The Details About the CIAs Deal With Amazon

08/31/2015

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-details-about-the-cias-deal-with-amazon/374632/

A $600 million computing cloud built by an outside company is a “radical departure” for the risk-averse intelligence community.

8-31-2015 9-42-21 AM

FRANK KONKEL

The intelligence community is about to get the equivalent of an adrenaline shot to the chest. This summer, a $600 million computing cloud developed by Amazon Web Services for the Central Intelligence Agency over the past year will begin servicing all 17 agencies that make up the intelligence community. If the technology plays out as officials envision, it will usher in a new era of cooperation and coordination, allowing agencies to share information and services much more easily and avoid the kind of intelligence gaps that preceded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

For the first time, agencies within the intelligence community will be able to order a variety of on-demand computing and analytic services from the CIA and National Security Agency. What’s more, they’ll only pay for what they use.

The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago. Cloud computing is one of the core components of the strategy to help the IC discover, access and share critical information in an era of seemingly infinite data.

For the risk-averse intelligence community, the decision to go with a commercial cloud vendor is a radical departure from business as usual.

In 2011, while private companies were consolidating data centers in favor of the cloud and some civilian agencies began flirting with cloud variants like email as a service, a sometimes contentious debate among the intelligence community’s leadership took place.

“We decided we needed to buy innovation.”

As one former intelligence official with knowledge of the Amazon deal told Government Executive, “It took a lot of wrangling, but it was easy to see the vision if you laid it all out.” The critical question was would the IC, led by the CIA, attempt to do cloud computing from within, or would it buy innovation? Money was a factor, according to the intelligence official, but not the leading one.

The government was spending more money on information technology within the IC than ever before. IT spending reached $8 billion in 2013, according to budget documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The CIA and other agencies feasibly could have spent billions of dollars standing up their own cloud infrastructure without raising many eyebrows in Congress, but the decision to purchase a single commercial solution came down primarily to two factors.

“What we were really looking at was time to mission and innovation,” the former intelligence official said. “The goal was, ‘Can we act like a large enterprise in the corporate world and buy the thing that we don’t have, can we catch up to the commercial cycle? Anybody can build a data center, but could we purchase something more?

“We decided we needed to buy innovation,” the former intelligence official said.

A Groundbreaking Deal 

The CIA’s first request for proposals from industry in mid-2012 was met with bid protests to the Government Accountability Office from Microsoft and AT&T, two early contenders for the contract. Those protests focused on the narrow specifications called for by the RFP. GAO did not issue a decision in either protest because the CIA reworked its request to address the companies’ complaint.

In early 2013, after weighing bids from Amazon Web Services, IBM and an unnamed third vendor, the CIA awarded a contract to AWS worth up to $600 million over a period of up to 10 years. The deal, handled in secret, was first reported by FCW in March 2013, sending ripples through the tech industry.

A month after the deal became public, IBM filed a bid protest with GAO that the watchdog eventually upheld in June, forcing the CIA to reopen bids to both companies for the contract. A legal struggle between Amazon and Big Blue ensued, and AWS filed a lawsuit against the federal government in July 2013, claiming the GAO sustainment was a “flawed” decision.

It’s a public cloud built on private premises.

In October, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Thomas Wheeler sided with Amazon and overturned GAO’s decision to force the CIA to rebid the contract. Big Blue went home, AWS claimed victory under the deal’s original financial specs, and nearly 18 months after the procurement was first released, the CIA and Amazon went to work.

It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.

“It’s going to take a few months to bring this online in a robust way, but it’s coming,” Wolfe said.  “And I think it’s going to make a big difference for national security.”

Securing New Capabilities 

The Amazon-built cloud will operate behind the IC’s firewall, or more simply: It’s a public cloud built on private premises.

Intelligence agencies will be able to host applications or order a variety of on-demand services like storage, computing and analytics. True to the National Institute of Standards and Technology definition of cloud computing, the IC cloud scales up or down to meet the need.

In that regard, customers will pay only for services they actually use, which is expected to generate massive savings for the IC.

“We see this as a tremendous opportunity to sharpen our focus and to be very efficient,” Wolfe told an audience at AWS’ annual nonprofit and government symposium in Washington. “We hope to get speed and scale out of the cloud, and a tremendous amount of efficiency in terms of folks traditionally using IT now using it in a cost-recovery way.”

Is that data really secure in the cloud? The CIA is convinced it is.

Many agencies within the IC already have identified applications to move to the cloud. In a recent report, National Reconnaissance Office Chief Information Officer Donna Hansen said her agency had picked five applications, including its enterprise resource planning software, to migrate to the IC cloud. As with public clouds, the IC cloud will maximize automation and require standardized information, which will be shared through application programming interfaces, known as APIs. Amazon engineers will oversee the hardware because AWS owns the hardware and is responsible for maintaining it just as they do in the company’s public data centers.

Whenever Amazon introduces a new innovation or improvement in cloud services, the IC cloud will evolve. Company officials say AWS made more than 200 such incremental improvements last year, ensuring a sort of built-in innovation to the IC cloud that will help the intelligence community keep pace with commercial advances. Wolfe said AWS’ capacity to bring commercial innovation from places like Silicon Valley to the IC is one of the contract’s greatest benefits. Whenever AWS introduces new products, the CIA will be able to implement them.

“The biggest thing we were trying to do—the visionary folks a couple years ago—was answer the question, ‘How do we keep up?’” Wolfe said. “The mission we have is important. The pace and complexity is really not [diminishing], in fact, it may be increasing. We feel it is very important to deliver the best IT and best products and services we can to our customers in the IC.”

What of the data, though? Intelligence agencies are drowning in it, collecting and analyzing an amalgamation of information from sensors, satellites, surveillance efforts, open data repositories and human intelligence, among other sources. Is that data really secure in the cloud?

The CIA is convinced it is.

Snowden was able to access and download classified information intelligence officials said he shouldn’t have been able to access.

The IC cloud “will be accredited and compliant with IC standards,” says a senior CIA official familiar with the IC cloud. It will, for example, be able to handle Sensitive Compartmented Information, a type of classified information. “Security in the IC cloud will be as safe as or safer than security on our current data centers,” the senior CIA official says. Because the IC cloud will serve multiple tenants—the 17 agencies that comprise the IC—administrators will be able to restrict access to information based on the identity of the individual seeking it. The idea is to foster collaboration without compromising security. Visually, the IC cloud can be thought of as a workspace hanging off the IC’s shared network—a place where data can be loaded for a variety of tasks like computing or sharing. The IC cloud gives agencies additional means to share information in an environment where automated security isn’t a barrier to the sharing itself. This could prove vital in situations reminiscent of 9/11, in which national security is an immediate concern.

Cloud vendors, including Amazon, have argued that cloud infrastructures can be more secure than traditional data centers because there are fewer points of entry, but the leaks by Snowden illustrate the potential threat from inside an organization. Snowden was able to access and download classified information intelligence officials said he shouldn’t have been able to access.

MORE FROM
GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE

Snowden: NSA Employees Are Passing Around Nude Photos

Government’s Biggest Failures, 2001-2014

House Passes Bipartisan Bill Extending Whistleblower Protection

To access information within the IC cloud, analysts must have the proper permissions. In addition, the standardized environment and automation means all activity within the cloud is logged and can be analyzed in near real-time.

Some government officials view cloud computing as inherently less secure than computing on locally controlled servers, but the CIA’s acceptance of commercially developed cloud technology “has been a wake-up call” to those who balk at it, according to John Pirc, a former CIA cybersecurity researcher who is now chief technology officer at NSS Labs, a security research firm.

“You hear so many people on the fence about cloud, and then to see the CIA gobble it up and do something so highly disruptive, it’s kind of cool,” says Pirc. “To me, this removes the clouded judgment that cloud isn’t secure. Their moving forward with this should send a message to the rest of the industry that cloud is something you shouldn’t be afraid of.”

Pirc is no stranger to disruptive technologies. At the CIA’s research labs in the early 2000s, he recalls virtualization—a technology that allows multiple operating systems to run simultaneously on the same servers, allowing for far more efficient computing—before it became an integral component of many IT enterprises.  Intelligence agencies use commercial off-the-shelf technology all the time, but to Pirc, the importance of the cloud capabilities the CIA gets through leveraging Amazon Web Services’ horsepower is best exemplified in computing intelligence data. Scalable computing is critical for fostering shared services and enhanced collaboration between disparate intelligence agencies.

“What it allows them to do is spin up servers and add more [computing power] fast, and when you’re computing intelligence data, the more compute power you have, the faster you can react,” Pirc says. “In the private sector, compute is all about money and profit, but from my viewpoint when I worked for the agency, you’re working with extremely time-sensitive information. Being able to have that compute power, something that might have taken a couple of hours might instead take a few seconds. Profits aren’t lost when you make mistakes in the intelligence community—people die when you make mistakes.”

A test scenario described by GAO in its June 2013 bid protest opinion suggests the CIA sought to compare how the solutions presented by IBM and Amazon Web Services could crunch massive data sets, commonly referred to as big data.

The CIA’s quest to buy innovation will loom large for years to come.

Solutions had to provide a “hosting environment for applications which process vast amounts of information in parallel on large clusters (thousands of nodes) of commodity hardware” using a platform called MapReduce. Through MapReduce, clusters were provisioned for computation and segmentation. Test runs assumed clusters were large enough to process 100 terabytes of raw input data. AWS’ solution received superior marks from CIA procurement officials, according to GAO documentation, and was one of the chief reasons the agency selected Amazon.

Limited Details

The CIA declined to comment when Government Executive asked about the extent of the IC cloud’s capabilities or that of the National Security Agency’s cloud. Amazon also declined to describe the IC cloud’s technical capabilities.

It is a good bet, though, that the AWS-built cloud for the IC will have capabilities at least equal to existing capabilities Amazon has already implemented across government.

For example, the company provides the cloud bandwidth for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s collection of more than 1 billion trade records and more than a terabyte of new data per day through its Market Information Data Analytics System. This example may be prescient given that now-public surveillance efforts indicate the IC collects billions and perhaps trillions of pieces of metadata, phone and Internet records, and other various bits of information on an annual basis. The potential exists for the CIA to become one of AWS’ largest customers.

Within the intelligence community, examples abound where the cloud’s capabilities could significantly boost the mission.

Think of it as the intelligence community sharing information behind a walled castle apart from the rest of the world operating on the Internet.

As the geospatial hub of the community, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency ingests, analyzes, metatags and reports all geo-intelligence and multisource content in its flagship program called Map of the World. Geospatial data’s importance to the IC has increased in recent years, as evidenced by NGA’s nearly $5 billion budget and its staff nearly doubling in size since 2004. For intensive applications like ingesting or analyzing geospatial data, scalable computing could have a significant impact on mission performance. The cloud also could improve the way the agency shares its large data sets.

What the IC has done with cloud is not easily replicable, according to American Council for Technology President Rick Holgate, but it is worth paying attention to.

“The IC has a model other agencies should look to and aspire to in terms of transforming the way they think about delivering services across a large enterprise,” Holgate says. “They are looking to common platforms and service delivery models across an entire enterprise, and not just gaining cost efficiencies, but to provide foundational capabilities to really allow it to operate.”

Whether or not the IC cloud serves as an example for the rest of government, the CIA’s quest to buy innovation will loom large for years to come.

Time to Share

The Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise lays out a vision for the IC’s 17 agencies to securely discover, access and share information. The goal: greater mission success.

In essence, ICITE (pronounced EYEsite) changes the business model for intelligence agencies by requiring that  they share services.

Cloud computing—behind the IC’s firewall—is one element of that vision. Think of it as the intelligence community sharing information behind a walled castle apart from the rest of the world operating on the Internet.

In cloud computing, there’s Amazon Web Services and then there’s everybody else.

The Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency are leading IC cloud development; the NSA’s privately hosted cloud was launched in 2013. Importantly, it was made available to users on new and legacy systems so that personnel on any of its systems could use it. The cloud built by Amazon Web Services at the behest of the CIA will be a shared resource for services on an as-needed basis. Intelligence agencies can order a variety of services like storage, computing, analytics, database services or application hosting. Both clouds will work in complementary fashion, according to senior CIA officials.

Other ICITE components include a common desktop, an IC-wide applications mall, and network requirement and engineering services.

The Defense Intelligence Agency and National-Geospatial Intelligence Agency have piloted shared desktop capabilities across their agencies for several thousand users. Those capabilities eventually will spread throughout the IC.

In essence, ICITE changes the business model for intelligence agencies, mandating shared services. Instead of each agency building out its own systems, select agencies—either one or two of those with larger budgets—are responsible for governing its major components.

The Elephant in the Room

In cloud computing, there’s Amazon Web Services and then there’s everybody else.

IT research firm Gartner had to rescale its famed infrastructure-as-a- service “Magic Quadrant” study in 2013 to accommodate Amazon Web Services’ enormous competitive lead.

The quadrant ranks cloud providers based on their ability to execute operations and the comprehensiveness of their vision. For several years there hasn’t been even a close challenger to AWS. Gartner’s 2014 quadrant shows that AWS captures 83 percent of the cloud computing infrastructure market.

In the combined cloud markets for infrastructure and platform services, hybrid and private clouds—worth a collective $131 billion at the end of 2013—Amazon’s revenue grew 67 percent in the first quarter of 2014, according to Gartner.

While the public sector hasn’t been as quick to capitalize on cloud computing as the private sector, government spending on cloud technologies is beginning to jump.

Researchers at IDC estimate federal private cloud spending will reach $1.7 billion in 2014, and $7.7 billion by 2017. In other industries, software services are considered the leading cloud technology, but in the government that honor goes to infrastructure services, which IDC expects to reach $5.4 billion in 2017.

In addition to its $600 million deal with the CIA, Amazon Web Services also does business with NASA, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most recently, the Obama Administration tapped AWS to host portions of HealthCare.gov.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Coming To A Sheriff’s Office Near You

08/29/2015

http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/08/coming-to-a-sheriffs-office-near-you/

BY CHUCK BALDWIN

On the front cover of Washington State’s August 2015 “Inlander” magazine, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich is shown hands on hips standing on top of the “Don’t Tread On Me” (Gadsden) flag. The title of the article is “Daring To Tread.”

The sheriff and at least one of his deputies have verbalized opinions that “constitutionalists” are threats to the sheriff’s office, the federal government, and to the country itself. Sheriff Knezovich even went so far as to compare “constitutionalists” with the Sunni Muslim terror group ISIS. The deputy indicated that the presence of armed “constitutionalists” in the county was the principal reason why the sheriff’s office was amassing military equipment. When asked to name names as to who he was referring to, Spokane County’s highest-ranking law enforcement officer (Sheriff Knezovich) named Washington State Representative Matt Shea and radio talk show host Alex Jones (who resides in Texas, not Spokane County, Washington).

Writing for InfoWars.com, Mikael Thalen reports, “The Inlander piece highlights the sheriff’s ongoing campaign against local conservative groups who he feels are pushing dangerous rhetoric. When asked to specifically name those responsible, Knezovich pointed to both Rep. Shea and ‘all those folks that created the video about the Deputy.’

“Knezovich’s statement refers to exclusive footage released by Infowars last December which highlighted unsettling comments made by a Spokane sheriff’s deputy as he stood next to the department’s mine-resistant ambush protected military vehicle (MRAP). After a local resident approached and questioned law enforcement’s need for military hardware, the deputy immediately used ‘constitutionalists’ with ‘firearms’ as justification.

Get Bradlee Dean’s My War, a DVD series that takes on the issues of today and gives understanding and clarity of who our Founders were, and their true intentions when they established our Judeo-Christian nation

“‘I mean, we’ve got a lot of constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, lots of ammunition,’ the deputy said. ‘They have weapons here locally.’”

The report continued saying, “‘Instead of apologizing for the comments made by his deputy, Sheriff Knezovich essentially blamed Infowars for daring to report on the issue, claiming that the quote was taken out of context while failing to explain how such a brazen statement could be taken for anything other than its face value,’ noted Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson at the time.

“Speaking with Infowars, Rep. Shea expressed outrage at Knezovich’s latest comments and also the article’s analysis on a local pastor.

“‘I fought Islamic terrorists on the ground in Iraq face-to-face,’ Shea said. ‘I lost a man–who was a Christian and who would have fit the Sheriff’s definition of a constitutionalist–under my command fighting Islamic terrorists.’

“‘It is outrageous to compare constitutionalists and Christians to ISIS! We believe in freedom. We believe in liberty. A value set that is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. ISIS is anathema to those things. I call on every Christian and constitutionalist in this country to demand an apology from this Sheriff for his outrageous comments and demand his immediate resignation.’”

See the written and video reports here:

Sheriff Compares Constitutionalists To ISIS

Readers should know that Representative Shea served in the U.S. Army with two combat tours overseas, including eight months in Bosnia as a platoon leader, and eleven months in Baghdad, Iraq, as a company commander. Matt was awarded a Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, and Combat Infantryman’s Badge along with other awards and commendations. Matt was also distinguished as being the top rated Captain in his Battalion. This is the man that Sheriff Knezovich says is as dangerous as ISIS.

Unfortunately, Sheriff Knezovich is illustrative of the propaganda that local and State police agencies and sheriff’s offices are receiving from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Working in tandem with the ultra-left wing hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), DHS constantly feeds anti-conservative, anti-constitutionalist, anti-patriot, anti-Christian, anti-veterans propaganda to local police agencies via its numerous “fusion centers” across the country.

See this report:

The Threat To Freedom: The Southern Poverty Law Center And The Department Of Homeland Security

Add a historical and constitutional ignorance with a personal lust for power, and sheriffs and police chiefs across the country readily buy into the DHS propaganda. The result is men like Sheriff Knezovich and his deputy.

I dare say that a good many of the readers of this column reside in counties in which the sheriff feels exactly as does Sheriff Knezovich. Thank God, not all of our sheriffs and city police chiefs fall into this category. Some of them have actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and are devoted to protecting the liberties of the citizens in their cities and counties. But far too many of them are of the ilk of Sheriff Knezovich.

But once again, I must ask, where are the pastors? Where are the pastors in Spokane County, Washington?

Spokane County, Washington, is filled with Christians and churches. It is a God-fearing community. Why are the pastors of Spokane County not rallying their churches against the obviously anti-Christian, anti-patriot, anti-constitutionalist bigotry of this sheriff’s office? Every pastor in the county and every church congregation in the county should be demanding with protests, phone calls, emails, letters, etc., that this sheriff resign. This should continue every day in perpetuity until he does so.

I’ll say it plainly: the only reason we have tyrannically-inclined men like Sheriff Knezovich in public office is because our pastors don’t have the man-stuff to stand up against it. We have corrupt, unconstitutional civil magistrates because America’s pastors willingly, sheepishly, cowardly go along with it. Behind every Big Government toady like Sheriff Knezovich are scores and hundreds of pastors who are aiding and abetting him.

Think what could happen in Spokane County, Washington–and in counties across America–if our pastors would courageously lead their congregations to stand against this kind of corruption and abuse of power. Just think!

Did our plucky pastors in Colonial America lead the Christian people of America to cast off the tyranny of the British Crown only to have their spiritual descendants in the pulpits willfully sit back as indifferent bystanders and allow the sons of the patriots to be led into servitude like sheep? Jonas Clark, Joab Houghton, John Peter Muhlenberg, James Caldwell, and the rest of the Black Regiment must be turning over in their graves.

In the meantime, Christians, constitutionalists, and gun owners in Spokane County, Washington, have a sheriff’s office that considers them to be potential terrorists in the similitude of ISIS.

Once again, we see how DHS training and indoctrination is teaching our local police agencies to regard freedom-loving Americans as the enemy. Now you know: all of those armored vehicles and military hardware owned by your local police department or sheriff’s office are purchased for the purpose of being used against us “constitutionalists.” Be sure to watch the video report contained  in the Infowars.com news story linked earlier in this column. And then please remember what the Spokane County sheriff’s deputy said the next time you see one of those big armored vehicles rolling down the streets of your community.

How does it happen that local sheriff’s deputies can relate people who support the Constitution of the United States to Islamic terrorists? And tell me again what it was that those deputies and police officers swore an oath to, if it wasn’t the Constitution of the United States?

Then again, I remember sitting across the lunch table recently with an elected county official and asking him to tell me what the oath was he took when he was first elected to public office, and he candidly (and sheepishly) told me he couldn’t remember. It is obvious that Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich doesn’t remember, either.

P.S. In light of the existence of constitutionally-illiterate and tyrannically-predisposed sheriffs like Ozzie Knezovich, let me remind readers that we have just recently produced an hour-long DVD wherein my son, Attorney Tim Baldwin, lectures (complete with instructional slides) on the topic: “Police Contact: How To Respond.”

Tim explains your rights and the law regarding police contacts in a variety of circumstances, such as traffic stops, etc. He explains the rights and protections you have under the Constitution. He presents a constitutional, legal analysis of what you should and shouldn’t do when brought into contact with a police officer, sheriff’s deputy, or highway patrolman.

Tim is a former felony prosecutor and is now a criminal defense attorney. He has seen both sides of the criminal justice system and is imminently qualified to discuss this subject. He knows that for an attorney to best protect his or her clients, they need to know how to protect themselves before and during the investigative and arrest procedures.

As his dad, I can tell you he taught me a lot! Believe me, being informed of your legal rights and responsibilities under the law is very empowering, which is exactly what America’s Founding Fathers intended. True power, true authority, rests with the People under God and the Constitution. Police officers are SERVANTS of the People and are as obligated to obey the Constitution as are each of us. Knowing these rights and protections will give you much CONFIDENCE when you are pulled over by a police officer.

Let me hasten to say that I am ALWAYS respectful to a police officer. And so should we always be. We must respect his position. But mostly, we must respect the law that he, the police officer, is sworn to uphold. But how can we respect the law if we don’t even know and understand the law? How can officers improve their law-enforcement practice unless citizens know when police are following the law? How is the legal system benefited if police can trample citizens’ constitutional rights with the consent of the people? Tim’s DVD will help tremendously in this regard.

In light of the climate that we all live in today, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we become familiar with our constitutional rights and responsibilities. If enough of the American people would learn these constitutional principles, they could stem the growing tide of unconstitutional conduct by our public servants, including, and especially, by those in law enforcement.

Here is where you can order the DVD, “Police Contact: How To Respond,” by Attorney Tim Baldwin.

Police Contact: How To Respond

And, folks, this DVD is a bargain at whatever price. How much value do you place on your liberties?

Source

Don’t forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on FacebookGoogle Plus, & Twitter
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

All this talk about our Constitutional rights and so called LAW coming from a Christian Pastor and past candidate for President of the United States is more than I can bear. How is it possible that Chuck does not know “The Constitution for the united States of America has been replaced numerous times and as it stands right now, has no standing with the powers that be.” One might as well claim Political Immunity when confronted by a cop or judge. Perhaps someone will wake up Pastor Baldwin by sending him a copy of this book. You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

Anna and James should receive National support for this gift to America. Now there is no excuse to continue supporting the political system that enslaves us, and every reader should make it a personal obligation to promote this work. I envision a hundred million people reading this book over and over until they can recite verbatim the skullduggery used to rob, rape, and pillage millions of unsuspecting Americas; not to mention the trillions of dollars these Tyrant Bankers have made from our ignorance. This fiasco is akin to a Preacher in a mega Church raping the women thereof and getting away with it for years, because they had so much faith in him. I will demand every family member and friend read this magnificent piece of research. More praise and info on this book will continue to be available at http://scannedretina.com/ and http://atomic-temporary-19493231.wpcomstaging.com

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS FOLKS, OUR FOREFATHERS AND TEACHERS LIED TO US!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 

 


Political media establishment declares war on the American people

08/28/2015

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/political-media-establishment-declares-war-on-the-american-people?f=must_reads

8-28-2015 10-37-32 AM

By LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
Just after the 1896 election between the victor, establishment Republican William McKinley and Populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan, Mrs. Henry Cabot Lodge, wife of the Republican Senator from Massachusetts, wrote:

“The great fight is won, a fight conducted by trained and experienced and organized forces, with both hands full of money, with the full power of the press – and the prestige – on one side; on the other, a disorganized mob…”

The influence of money and power on the 1896 election and the obsequious attitude of the press towards the powers-that-be, stand in stark similarity to the current condition of America’s body-politic.

Then, like now, ordinary Americans sought to wrest control of their democracy from an oligarchy, which is, as Lewis Lapham described in his book “The Wish for Kings”: “that 2% of the population who own the media and the banks, manage the government, operate the universities, print the money, write the laws and, every four years, hire a President.”

The arrogance of Washington, D.C. has not abated, but has only gotten more and more brazen creating a permanent and corrupt political establishment fueled by crony capitalism and financed by hard-working Americans, as Lapham noted:

 “The politicians dress up the deals in the language of law or policy, but they’re in the business of brokering the tax revenue, and what keeps them in office is not their talent for oratory but their skill at redistributing the national income in a way that rewards their clients, patrons, friends and campaign contributors.”

And then there is the hypocrisy and mendacity defining the current state of American journalism.
Strangely enough, one of the leading voices in the U.S. on the subject of Journalistic Standards and Ethics is the Society of Professional Journalists. The Preamble to its Code of Ethics proclaims:

 …public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.

Unfortunately, the actual practice of journalism in America today bears no resemblance to the official portrait; again Lapham:

“it is because the media, together with their owners and political overlords, find it convenient to pretend that the free and courageous voice of conscience defends the American people against the darkness of tyranny and injustice. The media does nothing of the kind, but the disguise is flattering as it is profitable, and it conceals the function of the media as the first and foremost of the nation’s courtiers. The big media identify themselves with wealth and privilege and the wisdom in office.”

The twenty years following the 1896 election were marked by protest and reform in nearly every sector of American life. Old political leaders were replaced and the political machinery was overhauled. Economic institutions and policy, monopolies, the political power of corporations, all came under scrutiny. Social relationships, the impact of the urbanization, the flood of immigration, inequalities in wealth, the growth of class and ethnic divisions, were thoroughly examined.

Then, like now, the immediate problem was to get control of political machinery which was corrupted by the power of private money and privilege. Payment was not always in the form of outright bribery. It also involved political advancement, contribution to political campaigns, contracts to relatives or friends of legislators or lucrative legal business to attorneys. Whatever form it took, it was effective in delaying reform.

The question then, like now, was why did the country seem to be going in the wrong direction? The problem was not just economic. The American dream was not being fulfilled. Americans were better off than many in other countries, but they were worse off than they should have been.

The 2016 election may provide an opportunity for a new period of reform. The corruption of our highly partisan political process, the alienated electorate, the economic stagnation of the Middle Class, the growth of an underclass, the seeming moral confusion, and the rise of an unaccountable transnational corporate state may all be manifestations of the same underlying stress which existed along the political fault lines over a century ago.

The status quo represented by the Republican and Democrat parties and their media accomplices can no longer prevent the coming tremor which is both inevitable and necessary.

The political-media establishment has declared war on the American people. Let us return the favor.

Exit the political hacks, a biased old media, the “money-laundering” lobbyists and a self-serving, wasteful and non-representative government.

Enter the “disorganized mob.”

 

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com .

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I regret not having the intellect to properly express my rage towards the people of this Nation for allowing this Government to build such a monstrosity as we presently have. In my mind, common sense would be the guide to building a government, because common sense would enable one to know before hand that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So why does a nation with so much experience allow its leaders to participate in a false government? Why don’t the people know or accept that it is a false government and not elected representatives? It is a corporation solely owned for the purpose of accumulating power and profit for the International Banking Cartel. It’s not like the information is hidden so well it cannot be found. It is because the people are too damned cowardly and self centered to pursue the truth. How is it possible for hundreds of millions of people to be so damned stupid? Mark my words americans, you are going to suffer worse things than you can imagine!

VERY SOON!
2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Western Democracy Is An Endangered Species On Its Way To Extinction

08/27/2015

 

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/08/25/western-democracy-

endangered-species-way-extinction-paul-craig-roberts/

Paul Craig Roberts

The British Labor Party no longer represents the working class. Under UK prime minister Tony Blair, the Labor Party became a vassal of the One Percent. The result has been a rebellion in the ranks and the rise of Jeremy Corbin, a principled Laborite intent on representing the people, a no-no in Western “democracies.”

Corbin is too real for the Labor Party Blairites, who hope to be rewarded with similar nest eggs as Blair for representing the capitalist One Percent. So what is the corrupted Labor Party doing to prevent Corbin’s election?

The answer is that it is denying the vote to Corbin supporters. You can read the story here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/britains-labour-party-purge-is-underway-preventing-supporters-from-voting-for-jeremy-corbyn/5471194

The illegal Egyptian military dictatorship that overthrew on Washington’s orders the first democratically elected government in Egyptian history has issued an edict prohibiting journalists from contradicting the military dictatorship. In brief, the dictatorship installed by Washington has outlawed facts.

Washington rejected the government that the Egyptian people elected, because it appeared that the democratically elected government would have a foreign policy that was at least partially independent of Washington’s. Remember, according to the neocons who, together with Israel, control US foreign policy, countries with independent foreign policies, such as Iran, Russia, and China, are America’s “greatest threats.”

The Egyptian military thugs, following Washington’s orders, have more or less eliminated all of the leadership of the political party that was democratically elected. The party was called the Muslim Brotherhood. In the presstitute Western media, the political party was described more or less as al Qaeda, and how are the ignorant, brainwashed, and propagandized Americans to know any difference? Certainly neither “their” government nor the presstitute media will ever tell them.

With the military dictatorship’s edict, independent news reporting no longer exists in Egypt. Washington is pleased and rewards the dictatorship with bags full of money paid by the hapless and helpless American taxpayers.

Americans should keep in mind that most of the dollars that they pay in income tax are spent either spying upon themselves and the world or killing people in many countries. Without resources taken from American taxpayers millions of women, children, and village elders would still be alive in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Ukraine, South Ossetia, and other countries. America is the greatest exporter of violence the world has ever known. So wear your patriotism on your sleeve and be proud. You are a depraved citizen of the world’s worst killer nation. Compared to the USA, Rome was a piker.

France herself seems to be collapsing as a democracy and no longer respects her own laws. According to this report from Kumaran Ira on World Socialist Website https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/19/fkil-a19.html ,
“In the name of the “war on terror,” the French state is dramatically accelerating its use of clandestine operations to extra-judicially murder targeted individuals. French President François Hollande reportedly possesses a “kill list” of potential targets and constantly reviews the assassination program with high-ranking military and intelligence officers.

“This program of state murder, violating basic constitutional rights in a country where the death penalty is illegal, underscores the profound decay of French bourgeois democracy. Amid escalating imperialist wars in France’s former colonial empire and deepening political crisis at home, the state is moving towards levels of criminality associated with the war against Algerian independence and the Vichy regime of Occupied France.”

Where do you suppose the socialist president of France got his idea of an illegal and unconstitutional “kill list”? If you answer from “America’s First Black President,” you are correct.

The French people should be outraged that “their” president is nothing more than a murderer and an agent of Washington. But they aren’t. False flag operations have made them fearful. The French like other Western peoples, have ceased to think.

Every western democracy is gone with the wind. Washed up, Finished. Every value that defined Western civilization and made it great has been flushed by power and greed and arrogance.

Proconsuls have replaced democracy.

I certainly do not believe that Western civilization was ever pure as snow and devoid of sins and crimes against humanity. But it is a fact that in Western civilization, despite the numerous injustices, reforms were possible that improved life for the lower classes. Reforms were possible that restricted the rapaciousness of the rich and powerful. In the US reforms made the impossible come true: ladders of upward mobility made it possible for members of the lowest economic class to become multimillionaires. And this actually happened.

The governments in Washington committed many crimes, but on occasion Washington prevented crimes. Remember President Eisenhower’s ultimatum to Washington’s British, French, and Israeli allies to remove themselves from the Suez Canal in Egypt or else.

Today Washington pushes its allies to commit crimes against humanity. That is what NATO and the National Endowment for Democracy are for.

In my lifetime Americans have always had a good opinion of themselves. But in the 21st century this good opinion has hyper-jumped into hubris and arrogance. If you haven’t been around very long in terms of a human life, you don’t see this. But older people do.

Just as the Roman Empire ended in the destruction of the Roman people, the American Empire will end in the destruction of the American people. Judging from histories, Roman citizens were superior to American citizens; yet, Rome failed.

Americans shouldn’t expect any other outcome. The price to be paid for insouciance, self-satisfaction, and complicity is high.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

When one reflects on the apathy pandemic in America, it becomes hard to refute this article. By past standards in juvenile America, heads would be rolling in Federal, State, and local Governments for the atrocities being forced on us. AMERICANS, WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE?


Bordering on Insanity

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36499/Bordering-on-Insanity/?uuid=D61DE0D0-0752-0845-33435892AAF62EB6

 By Philippe Gastonne

 Remember the 4th Amendment? We hear it’s making a comeback. Back in May, we had a story about another court explaining to the government that, contrary to popular belief within Homeland Security, the 4th Amendment does still apply at the border, and thus Border Patrol can’t just take someone’s laptop without a warrant.

The case involved a guy named Jae Shik Kim, who the government suspected was shipping items to China that were then being forwarded to Iran. Because of that, DHS grabbed his laptop as he was leaving the US (on a flight to Korea). The DOJ argued that the laptop was a “container” subject to search at the border. The court disabused the DOJ of this notion:

“After considering all of the facts and authorities set forth above, then, the Court finds, under the totality of the unique circumstances of this case, that the imaging and search of the entire contents of Kim’s laptop, aided by specialized forensic software, for a period of unlimited duration and an examination of unlimited scope, for the purpose of gathering evidence in a pre-existing investigation, was supported by so little suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity, and was so invasive of Kim’s privacy and so disconnected from not only the considerations underlying the breadth of the government’s authority to search at the border, but also the border itself, that it was unreasonable.”

Given an opportunity to respond, the DOJ has dropped the entire case. – TechDirt, Aug. 24, 2015

There are logical arguments for nation-states to defend their borders against illicit persons and goods. Those arguments are not nearly as compelling as some people think, but they exist. They apply mainly for people and goods entering a country – not those leaving it. The United States in particular likes to claim it has no Iron Curtain and that people are free to leave.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security seems to be missing this distinction. As Jae Shik Kim was about to board a flight to Korea, they seized his laptop computer on the grounds it contained illegal information destined for Iran.

Now, even if we concede that mere information can be illegal, what DHS wanted to do was breathtaking in scope. As the court described it, DHS wanted to image and search the entire laptop “aided by specialized forensic software, for a period of unlimited duration and an examination of unlimited scope.”

What DHS wanted to do here is obvious to anyone who frequently crosses into the United States. It is one of the few places where law enforcement can search you and your effects without “probable cause.” Leaving the United States is a much simpler process – unless DHS thinks your laptop contains interesting data.

Thankfully, a federal court struck down this search as not passing the laugh test. The opinion called it both “invasive” and “disconnected” from the government’s border control authority. An “unreasonable” ruling in this one case doesn’t solve the real problem, which is that DHS feels no need to obey the law.

Many people, not knowing any better, will docilely submit to an illegal search because they believe they have nothing to hide. In so doing, they undermine everyone else’s liberty. Rights we do not defend are rights that will disappear at the earliest opportunity! DHS no doubt hopes it will be very soon! DISBAND THE DHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Ending Government Rule of the Elites by the Elites for the Elites

08/26/2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ending-government-rule-of-the-elites-by-the-elites-for-the-elites/5471116?utm_source=Global+Research+Newsletter&utm_campaign=459d8cf5e7-8_25_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0ec9ab057f-459d8cf5e7-81280217&ct=t(8_25_2015)

8-26-2015 7-02-59 AM

By Robert Abele

Global Research

By now it is nearly commonplace that the specific American system of capitalist governance has resulted in a hollowing-out of U.S. democracy, which now serves the interests of economic elites rather than the people. One of the primary examples of this is how the Obama administration is handling the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): a top-secret process that will affect the lives of each individual living in the countries which agree to it, yet the negotiators are a few government officials (i.e. the Office of the United States Trade Representative) and 600 corporations, excluding Congress, and with no voice from or for the people themselves, nor any concern involving the citizens (see Paul Craig Roberts, “TTIP: The Corporate Empowerment Act”).

One of the sad but important consequences for our system of government, in the face of such a process, is that not only do the economic elites now control the system, but more importantly, our elitist-backed politicians have no vision beyond the self-interestedness of catering to the money the elites use to support them. The people are out; the future is irrelevant; the leaders are now co-participants in servicing an institution that lives by a single infallible rule: the degree to which they seek to increase their power is in direct proportion to their size. The result is that the U.S. government has now become an authoritarian state. It is the structure of the authoritarian state that requires as its sole mandate its ever-increasing power over its citizens, the very people it was originally designed to serve, with no limit to its ends or means. Thus, those who run for office from within the system all are necessarily supporters of this authoritarian-corporate-military-state, even if they advocate tinkering with its internal mechanisms a bit. A politician with a vision, and thus a true leader, will by necessity have to alienate themselves from the system, even if they attempt to function within it. Such is the intrinsic contradiction of the capitalist democracy we have today.

8-26-2015 7-03-25 AM

Related to that, the main method of consolidating power in a governing structure is to keep the masses in servitude to the corporate state and its interests. This is why such institutions are prone to ignore or reject the demands of justice. Thus, although it is fairly clear that nearly every person individually has a sense of ethical right and wrong, when politicians immerse themselves in a distinctly corporate-government institution and thus seek to ensure social structures and practices that do not engage primary ethical values such as equality or fairness—i.e. practices that are frequently directly inimical to their citizens—they surrender their ethics, sometimes consciously, sometimes not, in favor of taking on a public role as caretakers of their special-interest groups: the elites.

That is why true progressives understand that the voice of conscience, of value, of what is right (and wrong), must come from outside of the institutions. Even President Obama, a voice of the institution of capitalist government and its values par excellence, stated that change must come from outside of government. Voices that are raised from within are soon swallowed up in acquiescence to institutional demands or alienated from the culture of which they are a functioning agent (e.g. Edward Snowden). Socrates understood that fact long ago, when he said at his trial that agents of justice must operate from outside government institutions, or they would die young. Institutional acolytes simply do not concern themselves with issues of justice, fairness, or equity: only the appearance of being just counts, as Machiavelli observed in the 16thcentury. This idea was stated most succinctly by the classical defender of Realpolitik (i.e. politics is only about power), Hans Morgenthau, who argued that “loyalty to the nation requires the individual to disregard universal moral rules of conduct” (Politics Among Nations, Chapter XVI).

Another way to put the Socratic wisdom is this: if the normative standard one uses to assess institutional actions is objective (i.e. standards that apply to everyone for the purpose of fair and just governance), and if the choice one has to make is between being an agent of the institution or an advocate of justice, then one must stand outside of the institution and advocate justice. The choice has become an exclusive disjunction in our fading American democracy. It is what the participants of the Occupy Movement knew, and what many college students today intuitively know.

The mistake made by supporters of standard “insider” party politics is to believe that their candidate could be an “agent of change” in office. Obama, for example, never was—and never would be—such an agent, because he was a full participant in the capitalist-governmental institutional processes that brought him to power. So are most elected individuals on Capitol Hill today, Democrat or Republican. True rebels from within are rare, as we can see today: the Elizabeth Warrens, Bernie Sanders, and Alan Graysons compare with 532 other members of Congress.

The problems of creating change from within are illustrated by the Bernie Sanders candidacy for President. Mr. Sanders has some interesting ideas in his 12-point program (such as rebuilding our infrastructure, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and raising the minimum wage, etc.), but in order to get them heard and get the support of the economic elite, he has had to co-opt with the corporate-based Democratic Party. This makes him susceptible to a move by front-runner Hilary Clinton to neutralize him by agreeing “in principle” with his ideas, and then changing the subject. If this happens, Sanders will be the proverbial “runner-up” in a party that became a corporation in its own right a long time ago.

Thus, the only solution is to create the change we seek for ourselves. But the key question now is: “How?”

First, we have to re-learn how to form alliances with other progressives in order to support visionaries running for office. Even if we do not agree with every position someone might take, if they have a progressive vision that is based on equality and fairness, we need to put aside any minor differences and support those visionaries, particularly if they have a track record of acting on the basis of their vision. That is something that many progressives have forgotten how to do, succumbing as they have to the myth of American capitalist individualism, and forgetting that change at this time in our political system will be incremental and slow, and not a quick revolution. But only by creating unified groups with unified goals can we the people once again become significant enough to replace the finance-government ministers with (small-d) democrats.

Second, engage in acts of civil disobedience and prepare for the consequences. For example, anti-war voices, no matter how loud and large in number, will never drown out the sound of cash-registers ringing for the military state agents who continue to make a financial killing by getting nations and peoples to kill each other. Just like the 1960’s civil rights struggles, the state will not hesitate to use its massive violent mechanisms of violence to put an end to counter-movements and dissent. Since the Patriot Act was put into play in 2001, all the government has to do is to brand civil disobedience as “terrorism,” and any act they take against dissent after that would be legally justified. Such is the state of the State we live under today. Further, with the critical importance of geo-political control and access to now limited natural resources such as water and oil that can be turned into a profit for the corporate elites that run the state, and with American political leaders drunk on the hubris that they can actually militarily govern the world, it is unlikely that we can expect much change to the institution unless this economic-military-government marriage is broken apart by a divorce.

Third, we need to think outside the current financial-governmental-military institutional complex to a new government order. But how far must we go, and in which direction? And what kind of system? One proposal for a first step toward a solution of the current governmental-financial institutional situation in America is that business ownership needs to change, and the workers need to become the owners of the places in which they work. Those in control of capital control the Capitol, and a new worker ownership movement, which could be done in conjunction with the “raise the minimum wage” movement, will go very far in creating the change that is past due to the current political system.

Finally, we need to increase our awareness of the populist rhetoric politicians use to jockey into positions of power. In this day and age, with politicians on both sides of the aisle using the motto “take back power” in order to secure their own interests in being added to the current power structure, we the people need to redefine what “take back power” means—i.e. to take money and governing power away from big business and thus reduce its powerful role in government by engaging in worker-owned business.

The vision we need from our leaders must be one of equity, fairness, and elimination of the current rule of the rich. Without such a unified vision, at least with these basic values, the institutional rule of ongoing power-consolidation and economic elite self-interest will continue unabated. Although true leaders are hard to find today within the system, it nonetheless remains true, as the Book of Proverbs said so long ago: “When there is no vision, the people perish.”

 Dr. Robert Abele (www.spotlightonfreedom.com) holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Marquette University and M.A. degrees in Theology and Divinity. He is a professor of philosophy at Diablo Valley College, in California in the San Francisco Bay area. He is the author of four books, including A User’s Guide to the USA PATRIOT Act, and The Anatomy of a Deception: A Logical and Ethical Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq, along with numerous articles. His new book, Rationality and Justice, is forthcoming (2016).

Copyright © Robert Abele, Global Research, 2015

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


The Raping of America Mile Markers on the Road to Fascism

08/25/2015

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82887b643445&id=625a5f3224&e=84f74f6a6a

By John W. Whitehead

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”—Martin Luther King Jr.

There’s an ill will blowing across the country. The economy is tanking. The people are directionless, and politics provides no answer. And like former regimes, the militarized police have stepped up to provide a façade of law and order manifested by an overt violence against the citizenry.

Despite the revelations of the past several years, nothing has changed to push back against the American police state. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

Despite the recent outrage and protests, nothing has changed to restore us to our rightful role as having dominion over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government.

Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.

Indeed, on a daily basis, Americans are being forced to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States.

In other words, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Worst of all, it seems as if nothing will change as long as the American people remain distracted by politics, divided by their own prejudices, and brainwashed into believing that the Constitution still reigns supreme as the law of the land, when in fact, we have almost completed the shift into fascism.

In other words, despite our occasional bursts of outrage over abusive police practices, sporadic calls for government reform, and periodic bouts of awareness that all is not what it seems, the police state continues to march steadily onward.

Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.

Consider, for example, what happened to Charnesia Corley after allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. They found nothing in the car.

As the Houston Chronicle reported:

Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe.

As shocking and disturbing as it seems, Corley’s roadside cavity search is becoming par for the course in an age in which police are taught to have no respect for the citizenry’s bodily integrity.

For instance, 38-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, he proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.

David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found.

Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic during a routine traffic stop, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.

Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums. Halfway across the country, the city of Oakland, California, agreed to pay $4.6 million to 39 men who had their pants pulled down by police on city streets between 2002 and 2009.

It’s gotten so bad that you don’t even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband.

Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years). Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search.

It must be remembered that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to prevent government agents from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause (evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot). While the literal purpose of the amendment is to protect our property and our bodies from unwarranted government intrusion, the moral intention behind it is to protect our human dignity.

Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—don’t end with roadside strip searches. They’re just a foretaste of what is to come.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods, less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering, of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights.

With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our lives. As Rod Serling, creator of the Twilight Zone and an insightful commentator on human nature, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

Indeed, not only are we developing a new citizenry incapable of thinking for themselves, we’re also instilling in them a complete and utter reliance on the government and its corporate partners to do everything for them—tell them what to eat, what to wear, how to think, what to believe, how long to sleep, who to vote for, whom to associate with, and on and on.

In this way, we have created a welfare state, a nanny state, a police state, a surveillance state, an electronic concentration camp—call it what you will, the meaning is the same: in our quest for less personal responsibility, a greater sense of security, and no burdensome obligations to each other or to future generations, we have created a society in which we have no true freedom.

Government surveillance, police abuse, SWAT team raids, economic instability, asset forfeiture schemes, pork barrel legislation, militarized police, drones, endless wars, private prisons, involuntary detentions, biometrics databases, free speech zones, etc.: these are mile markers on the road to a fascist state where citizens are treated like cattle, to be branded and eventually led to the slaughterhouse.

If there is any hope to be found it will be found in local, grassroots activism. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., it’s time for “militant nonviolent resistance.”

First, however, Americans must break free of the apathy-inducing stupor of politics, entertainment spectacles and manufactured news. Only once we are free of the chains that bind us—or to be more exact, the chains that “blind” us—can we become actively aware of the injustices taking place around us and demand freedom of our oppressors.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

RESIST, RESIST, RESIST!

Remind every cop you come in contact with, that when Cops were real Americans, they were polite!


 THE TRUE STORY OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES

 https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1079-michael-bennett-solves-the-georgia-guidestones-mystery/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CorbettReportRSS+%28The+Corbett+Report%29

 The Corbett Report

Audio Player

Interview 1079 – Michael Bennett Solves The Georgia Guidestones Mystery

 Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

James Corbett

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Dr. J. Michael Bennett is the associate producer and primary researcher behind the remarkable new documentary film, “Dark Clouds Over Elberton: The True Story of the Georgia Guidestones.” Combining new interviews with some of the key people involved in the guidestones construction with never-before-seen evidence and good old gumshoe detective work, the documentary reveals the identity of the guidestones’ pseudonymous creator, “R.C. Christian,” and in the process uncovers dark connections to the racist, Malthusian pseudoscience of eugenics.

SHOW NOTES:
Dark Clouds Over Elberton: The True Story of the Georgia Guidestones

Dark Clouds Over Elberton (Trailer)

FutureQuake website

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Central Banks Have Become A Corrupting Force

08/24/2015

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/08/23/central-banks-become-corrupting-force-paul-craig-roberts-dave-kranzler/

By Paul Craig Roberts and Dave Kranzler

Are we witnessing the corruption of central banks? Are we observing the money-creating powers of central banks being used to drive up prices in the stock market for the benefit of the mega-rich?

These questions came to mind when we learned that the central bank of Switzerland, the Swiss National Bank, purchased 3,300,000 shares of Apple stock in the first quarter of this year, adding 500,000 shares in the second quarter. Smart money would have been selling, not buying.

It turns out that the Swiss central bank, in addition to its Apple stock, holds very large equity positions, ranging from $250,000,000 to $637,000,000, in numerous US corporations — Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Google, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Verizon, AT&T, Pfizer, Chevron, Merck, Facebook, Pepsico, Coca Cola, Disney, Valeant, IBM, Gilead, Amazon.

Among this list of the Swiss central bank’s holdings are stocks which are responsible for more than 100% of the year-to-date rise in the S&P 500 prior to the latest sell-off.

What is going on here?

The purpose of central banks was to serve as a “lender of last resort” to commercial banks faced with a run on the bank by depositors demanding cash withdrawals of their deposits.

Banks would call in loans in an effort to raise cash to pay off depositors. Businesses would fail, and the banks would fail from their inability to pay depositors their money on demand.

As time passed, this rationale for a central bank was made redundant by government deposit insurance for bank depositors, and central banks found additional functions for their existence. The Federal Reserve, for example, under the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, is responsible for maintaining full employment and low inflation. By the time this legislation was passed, the worsening “Phillips Curve tradeoffs” between inflation and employment had made the goals inconsistent. The result was the introduction by the Reagan administration of the supply-side economic policy that cured the simultaneously rising inflation and unemployment.

Neither the Federal Reserve’s charter nor the Humphrey-Hawkins Act says that the Federal Reserve is supposed to stabilize the stock market by purchasing stocks. The Federal Reserve is supposed to buy and sell bonds in open market operations in order to encourage employment with lower interest rates or to restrict inflation with higher interest rates.

If central banks purchase stocks in order to support equity prices, what is the point of having a stock market? The central bank’s ability to create money to support stock prices negates the price discovery function of the stock market.

The problem with central banks is that humans are fallible, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and all the board members and staff. Nobel prize-winner Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz established that the Great Depression was the consequence of the failure of the Federal Reserve to expand monetary policy sufficiently to offset the restriction of the money supply due to bank failure. When a bank failed in the pre-deposit insurance era, the money supply would shrink by the amount of the bank’s deposits. During the Great Depression, thousands of banks failed, wiping out the purchasing power of millions of Americans and the credit creating power of thousands of banks.

The Fed is prohibited from buying equities by the Federal Reserve Act. But an amendment in 2010 – Section 13(3) – was enacted to permit the Fed to buy AIG’s insolvent Maiden Lane assets. This amendment also created a loophole which enables the Fed to lend money to entities that can use the funds to buy stocks. Thus, the Swiss central bank could be operating as an agent of the Federal Reserve.

If central banks cannot properly conduct monetary policy, how can they conduct an equity policy? Some astute observers believe that the Swiss National Bank is acting as an agent for the Federal Reserve and purchases large blocs of US equities at critical times to arrest stock market declines that would puncture the propagandized belief that all is fine here in the US economy.

We know that the US government has a “plunge protection team” consisting of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. The purpose of this team is to prevent unwanted stock market crashes.

Is the stock market decline of August 20-21 welcome or unwelcome?

At this point we do not know. In order to keep the dollar up, the basis of US power, the Federal Reserve has promised to raise interest rates, but always in the future. The latest future is next month. The belief that a hike in interest rates is in the cards keeps the US dollar from losing exchange value in relation to other currencies, thus preventing a flight from the dollar that would reduce the Uni-power to Third World status.

The Federal Reserve can say that the stock market decline indicates that the recovery is in doubt and requires more stimulus. The prospect of more liquidity could drive the stock market back up. As asset bubbles are in the way of the Fed’s policy, a decline in stock prices removes the equity market bubble and enables the Fed to print more money and start the process up again.

On the other hand, the stock market decline last Thursday and Friday could indicate that the players in the market have comprehended that the stock market is an artificially inflated bubble that has no real basis. Once the psychology is destroyed, flight sets in.

If flight turns out to be the case, it will be interesting to see if central bank liquidity and purchases of stocks can stop the rout.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


America: A Land Where Justice Is Absent

08/21/2015

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/08/20/america-land-justice-absent-paul-craig-roberts/

By Paul Craig Roberts

America’s First Black President is a traitor to his race and also to justice.

Obama has permitted the corrupt US Department of Justice (sic), over which he wields authority, to overturn the ruling of a US Federal Court of Appeals that prisoners sentenced illegally to longer terms than the law permits must be released once the legal portion of their sentence is served. The DOJ, devoid of all integrity, compassion, and sense of justice, said that “finality” of conviction was more important than justice. Indeed, the US Justice (sic) Department’s motto is: “Justice? We don’t need no stinkin’ justice!”

Alec Karakatsanis, a civil rights attorney and co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law, tells the story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/opinion/president-obamas-department-of-injustice.html?_r=1

See also here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-DOJ-Perpetrates-In-by-Rob-Kall-Dept-Of-Justice-DoJ_Dept-Of-Justice-DoJ-Failures_Eric-Holder_Injustice-150820-644.html

The concept of “finality” was an invention of a harebrained Republican conservative academic lionized by the Republican Federalist Society. In years past conservatives believed—indeed, still do—that the criminal justice system coddles criminals by allowing too many appeals against their unlawful convictions. The appeals were granted by judges who thought that the system was supposed to serve justice, but conservatives demonized justice as something that enabled criminals. A succession of Republican presidents turned the US Supreme Court into an organization that only serves the interests of private corporations. Justice is nowhere in the picture.

Appeals Court Judge, James Hill, a member of the court that ruled that prisoners did not have to serve the illegal portion of their sentences, when confronted with the Obama/DOJ deep-sixing of justice had this to say:

“A judicial system that values finality over justice is morally bankrupt.”

Obama’s DOJ says that there are too many black prisoners illegally sentenced to be released without upsetting the crime-fearful white population. According to Obama’s Justice (sic) Department, the fears of brainwashed whites take precedence over justice. Judge Hill said that the DOJ “calls itself, without a trace of irony, the Department of Justice.”

Judge Hill added: We used to call such systems as people sitting in prison serving sentences that were illegally imposed “gulags.” “Now we call them the United States.”

America is a gulag. We are ruled by a government that is devoid of all morality, all integrity, all compassion, all justice. The government of the United States stands for one thing and one thing only: Evil.

It is just as Chavez told the United Nations in 2006 referring to President George W. Bush’s address to the assembly the day before: “Yesterday, at this very podium, Satan himself stood speaking as if he owned the world. You can still smell the sulfur.”

If you are an American and you cannot smell the sulfur, you are tightly locked down in The Matrix. God help you. There is no Neo to rescue you. And you are too brainwashed and ignorant to be rescued by me.

You are part of the new Captive Nation.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

No one knows more than I do how hard it is to give up that Patriotic love of country, but those who are too bull headed to admit the truth are going to wind up on the dirty end of the stick. The truth is, loving the concept of freedom is one thing and loving a government is quite another. If we had not had our head up our ass we would have recognized long ago that we have been beguiled and are now being rejected. Soon it will be a crime to be white!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Agenda for a Freer and More Prosperous America

08/20/2015

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36480/Richard-Ebeling-Agenda-for-a-Freer-and-More-Prosperous-America/

8-19-2015 11-37-43 AM

By Richard Ebeling

There is little that happens in society in general and the market economy in particular that most on the political “left” do not think needs more government intervention, regulation and redistribution to make “better.”

One recent example of this is a lengthy “report” primarily prepared by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph E. Stiglitz, for the Roosevelt Institute. Released in June 2015, Stiglitz and his co-authors present an agenda for Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity.

The “Progressive’s” Agenda for Bigger Government

Running for 100 pages, it is based on the premise that markets are inherently likely to be unfair when left on their own without pervasive government oversight and regulation, that income inequality must be cured through various fiscal and interventionist policies, that America’s economic system is persistently biased against ethnic and related minority groups and that sustainable growth and stable financial markets require more intrusive government intervention, including making “full employment” a higher priority for the Federal Reserve in setting monetary policy.

In the grab bag of policy proposals are included federal laws restoring union power to control labor markets and hold businesses hostage to their wage and benefit demands, even heavier environmental regulations on business and industry in the name of saving the planet, higher marginal tax rates on the classified “rich” and increased capital gains and dividend taxes to pay for all the things the Roosevelt Institute authors think government should be doing more of.

Economic growth is to be fostered through massive government-funded infrastructure programs and expansion of “public transportation” as a tool for creating job access for low-income groups.

Stiglitz and his team also propose to raise the federal minimum wage, impose mandatory paid sick and family leave, subsidize child care for working mothers, increase government spending on all levels of schooling and education, including reducing people’s financial responsibility for repaying loans for higher education, “universalizing” government-funded health care even more than it is already, have the government go more directly in to the home mortgage business at subsidized lending rates with below market-based credit worthiness and expand Social Security access and benefits.

The report really represents a laundry list of every aspect of market activity that those on “the left,” at one time or another, have argued and pushed for as needing corrections or repair through a larger and more intrusive regulatory and paternalistic state.

Even where some actual negative social effects can be shown to have their origin in earlier government interventions and regulations, in Stiglitz’s eyes it is still the market that has failed. Where he correctly observes that the government has used its powers and authority to benefit some at the expense of others, his “solution” is never to end privilege or favor for any and all, but merely to shift how and for what purposes government intervention is used to benefit those groups he likes more or considers more deserving.

It is impossible in a short opinion piece to offer a detailed critique and refutation of Stiglitz’s “diagnoses” of America’s economic ills and his “cures” that, in my view, would lead to an even more government-controlled society and market than already exists – and not for the better.

America is Suffering from Serious Economic Problems

Instead, an as an alternative, I would like to present, however briefly, what might be considered a classical liberal, free market “Rewriting of the Rules for the American Economy.”

America is suffering from a variety of serious institutional and structural problems. It has been most visible in the relatively slow and sluggish recovery from the 2008-2009 economic recession. Most economic recoveries over the last 70 years have witnessed real growth in Gross Domestic Product in the early phase of previous upturns of four to five percent, even over 7.5 percent in 1983. Since 2009, GDP growth has hobbled along between one and 2.5 percent most of the time.

Again, following most post-1945 recessions, recovery of jobs lost in the economy due to an economic downturn was more or less recouped on average within nine months to a year and a half. It is now six years since the 2009 trough and the American economy still has not fully recovered from the loss of jobs from the recession and to successfully grow employment beyond that level.

The same weakened pattern of improvement in the American economy may be seen in average wage growth, labor force participation in the job market and the slower rate of start-ups of new businesses and capital investment.

(It should be pointed out, however, that while several indices of real wages over the last several decades have measured limited real wage growth, these indices do not give any clear and relevant calculation of the improvement in the qualities of goods and the availability of new goods the characteristics of which have been radically innovative in our daily lives compared to what could be bought on the market, say, in 1985 or 1990. So that average standards of living across all income groups have dramatically improved, regardless of what a wage index may imply.)

It would be too dramatic to use the word, “malaise,” as President Jimmy Carter did to describe the economy during his presidency, but it is nonetheless the case that the American economy is not as robust and dynamic as it could be and has been in a number of previous post-recession periods.

The Primary Source of America’s Problems Is Government

From the classical liberal, free market perspective, the source of America’s economic problems stems from the size and scope of government regulation, intervention and redistribution in the economy.

All levels of government absorb at least 40 percent of GDP (up from around 34 percent two decades ago and a mere seven percent a century ago). Over 80,000 pages of federal regulations handicap business enterprise, with estimated compliance costs of nearly $2 trillion.

In 2012, the Institute for Justice calculated the difficulties for those wishing to practice a small business due to occupational licensing. Especially for low and medium income groups, such occupational regulations makes it time consuming and financially burdensome for the poorer members of the society to improve their material circumstances through self-employment.

The Institute studied over a hundred occupations and found that licensing and mandatory training expenses can easily come to hundreds of dollars, and take up anywhere from several months to over a year for meeting the government stipulated learning courses.

Their investigation concluded that in most cases occupational licensing had little or nothing to do with safety or standards to protect consumers, and far more to do as a method to limit the competition that existing practitioners of these lines of work would have to face.

Business and corporate taxes in the United States are among the highest in the world, including the imposing of double taxation on foreign earnings brought back to the U.S. after they have already been taxed in the country in which the revenues were earned.

The institutional and structural crisis confronting the United States is not a crisis of “capitalism” or the free market. It is the crisis of the interventionist-regulatory-redistributive state.

America, today, may be free and open in comparison to a good number of other countries around the world but in comparison to a truly free America, the United States of the twenty-first century is far from a land of liberty.

Restoring the Spirit and Understanding of Individualism

America must rediscover and reestablish its own founding principles and philosophical ideas. Without this, no lasting institutional or structural change is possible.

This means recapturing the spirit and meaning of individualism and individual rights, that every human being should be considered a free person, allowed to live his or her own life as he or she wishes, guided by their own goals, purposes and ideals that will give their life meaning, value and worth, as they define it.

This means liberating ourselves form the false notion that the individual is owned and subservient to the collective, the tribe or the group into which they were born, and to which a political and ideological elite asserts they are to be sacrificed and obedient, that their life is not their own, but the property of the collective.

As long as this underlying collectivism is not challenged and overcome, real and sustainable freedom cannot be restored. America was founded on the idea of sovereign individuals, who associated with each other for mutual betterment through voluntary trade and consensual association. Government was meant to secure and protect each individual’s right to his life, liberty and honestly acquired property (“honestly acquired property” meaning peaceful production and/or voluntary exchange.)

Privileges and favors, subsidies and artificial protections for some at the expense of others must be repealed and abolished. There must be an equality of individual rights before the law, not an inequality of government-imposed “entitlements” and redistributive “rights” that cannot be secured for privileged individuals and groups without taking through taxes or regulations from some to give to others.

The Free Society Is a “System of Natural Liberty”

When individual rights are respected and government is limited to the protection of those rights, society experiences what Scottish moral philosopher and political economist Adam Smith called a “system of natural liberty.”

Each individual is free to apply his knowledge, talents, abilities and skills as he thinks best in the system of division of labor as he undertakes the earning of a living in peaceful, voluntary and competitive cooperation with others.

It is a fortuitous social order, in which each individual is free to live his own life as he thinks best, but which at the same time makes him mutually interdependent with all the others in his society due to the specialization of tasks and occupations.

Thus, to improve his own circumstances he must apply the knowledge, talents, abilities and skills he possesses in ways that benefit those with whom he trades and associates, within and outside of markets, as the means to acquire from them the goods or assistance without which he cannot attain many of his own goals and ends.

From Adam Smith to F. A. Hayek, advocates and proponents of the free-market economy have pointed out and emphasized that not only does government planning, regulation and control restrict the individual’s freedom to act peacefully as he finds most advantageous. It also inhibits the ability of all in society to best improve their circumstances, because those in government – politicians and bureaucrats – can never possess and effectively use all the knowledge that only exists in a decentralized and dispersed form in the respective minds of all in society, and for the efficient use of which those in government can never have the same self-interested motive as those who possess that knowledge.

Thus, both the achievement of greater human liberty and motivated use of that divided and personally possessed knowledge for the mutual improvement of all requires the radical reduction in the size and scope of government at all levels and for all activities.

Market Opportunities for Capital Formation and a Better Society

A free society, with very limited governmental functions, leaves most of the income and wealth produced in the hands of those who have earned it. This provides the financial wherewithal and the incentives and possibilities for increased savings and investment, and the resulting capital formation.

It is savings wisely invested that results in the profitable manufacture of the new, improved and more efficient capital equipment that increases output per man hour, that raises the (marginal) productivity of labor and that brings about, over time, both higher wages and more, new and better goods and services to buy at competitively lower prices with the incomes earned.

These are old truths that reasonable economists have understood and explained for nearly 250 years, now. To the extent that their insight and advice was even partially followed by governments, subsistence poverty has been reduced or even virtually eliminated in more parts of the planet. Work has become less burdensome, with fewer hours and greater free time and leisure accompanying the higher earnings and rising standards of living.

Furthermore, commercial society makes people more courteous, polite and deferential to their fellow men, as human relationships have come to rely more on voluntary consent and mutual agreement than force and coerced fear by some against others.

When a potential customer can shop next door rather than in your establishment, self-interest soon makes it a disadvantage to be rude, impolite, or discourteous in one’s market dealings with others. And fraud and deceit, even when technically seeming to be within the law, carries the risk of loss of repeat business and a word-of-mouth bad reputation, which can cost more in the long run than the seeming gain from a short-run advantage at a customer’s expense.

Combine this with a non-inflationary monetary environment in which individuals can confidently use the market’s chosen medium or media of exchange to facilitate their current transactions and their intertemporal exchanges in financial and related markets, and the institutional setting will be most conducive to business creation, growth and improvement, jobs for an increasing labor force with rising real wages (when accompanied by market-guided investment and capital formation) and improved standards of living for larger and eventually all segments of the society.

Natural Inequality and Egalitarian Desires

However, critics of the market have often pointed out that not all start with the same opportunities in life, and that this presumably gives some unfair advantages at the “starting line” of the race of life.

The fact is, we are not born equal. Some of us have been lucky enough to have chosen parents with the genes that give us the physical attractiveness to maybe be a successful movie star, or the differing height to be either a professional basketball player or a horserace winning jockey.

We are born into different family environments that may or may not give special attention to the value of an education, or the discipline and responsibility in managing one’s own affairs and pursuing a chosen goal.

And some of us come from financially better off households that enable the purchase and enjoyment of material goods and personal and social opportunities that others may lack.

Since those on “the left” very often oppose the use of GMOs – “genetically modified organisms” – they have not, as yet, espoused the introduction of genetically modified human beings so we may all physically look alike and possess the same intellectual capacities and inclinations to assure a more egalitarian society through the genetic homogenization of humankind. (But one never knows what the future holds in store when it comes to the obsessions of the ideologically driven “social engineer.”)

But in Europe it has been proposed to ban homework and parents’ studying with their children at home, since some parents show greater interest and conscientiousness in trying to assist their child’s learning abilities and advancements. What is the problem? It gives socially unfair advantage to the children in these parent-active homes, compared to those households in which studying is downplayed and parent participation in the child’s learning is less or none at all. Thus, it is considered better to impose the lowest learning common dominator to assure egalitarian ignorance than allow some children to get ahead of others due to the quality of their parent’s support in the home.

So what, then, is left? The redistribution of wealth for educational, as well as many other purposes, of course, to make those who “unfairly” or “unjustly” have more than they “need” through the “luck” or “accident” of the market to pay for others deemed by the redistributors to be more deserving. More will be spent on government schools, including job-secured government teachers, with mandatory attendance to make sure that everyone has the same quality (or lack of quality) teaching as well as the same content of what is learned.

Those who earned more through successfully better serving their fellow men through the free, voluntary and competitive activities of the market are to be penalized for their success as professionals, as entrepreneurs, as managers and as valued, more highly paid workers in the marketplace of employment.

Educational Choice and Competition for Better Life Chances

Does lack of a good education, all other things held the same, hold a person back from the opportunity of getting ahead in life? No doubt. And there are thousands of young minds who fail to successfully learn even the three “R”s before they drop out or graduate from government schools, and tragically this happens to a disproportional extent in “minority” communities in America.

But the solution to this problem is not more taxpayer money and further centralized “common core” curriculums. It is a radical reform to foster the two “C”s: choice and competition. The educational establishment in America needs, desperately, to be fully privatized, and with this the ending of local and federal taxes collected to fund the current government monopoly schooling system.

Parents, with the resulting lowered taxes, should be given the right and ability to choose where their children are educated, by whom and with what curriculum and teaching methods. Choice puts decision-making where it belongs in a free society – with the individual, in this case parents.

With choice comes responsibility for the outcome of the decision. Place this responsibility back where it should be, and its exercise will be taken as seriously as when most people decide what job to take, what house or car to buy and the clothes and shoes to purchase. Since it is their own children’s education and future that is at stake, more parents will end up taking the time and effort to try to wisely decide their offspring’s schooling.

Competition creates the institutional setting and motive for excellence and innovation. This is and can be no less in the arena of education and schooling than in other aspects of life. Competition for consumer dollars drives private enterprises to devise better, new and less costly products to market to all of us as consumers. This would work no less in the educational business, if learning and schooling were made part of economic liberty.

But what about the parents or children who lack the financial wherewithal to finance a decent education in this privatized schooling market? The free society in countries like America has shown itself to be compassionate and benevolent communities of private charity and voluntary philanthropy. Even under the current burdens of taxation, Americans in 2014 generously gave almost $360 billion is charitable giving, more than a third of a trillion dollars.

Reduce taxes, set the market economy free to generate more wealth, output and prosperity, and people will have even greater financial capacities to help those that remain in society who may need that “helping hand.” Besides, a growing economy continues to raise more people out of poverty and modest financial means so the number of people asking for or needing such voluntary assistance would decrease over time.

Artificial Inequalities Versus Equal Rights in the Market Economy

Finally, there are unjust and unfair inequalities in American society. There are people and groups that are prevented from having opportunities and chances to rise to their potential.

But in the eyes of the classical liberal the origin and basis of these inequalities are “artificial,” and not part of the inescapable inequalities of the human condition and the outcomes of freedom. They are due to locking large segments of the population – especially, but not exclusively, in ethnic and racial minority communities – around the country into intergenerational dependency on government welfare and redistributive programs.

It is due to condemning the youth of America, and again especially in the poorest segments of the population, into mismanaged, self-serving and counter-productive government schools that leave too many young minds far behind in that race of life.

It is caused by a regulatory system that locks out the financially poor and poorly educated from starting their own businesses or being hired in local community small businesses because of the often-strangling hand of occupational and enterprise-licensing procedures that prevent people from taking the initiative to improve their own lives.

Minimum wage laws, and union restrictions in “closed-shop” states, as well as tax burdens that hamper job creation and employment opportunities all work to artificially keep those at the lowest end of the income levels from escaping from their circumstances.

Freeing markets under a regime of equal individual rights under an impartial rule and enforcement of the law would do far more to help those that “progressives” claim they are most concerned about in society than the entire array of interventionist and welfare statist programs have done in more than a half a century of coerced redistribution since the heady hopes of LBJ’s Great Society programs.

Adam Smith’s conception of a “system of natural liberty,” under which each individual is free to live his own life as he chooses and peacefully compete and cooperate in the arena of market exchange remains the finest and most powerful vision and agenda for a free and prosperous America and world for all.

Dr. Richard Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan (2009-2014). He served as president of the Foundation for Economic Education (2003-2008) and held the Ludwig von Mises Chair in Economics at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan (1988-2003).

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Why do so few authors write the common mans language and state plain and simple facts? Is it considered impolite to say that humanity has natural flaws that prevent societies from agreeing on how to live and control their lives? Why not just plainly say that we are all born depraved, self-centered, egotist, and do not know how to live peacefully and productively under one set of rules, and never will?

Who is the idiot who decided we should all live and work under the authority of just one philosophy, and group of appointed or elected leaders? What is wrong with a persons parents being their primary source of preparatory education, and understanding of the importance of advanced knowledge, and their responsibility to pursue it? Is it everyone’s responsibility to educate the children of lazy underachieving parents? So what if little Johnny’s folks are poor, and neither he nor his parents have the incentive to improve their education! Is that your responsibility, or fault?

I have never seen any group of people living productively happy lives under one single authority. This inbred individualism just happens to be the only saving grace of humanity. It means we are all responsible for our own lives, if we want to be happy, healthy, prosperous, and at peace with the world.

It is now, and always has been the scourge of humanity for the self appointed elite to seek the power to make everyone conform to their rules, for their personal gain. If everyone would accept their responsibility to learn about the flaws in humanity and accept the fact that they are best left that way, we would all live better lives. Take this to the bank folks; there will never be a society that is happy and productive under the authority of other people. PERIOD!

Every government that humans have ever invented has had one consistent objective: absolute control of their constituent – subjects for their personal gain. There is no such thing as real freedom! We must all accept responsibility for our lives and those we beget. The rejection of personal responsibility is a guaranteed path to regret and suffering. Has any parent ever raised a child without witnessing its natural born rejection of authority? Given our self-centeredness, consider what life would be like without some authority to answer too. This conundrum is the result of being created by an omniscient GOD whose objective is making His power known. Best advice; pray often for the light! We rejected God’s authority, and are now paying for our stupidity! If you’re too hard core to accept that, show me one single human being in the history of humanity who is/was, a trustworthy, forgiving, and benevolent leader besides Jesus Christ!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


John Stuart Mill and the Dangers from Unrestrained Government

08/19/2015

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36468/Richard-Ebeling-John-Stuart-Mill-and-the-Dangers-from-Unrestrained-Government/

8-19-2015 11-30-39 AM

By Richard Ebeling

One of the great voices for personal liberty was that of the British economist and political philosopher, John Stuart Mill. His essay, “On Liberty,” though penned well over 150 years ago, is a classic statement that the individual should be respected in his right of freedom of thought, speech and action.

But John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was also one of the most important economists of the nineteenth century. His Principles of Political Economy, originally published in 1848, became the leading textbook for at least two generations of students, from which they learned the nature of a market economy and its alternatives.

  1. S. Mill’s Sympathies for Socialism and “Distributive Justice”

Mill has been a highly controversial figure among friends of freedom because while strongly endorsing the autonomy of the individual in thought and deed, he believed (and even hoped) that someday in the future human nature might have changed enough to be compatible with elements of the socialist idea of an altruistic good society.

He also argued that while the physical laws of production (the technological requirements of producing goods from resources and raw materials) are beyond man’s control to arbitrarily change, the “laws of distribution” were open to human choice and manipulation, given any social values people may have.

That is, after the output of goods has been produced, it is a matter of “society’s” preference to decide how to distribute it among the members of any community. This led the Austrian economist, F. A.Hayek, to argue that Mill’s “advocacy of distributive justice and a general sympathetic attitude towards socialist aspirations in some of his other writings, prepared the gradual transition of a large part of the liberal intellectuals to a moderate socialism.”

And it is certainly the case that in his Principles of Political Economy, Mill argued for numerous exceptions to the laissez-faire principle of governments being limited to the protection of life, liberty and peacefully acquired property. Most current-day classical liberals find many, if not most, of these exceptions unpersuasive in the light of more than a century with the experience of government intervention in education, business regulation, the labor market and welfare state “social safety nets.”

Self-Interest and the Consequences of Government Intervention

But it would be unfair to Mill to assert that he had lapsed into a fullyutopian la-la-land of malleable human nature in which social reality could be whatever the dreamer of a “better world” might desire.

He may have been open and even sympathetic to the idea that maybe someday human nature in the normal societal work environment might become more like a monastic brotherhood of collective sharing and selflessness. But in the world in which Mill lived he had no illusions about any such transformation in a reasonable horizon of time.

He worked under the clear and evident assumption that individuals are guided by self-interest, that they attempt to improve their own circumstances as they define betterment, and they respond to the incentive structures within the institutional settings in which they find themselves.

Given the reality of human nature in the social world, Mill was insistent that, “though governments or nations have the power of deciding what institutions shall exist, they cannot arbitrarily determine how those institutions shall work.” The effects from changing how wealth was distributed in society were not under man’s unlimited control through government edict, legislation or command. Or as he put it,

We have here to consider, not the causes, but the consequences, of the rules according to which wealth may be distributed . . . Human beings can control their own acts, but not the consