spin, equivocate, and lie. Sitting in a studio, putting on makeup, and chatting with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Lawrence Summers has little to do with journalism.”[10]

“Russert, like Cramer, when exposed as complicit in the dissemination of misinformation [propaganda], attempted to portray himself as an innocent victim, as did New York Times reporter Judy Miller, who, along with her colleague Michael Gordon, worked largely as stenographers for the Bush White House during the propaganda campaign to invade Iraq. Once the administration claims justifying the war had been exposed as falsehoods, Miller quipped that she was ‘only as good as my sources.’ This logic upends the traditional role of reporting, which should always begin with the assumption that those in power have an agenda and are rarely bound to the truth. All governments lie, as I.F. Stone pointed out, and it is the job of the journalist to do the hard, tedious reporting to expose these lies. It is the job of courtiers to feed off the scraps tossed to them by the powerful and serve the interests of the power elite.”[11]

The corporate elite, who now control the major media organizations and the news disseminated within the global media, destroyed objective journalism for a reason: they wanted to replace it with a new media format based upon, and designed around, the science of propaganda, with the express purpose, of altering not only public opinion, but the understanding and belief systems of the public as well. As we shall from the evidence below, the content changes have gone far beyond mere propaganda, all the way to the introduction of new media methods more appropriately described as systems of hypnosis or mind control.

Click here for part —–> 1,

© 2015 Benjamin Baruch – All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

  1. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Striking the Balance, Audience Interests, Business Pressures and Journalists’ Values, March 30, 1999, p1.
    2.Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (New York: Nation Books, July 2009), p 45.
    3. Zohar Kampf and Tamar Liebes, Transforming Media Coverage of Violent Conflicts: The New Face of War Draft version 13 January 2013, p8.
    4. , M. (1998) ‘The Journalism of Attachment’ In M. Kieran (ed.) Media Ethics, London: Routledge, 15-22.
    5. Elihu Katz, Hebrew University of Jerusalem , The End of Journalism? Notes on Watching the War, Journa1 of Communication, Summer 1992 p 9.
    6. Zohar Kampf and Tamar Liebes, Transforming Media Coverage of Violent Conflicts: The New Face of War Draft version 13 January 2013, p29.
    7. Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr, The brief descriptions of the major Elite organizations, the Bilderbergs (BB), Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Trilateral Commission (TC).
    8. Stephen Lendman, The True story of the Bilderberg Group, Global Research, May 15, 2013.
    9. Corporate Medias Threat to Democracy, Quote by Noam Chomsky, American linguist and US media critic.
    10. Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, New York: Nation Books, July 2009, p 169.
    11. Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, New York: Nation Books, July 2009, p 174.

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

 

Benjamin Baruch is a professional financial advisor, author and public speaker.

Benjamin Baruch is the author of the best-selling book; “The Day of the LORD is at Hand.” First released in 1998, it immediately became an underground best-seller, with over 20,000 copies sold. The 7th Edition was released in December, 2014 and includes insight into the today’s major news headlines including the crisis in the Ukraine, and the growing wars of the Middle East. Benjamin also uncovers what has been occurring behind the closed doors of power in the United States offering the reader a clear view of what our rulers are doing in the dark.

Benjamin’s has recently released his second book, a seven volume series; entitled “Search the Scriptures Volume One: Out of the Darkness” which is now available at Amazon.com.

Benjamin Baruch is a Chartered Financial Analyst and a Certified Public Accountant and is a financial advisor to some of the largest privately held real estate companies in America. His academic background includes studies in International Finance and Economics at UCLA and graduate studies in the Middle East conflict at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel. Benjamin is a recognized expert in real estate taxation, and his professional experience includes the management of institutional investment portfolios. For more information, or to book Benjamin for a speaking or media appearance, please contact him through his website.

Amazon authors page: Benjamin Baruch, Author

Website: BenjaminBaruch.net

E-Mail: bbaruch@hughes.net

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Out of all the crap I have subjected my mind to these last ten years, this article freaks me out, and scares the crap out of me. I have long ago noticed the difference in young people and their near lack of appreciation for the written word, and I can now believe that television has already grown into a machine that removes the humanity from the humans. We are now producing a species of intellectual robots. This never to be reversed atrocity is more than enough to justify dragging these bastards behind a truck until all that’s left is the rope.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Before Things Get Out of Hand Judge Anna von Reitz

06/08/2015

https://ourgreaterdestiny.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/before-things-get-out-of-hand-judge-anna-von-reitz/

Posted by Doreen Agostino

It is CRUCIAL that everyone understand the basic structure that was created by the Founders and which has endured ever since. – Judge Anna von Reitz

There are two entities called “the United States” — the Continental United States  comprised of fifty (50) geographically defined nation states acting as a federation

(the “United States of America” was never a sovereign nation, just a business association, folks.  It’s the land-based States that are separate sovereign nations.) and the Federal United States comprised of fifty-seven (57) states—the fifty  Federal States plus the Federal Territories and Possessions which are counted as “States” of their union which is supposed to operate exclusively in the international jurisdiction of the sea.

  • Continental United States50 Separate Nation States operating “as” a nation on the land jurisdiction.
  • Federal United States50 Incorporated Franchises of the “United States of America, Inc.” operating the international jurisdiction of the sea, plus seven “nation states” — Guam, Puerto Rico, etc., operating as “the United States of America (Minor)”—for a total of 57 states.

This is the way it is, and the way it has always been.

The Federales and their “Federal State” agents are not supposed to be trespassing on our land jurisdiction, except to serve and take care of and monitor their own citizens and attending to their duties as contractors.

The confusion and the fraud began in earnest in 1911 when banks operating as a private association of banks  deceitfully calling themselves the “Federal Reserve” bought the “United States of America, Inc.” –a governmental services corporation—and took over the agencies of the Federal United States.  They literally bought such familiar agencies as the “United States Department of Transportation” and began operating them as subcontractors without telling anyone.

They then proceeded to pull off a criminal fraud gambit against the whole nation—and eventually the entire world— beginning with the “Federal Reserve Act of 1913” and continuing through the 1933 bankruptcy  of the “United States of America, Inc.” to the present day.

The United States  defined as “…the District of Columbia et alia” went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt in Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and finally, as consolidated in Executive Order 6260,

(See: Senate Report 93-549, pages 187 & 594) under the “Trading With The Enemy Act” (Sixty-Fifth Congress,  Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a.

The several Federal “States of the Union”—purely incorporated political fictions created as franchises of the United States of America, Inc.,  represented by their respective Governors pledged the “full faith and credit” of their States and their citizenry, to the aid of the National Government represented by the “United States of America, Inc.”, and formed numerous committees, such as the “Council of State Governments”, the “Social Security Administration”, etc., to purportedly deal with the economic “Emergency” caused by the bankruptcy. These organizations operated under the “Declaration of Interdependence” of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in “The Book of the States.”

The Reorganization of the bankruptcy is located in Title 5 of the United States Code Annotated. The “Explanation” at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading.  The “Secretary of Treasury” was appointed as the “Receiver” in Bankruptcy.  (See: Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903,  Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967)  As a Bankrupt loses control over his business, this appointment to the “Office of Receiver” in bankruptcy had to have been made by the “creditors” who are “foreign powers or principals”. As revealed by Title 27 USC 250.11 and elsewhere, the “Secretary of the Treasury” being referenced is the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, an Officer of the Federal United States who was designated as the “Receiver” in bankruptcy by the Foreign Creditors (banks).

The United States as Corporator, (22 U.S.C.A. 286E, et seq.) and “State” (C.R.S. 24-36- 104, C.R.S.  24-60-1301(h)) declared “Insolvency” according to 26 I.R.C.  165(g)(1), U.C.C.  1-201(23), C.R.S. 39-22–103.5, Westfall vs.  Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509, Adams vs. Richardson, 337 S.W.  2d 911; Ward vs. Smith, 7 Wall. 447)

A permanent state of “Emergency” was instituted within the Union and the Federal Reserve has acted as the “fiscal and depository agent” of the “creditors” ever since. Please note that the member banks of the Federal Reserve are all privately owned corporations, 22 U.S.C.A. 286d.

The government, by becoming a “corporator” (See:  22 U.S.C.A. 286e)  lays down its sovereignty and takes on that character and status of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter.  (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.  Ed. (9 Wheat) 244, U.S. vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242).  

The Corporate Charter adopted by the “federal corporation”, aka, US Corp, included

the Constitution of the United States of America

as its By-Laws, which are of course, as By-Laws subject to change and interpretation just like any other corporate By-Laws. The Constitution of the United States of America also remains as a public commercial contract which is being “traded upon” by corporations claiming to be successors and holders in due course of the original contractual agreement known as

The Constitution for the united States of America.

The real party in interest in the bankruptcy proceedings is self-evidently not the de jure “United States of America” or “State”, but “The Bank” and “The Fund.”  (22 U.S.C.A. 286, et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103) These acts committed under fraud, force, and seizure are many times done under “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” i.e. “recapture.” (See: 31 U.S.C.A. 5323)  in behalf of Foreign governments at war. This is an important point to remember as this discussion goes forward in time.
On March 17, 1993, on page 1303 of Volume 33 of the Congressional Record, Congressman Traficant stated:  “Mr. Speaker, We are now here in Chapter 11.  Members of Congress are official Trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.”

The “U.S. government” is the government domiciled in the District of Columbia, which at various times purports to represent three distinct entities:

  1. the US Corporation formed as we have just seen and as documented at Title 28, 3002, (15) (A) (B) (C),
  2. the Continental United States defined as the 50 States United –a confederation of separate nation states operating the land jurisdiction, and
  3. the Federal United States defined as the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, et alia along with the corporate franchise “Federal States” set up in each of the land-based states. In this comment Congressman Traficant was including all three primary meanings of “U.S. Government” as the term “General Government” or “U.S. Government” with a capital “G” is traditionally used in the Congressional Record when this meaning is applied—-however, and this is the supremely salient point,

there is no indication that the Several (now) 50 States United were ever bankrupted except as “presumed” voluntary adjuncts.

FDR and his Buddies pulled the semantic deceit of all time.

The actual entity in bankruptcy in 1933 was the foreign government of the Federal United States allowed under the Downes and Bidwell decision and several other Supreme Court cases known as the Insular Tariff Cases circa1900-1904. Like “South America” these Federal “states” can claim to be “American” and they can form a “Union” of their own—and they did so.  They have been operating as “the United States of America (Minor)” and as a “constitutional Democracy” since the 1980’s.

The problem with a Constitutional Democracy is that if 51% of your neighbors want to eat you for breakfast or steal your home, they can do so—and that is the form of government operating in the Federal United States now.

We, the people inhabiting the Continental United States are owed a Republican form of government which upholds the sacred rights of individuals and abhors mob rule. And therein lies the rub.  That, and the gross deceit involved in having two separate nations operating under the same umbrella by the same group of people (the “United States Congress”) and under virtually the same name.

Often, the only way you can tell the two entities apart is the word “the”.  It’s The United States of America (Major) and the United States of America (Minor).

Using the same name, “United States of America” allowed a great deal of self-interested confusion and corruption, including Confusion at Law.
Its immediate effect during the onset of the bankruptcy of the Federal United States was to transfer control of these States and –completely by semantic deceit and misrepresentation—the de jure Continental United States, too,  as they appeared to be named as parties to the bankruptcy— into the hands of the Creditors (the Federal Reserve Banks and later IMF and IBRD) and their Agents administering the bankruptcy under the authority the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

The perpetrators of this plot deliberately misrepresented their Employers— the landed States and the Continental State Citizens as “voluntary sureties” for the debts of the bankrupted “United States of America, Inc.”—-without telling us one word about it, without making any clear and honest disclosure of the circumstance, without even admitting that an international banking cartel had interjected itself as a “middleman” between the actual States and People who pay all the bills of the Federal United States and the agencies responsible for carrying out the duties owed.

This “misunderstanding on purpose” allowed the banks to loan the perpetrators vast sums of credit—which the banks created out of thin air merely by entering numbers on a credit ledger— based on the assets of all the States – Continental and Federal — and all the people — Continental State Citizens and Federal Citizens, too.   All this credit made available to the “United States Congress” was based on hypothecation of the perpetrator’s debts against the assets of the States and their “citizenry”.
Hypothecation is a stealthy process by which the perpetrators pretend that a Third Party has “volunteered”  to stand good for a loan for one of the originators.  Think of co-signing a car loan for Cousin Billy Bob—without ever being told that you and your property were ever offered as collateral backing his debts.    The bank quietly takes a lien against your property on the “presumption” that you have agreed to pay the bill for Billy Bob if he doesn’t pay off his own loan.  That is exactly what the Federal Reserve did in 1933.  It placed maritime salvage liens against every “person” and real asset in America, “securitized” them— that is, placed a dollar value on you and your land and your State—and loaned the Congress all sorts of vacuous credit based on your assets and your labor.

Another way to imagine this situation is to assume that a big corporation with lots of franchise operations –say something like Burger King or Sears—went bankrupt and offered its customers and their assets as collateral backing its debts.   The colluding Federal Reserve Banks eagerly agreed to this scheme, full-well knowing that none of the supposed “Sureties” had been informed under conditions of full-disclosure and consent.   They did it anyway in criminal collusion.

The result now is fully recognized under The Doctrine of Odious Debt. 

The supposed “debt” owed by the States on the land and the American people was created by blatant criminal fraud of which they were unaware and from which they did not profit.

The proceeds of this cozy arrangement between the Congress, the “government agencies” and the Federal Reserve Banks were poured into whatever projects the banks and their puppets in Congress wished to pursue for profit—

such as the entirety of World War II and all the nasty, unjustified wars-for-profit that the “United States” has engaged in ever since.

The people never received even the goods and services they contracted for, but all expenses related to this fraud scheme were nonetheless charged off to their account and held against their labor and assets—their land, their homes, their vehicles, even their body parts.

So, folks—-“odious debt” is debt of exactly the kind described above and neither the Continental United States nor the people living in the fifty (50) States are responsible for it.   The corporations and institutions and corporate officers who created and benefited from this mess are 100% liable and we are not obligated to care if they like it or not.  It is their mess and theirs alone.

Furthermore, they are not allowed to use credit and assets that they purloined and siphoned off from the Continental United States and the people to pay all the debts they authorized above and beyond the nineteen enumerated services they were supposed to provide the States under the original equity contract known as “The Constitution for the united States of America”— a completely different kind of document apart from the deceptively and similarly named “Constitution of the United States of America”.

These hyenas siphoned off the vast credit created by the labor and resources of the Continental United States and the people on the land and passed it on to “secondaries”—- which they named as our fiduciaries—conveniently without telling us and instead telling us and the rest of the world that we are bowed under by a vast $20 trillion dollar National Debt.
Their corporation no doubt owes us a $20 trillion dollar credit —  which they are trying to avoid paying by shuffling off their assets to collaborators and seeking bankruptcy protection for themselves—but we are on to their ploys now and heading down the home stretch.

We know where the credit side of the “National Debt” went and we have filed UCC-1 claims to tell the rest of the world the truth.   We know the lies and chicanery that the banks and the members of Congress engaged in and the false, unauthorized misrepresentations that these criminals made “in our behalf” while pretending to “represent” us.
We are now presenting ourselves.

To bring things up to modern times, the Federal Reserve (Association) bankrupted The Federal Reserve System, Inc. in 2009.  Prior to that the colluding banks and “government agencies” divvied up the spoils.   The Federal Reserve kept the liquid assets, land, and human chattels and gave hard assets (gold) to the World Bank/IBRD as their share.
Then in 2011, China remembered that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was holding a large stash of Nationalist Chinese gold from 1928 that had never been returned, so they raised their hand about the gold owed and the interest on that gold.  This made everyone else remember the German gold held by the same bank, and hey, what about all the gold “confiscated” from Americans by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his thugs?

Ah, so….

The hunt was on.  And the World Bank/IBRD were and are in the most uncomfortable position of being in receipt of stolen goods— gold stolen from us and many, many others over the last 150 years. 

The Federal Reserve was on the hot plate too— still is.

Money and credit don’t just “disappear”, though the bankers would like us to believe that.  In a debt-credit system there is a credit created somewhere for every debit.   And we, the American States on the land and the living people inhabiting those (50) States are the Priority Creditors of this whole shooting match.
and you
The witless thugs in Washington, DC right now are intent on saving their bacon, somehow retaining their ability to create and borrow more and more and more “money” out of thin air, and continuing to charge it all off against the labor of the American people.  They haven’t realized yet that the game is up, but the bankers have.

Yesterday, (March 18) it was reported that the “IMF and China” are discussing making the yuan the international reserve currency instead of the dollar—- please bear in mind that the “U.S. Treasury” is the IMF, which is an agency of the UNITED NATIONS, CORPORATION.   See Presidential Documents Volume 29—No. 4, page 113, and 22 USC 285-288.
READ THAT AS:  The U.S. Treasury is talking to China about buying into the BRICS alliance and accepting the yuan as the new international reserve currency to do it.

Once again, as always, the rats in Washington are intent on selling the American people out in order to preserve their own hegemony, and to avoid paying their own debts to their actual creditors— us.

It isn’t going to work, because too many people know the truth.  More are learning every day.  The days when the Good Ole Boys could go to Jekyll Island and secretly plot the downfall of our nation for their private benefit are gone.  No matter what they do, we know who they are, we know what they have done, we know how they operate, we know all their tricks and excuses and relationships with other corporations and criminal syndicates—-and they stand utterly exposed.

Pope Francis recently announced that an International Year of Jubilee will begin on December 8, 2015—that is, 74 years and one day after Pearl Harbor.   This is an Ancient Hebrew practice.  Every 70 years all debts were forgiven and those who had lost their ancestral land through indebtedness were allowed to return and reclaim it.

That is a big step in the right direction, however, it is not truly equitable and it does not solve the continuing problem of operating governments as corporations.
All these various governments on Earth are incorporated entities (with a very few exceptions, like the governments of North Korea and Iran) and they are all incorporated as governmental services corporations under the auspices of the Holy See and the Vatican.  The majority of these governmental service corporations –especially those associated with the British Crown— have knowingly functioned as criminal syndicates and have preyed upon the people they are supposed to serve.  By the Pope’s own published laws and rules, they must make amends and they must come into compliance with their charters—-or they will be liquidated and their assets will be distributed to their creditors.

Period.

So what happens if the current brand new kid on the block calling itself “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.” and being operated by a newly reconstituted “FEDERAL RESERVE” being operated as a franchise of the “UNITED NATIONS, CORPORATION” is just more of the same old rubbish?  —As it appears to be?

Then the pathways lead to Rome once again.

We must make these facts and circumstances absolutely clear to the “County” boards and the “State” legislatures and the “Governors” of these Federal States, so that they have a clear view of what has gone on here, so that they have no excuse for failure to understand the situation, and so that they recognize their obligation —not to a mostly foreign-owned, for-profit governmental services corporation — but to the land jurisdiction and the people who have been so outrageously abused.

First, they must stop usurping upon the land jurisdiction and pretending that Americans of the land jurisdiction have voluntarily accepted the status of “Federal Citizens”—- nobody we know volunteered to give up their birthright status and the guarantees of the original Constitution in favor of debt slavery to foreign commercial corporations.

Second, they must honor the equity contract they are trading upon— The Constitution for the united States of America”—which includes honoring the Bill of Rights, providing lawful money for the use of the States on the land and their inhabitants, facilitating the people’s access to their resources and their own Common Law Courts without obfuscation or delay, ceasing all false claims of indebtedness against the property and assets of the people who employ them, and immediately correcting the citizenship status of all the Continental United States Citizens who were hoodwinked by the endless semantic deceits and fraud schemes.  All American State Citizens who have been convicted of so-called “victimless crimes” and “statutory infractions” and who claim their birthright status upon being fully informed must be released from Federal prisons and Federal State correctional facilities.

Third, they must reveal all the slush funds and pockets of credit and accounts that they have secreted away from public view via operation of a dishonest government accounting system.  The GAO has been operating under a  “double entry bookkeeping system”  — popularly known as “keeping two sets of books”.  This was a system pioneered by Al Capone’s accountant, Easy Eddy O’Hara.  That should be enough to tell you all what kind of “bookkeeping” it is, and why the governmental services corporation has to be brought back to good, old, common everyday accounting.

What they have done is simple enough. They have separated income into “budgeted” and “non-budgeted” income streams.   Then they cobble up a “budget” portion and let people fight over that, while the bulk of their income never sees the light of day.   They have also indulged in crazy accounting “factors”— such as calculating how much debt they will owe on a pension fund thirty years from now and claiming that as an expense this year.  The net effect is to hide vast amounts of investment wealth and real asset wealth from the people it actually belongs to, while the rats continue to poor-mouth about “budget deficits” that don’t exist in reality.

Fourth, there must be an end of harassment of American State Citizens under false pretenses by the IRS, FEMA, NHS, etc., and the Federal State Courts.   We are not under their jurisdiction and never have been.  Any pretension that we are is merely criminal self-interest and profit-extortion on their parts.  We have acted in good faith and shared our resources unstintingly with the “Federal Citizens” and it is now time for them to move over and let us get on with our business— which includes running our own “State” court system, our own Law Enforcement, our own Sheriffs, our own Law Guilds, etc.

Fifth, anyone who wants to exercise the powers of public office must actually occupy that office. That includes taking the proper Oath of Office as a deputy, not a “representative”.  Deputies are true fiduciary agents, operating under full individual and commercial liability.  They stand behind their actions in behalf of the public and if they fail their duties, their own protection is the bond placed in behalf of their office.  All these people who are now occupying “Federal State” corporate offices that are merely named the same or similar names as actual public offices have no authority to do anything either to or for anyone outside the narrow confines of the corporation itself.

It should be crystal clear to all that J.C. PENNY employees are not allowed to go onto private property and evict people from their homes.  It should also be clear that nobody but Walmart employees are obligated to obey the policies, procedures, rules  and regulations of Walmart, Inc.

In the same way, we are NOT obligated to obey “Federal State” courts about any matter whatsoever, and we are only obligated to obey Federal Courts when the subject matter involves their jurisdiction or a crime took place on Federal property.   This is true now and it has always been true. The rats have finagled to misrepresent us as one of “their” citizens instead of honoring our true birthright status because this enabled them to continue their false claims of indebtedness against us and our property.  They have been loath to admit the truth and stand down, but that is what is required of them.  They must make the effort— the honest effort— to determine the birthright status of each and every man and woman and those who were born on the land of the American States must be accorded their due.

Now, when the options are fully disclosed, and the jurisdictions are made plain, each man and woman is free to choose whether they wish to operate as State Citizens on the land, or as Dual Citizens of the United States.   Your ability to contract is unlimited.

If you want to agree to be a debt slave and donate all your labor and property to a mostly foreign-owned, for-profit corporation— there is nothing stopping you.   If, however, you wish to retain your birthright status, that is what you are owed and any pretension otherwise is a violation of human rights of the worst kind.

One of the peculiar truths is that the Federal United States operating “our” international jurisdiction of the sea has been at war since the outbreak of the Civil War.  All their personnel ultimately operate under the Lieber Code, which baldly declared (Article 40 and 41) that “All laws are suspended…”  —-and they are all prosecuted under Martial Common Law.  That is the other Draconian Law form that has been misapplied to American State Citizens as part of this gargantuan fraud scheme—- administrative law (statutes and regulations) that is only the internal “law” of the corporation(s) involved, and secondly, martial common law.
This is what is called “Special Admiralty” or “Executive Admiralty” —- it is international Law of War and in these “COURTS” the perpetrators of the fraud drag innocent American Civilians in on the pretense that they are “enemy combatants” or “Prisoners of War” and proceed to do whatever they like to them.   This is the source of the gold-fringed flag in the Federal and Federal State Courtrooms.

This practice of claiming that Continental United States civilians are instead Federal Citizens has resulted in systemic, chronic war crime and abuse of the civilian populace on a vast scale. 

It is a terrible infraction against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and against the Universal Right of Self-Declaration –both of which the Federal United States is obligated to honor, but even more important, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention Protocols of 1949, Volume II, Article 3, which makes it a war crime punishable by death to change the nationality of civilians.

Please note that President Andrew Jackson three times publically declared the Continental United States to be at peace.  He admitted that the land jurisdiction is at peace and it has been at peace for 150 years.  All the living inhabitants of the land are known to be civilians and the military full-well knows that the civilian authorities—meaning the people on the land operating their nation states—are the only ones competent to direct the American military under the American System.

As stated at the beginning— the “united States of America” is a federation of actual nation states and has never been a sovereign nation.   The  Federal  United States  operates a foreign, international jurisdiction of the sea that has no right or reason to be involved in the affairs of the Continental United States on the land.

The United States of America, Inc., the UNITED STATES (INC.), and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. are all big commercial corporations and  in nature and status are no different than any other large corporation.   Think Exxon.  Think GE.

It follows that the only entities competent to Declare War are the individual States on the land, as they are the ONLY “nation states” present here and also that the only civilians present competent to direct the Armed Forces of this country are the Citizens of the united States of America—that is, citizens of the Continental United States who are serving as properly sworn Deputies of the States, not employees of any “federal corporation” and not “Federal State Citizens”, either.

When the “President” isn’t  a Natural-born Citizen of the Continental United States acting as a duly sworn Deputy of the united States of America, when he or she is a Bar Association Member accepting the Title of “Esquire” (forbidden under the Original Equity contract), or who adopts Dual “Federal Citizenship” (also forbidden) and ceases to be a fiduciary officer of the Continental United States—- he has no right to command any American State Citizen to do anything, much less command them go to a foreign country and kill people.

It isn’t possible for a federation of States to act as a sovereign nation, nor is it possible for a corporation to “Declare War” except in fanciful and euphemistic terms.   Period.  
No member of the United States Congress has acted as a lawful Deputy of any of the Continental United States since the Civil War, therefore nobody in Washington, DC since that time has had the right to Declare War in behalf of any State of the Union, no “Commander in Chief” has had any lawful standing to Declare War as a result of Congress’s inability to do so.
Every single “war” and action declared since 1860 has been a “police action” and there is no reason nor is there any basis for Americans to tolerate this circumstance any longer. 

Our sons and daughters have been sent to slaughter in wars for profit engaged in by criminals who have manipulated governmental services corporations behind the scenes and pulled off an illusion of authority that neither the Federal United States nor the various federal corporations possess.   Our armed forces have been commandeered to operate as commercial mercenary forces in the thrall of private business interests— and we have been paying for, staffing, funding, and supporting this circumstance—and we have been extorted and fleeced and imprisoned by our employees when we objected.

Enough of this nonsense. 

Every American with eyes, ears, nose, and a brain needs to come forward and tip off the other Americans—- ALL Americans.  This has been foisted off on us primarily by the British government and the City State of Westminster, the Crown Temple, and the Lords of the Admiralty. 

The Popes from 1845 to 2009 (Benedict XVI and Francis have done the right thing) and the British Monarchs are particularly to blame for the gross Breach of Trust and Disservice and Dishonorable behavior they have exhibited and permitted against Americans, Canadians, Aussies,  English, Scottish, Irish, Japanese, German, and many other people throughout the world.

Contrary to the British veneer of civility, they have proven to be rapacious and unrepentant predators upon the rest of the humanity and their government is monotonously at the root of all the evil and violence perpetuated throughout the world.   It isn’t enough to say that the British Government is not America’s friend now or ever.  The British Government has not been a friend to any other nation and has raped and pillaged its own people for the better part of three centuries.

The Brits are always at the bottom of the dog pile when one searches diligently for the source of the discord and violence and there they will secretively remain until we and all the other people on Earth recognize the problem and recognize it for what it is: Satan worship, which has always been identified with the jurisdiction of the sea.

In pagan times, Satan was personified as Poseidon, the God of the Sea—scaly tail, horns, trident and all.   Where does the Great Serpent lie?  In the sea.  Who is his henchman?  The Leviathan.

It is all clear enough.  Let those with eyes, see.  Some of those who live in the jurisdiction of the sea still worship the god of the sea.  Many of the complaints of child molestation, ritual sacrifice, and related crimes bear this out— because these things were all part and parcel of the “worship” of the Satanic Mystery Babylon Cult and always have been.

Worship of Poseidon/Satan/The God of the Sea is always in tandem with worship of his consort, Semiramis/Isis/Cybele.  

Semiramis is a Babylonian goddess famous for promoting idolatry, harlotry, and all the “abominations of the earth”—-portrayed as a naked fertility goddess with rays of light coming out of her head— just like the Statue of Liberty, just like the Columbia Pictures icon, “ColumbiaGoddess of Democracy”.

“Isis” is just the Egyptian version of Semiramis—- so, why, you must ask, are we being conned to believe in a supposedly Muslim terrorist organization named “ISIS”—–???  Obviously, no Muslim in his right mind is going to join or support an organization named after a Babylonian-Egyptian fertility goddess.  It’s absurd and obviously true.  Any group calling itself “ISIS” is Satanic in nature and its members are Satanists, not Muslims—- yet not a single member of the American Press Corps is raising their hand to ask, “WTF?”

This is because American media is absolutely controlled across the board by six multi-national media conglomerates— all of them foreign, and all but one run by Satanists.

We Americans have made every mistake there is to be made.  We’ve been asleep at the wheel  like Rip Van Winkle.  We’ve been chumps, marks, idiot savants.  We’ve been sheep, goats, cattle and everything else for these vampire-like and evil men—-the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the rest of the bankers and the members of Congress and the members of the “American” military who have stood around with their thumbs up their rectums and played host to this.

It’s all true.  It’s all known.  It’s all verified.  No doubt about it all, whatsoever—-but we can wake up.   Earth to Sleeping Giant!   Wake up!  Pass the word!

These brief pages encapsulate just about all that a thinking, breathing American needs to know about the present situation and the history and Who’s Who of it. This information provides plenty of information and references you can research for yourselves— and you are fully encouraged to dig, dig, dig.

Bring more of the pieces of the puzzle forward and nail it down.  The house is built, now all we are doing is finishing the paint.

It’s because other Americans before you have researched and dug and worked hideous long hours under conditions of threat— often going hungry, being ridiculed, losing their homes, suffering imprisonment, or in too many cases being murdered outright— that you have this document  in your hand.  While everyone else slept, groups of Americans all over this country were awake and alarmed and working feverishly to uncover their piece of the puzzle.

Now it has finally come together.  You have this thumbnail version handed to you for free. Honor the sacrifice.  Do your due diligence and then, come forward.  This is your country, your nation states.
Expose the rats.  Denounce the fraud.  Gather your brethren together.  Explain it all. There will be no great need to prove that you have all been victims of this con game.  You all remember when you were told that you “had to” sign up for Social Security in order to have a job in America—-a BIG Fat Lie.  You all remember when the vampires came and snatched your children at the hospital—forcing you to sign paperwork that they never explained, but which handed over ownership of your children as chattel belonging to a foreign, for-profit corporation.

You remember being forced to get a license to travel in your own car from Point A to Point A and another license to get married….

A “license” is official permission to do something that is otherwise illegal….

Illegal to travel?  Illegal to marry?  Because you and your family are being “mistaken” as Prisoners of War and Enemy Combatants in a war that ended 150 years ago.  You are being “administered” under martial law that doesn’t pertain to you and which never has pertained to you and yours.  And it is all because some criminal elements in the banking industry committed the fraud of all time against you and every other American and because the members of the criminal “Congress” have refused to declare peace.  THEY have promoted and prolonged and advocated war, war, war for profit for themselves and their banker buddies at your expense for 150 years and they claim that they “represent” you.

Do they?  Maybe it’s time you let them know that they don’t represent you and that if they don’t do their job and declare peace, they will never represent you.  They might represent Jacob Rothchild and they might represent David Rockefeller and they might represent Queen Mab, but they do not and they will never represent you.  And because of that fact, you are under no obligation to pay them a brass farthing ever again.

They want to “securitize” you?  Well, Johnny, maybe it’s time to “securitize” them—seize their assets, nationalize their holdings, lock down the Golden Boys of Wall Street tighter than Ten-Penny Drums.  Arrest the “judges” that are sitting as imposters on your bench if they won’t admit the truth and play ball and open up the Public Court that the people of this country are owed.  Just do it. Order the Clerk and the Bailiff to arrest that man as an imposter.  Charge him with impersonating a Judge of the Continental United States, specifically the ______State, such as “Colorado State Court” or “Iowa State Court”.

Explain these facts to the local sheriff and his deputies, to the local provost marshal and the judges and the court clerks and the members of your “state” legislature. Ask them which “County” and which “State” they represent?

Explain this to some of the lawyers you know who have been so proud to carry a Bar Association Card.  Ask them why they are putting up with this and betraying their own families, friends, and neighbors?  Why are they working for the Federal United States when they could just as easily work for the Continental United States?   All they have to do is tear up their Bar Card and foreswear the title of “Esquire”.   Whoopee-Ding-Dong, right?

Stop being attorneys “at” law and start being attorneys “in” law.

The Bar Associations have operated as closed union shops for three generations and gotten away with fleecing their members and demanding that lawyers go along with all this fraud and “keep silent” about it, or be threatened with fines, “disbarment”, abuse from the judges, or worse.

If the “American” Bar Association and the “State” Bar Associations won’t listen to reason and come to heel, it is time to outlaw them— they have all functioned as criminal syndicates on our shores and in violation of the treaties that allow them to operate here at all.
American lawyers are the ones who should be leading the pack and bringing this destruction to an end.  They should be burning their Bar Cards like feminists burned bras, if they want any credibility or respect as advocates of the Rule of Law.

With or without a Bar Card they have every right to use our court buildings and facilities and to operate our lawful Public Courts.  They are completely competent to set up their own fraternal organizations that don’t worship Satan, tell lies, and commit crime in the sanctity of a courtroom.

Start the ball rolling.  Now.

SOURCE with thanks http://scannedretina.com/2015/03/19/before-things-get-out-of-hand-judge-anna-von-reitz/

Sincerely,
Doreen Ann Agostino
non-negotiable autograph,
all rights reserved
http://freetobewealthy.net

Related

Public Service Announcement: Foreclosure Order – United Nations, IMF, Federal Reserve In “Banks and money”

Jade Helm 15 USA/Project Maple Resolve Canada: ANOTHER Perspective In “Banks and money”

Public Interest Litigation before the World Court and UN Trust Committees In “Banks and money”

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM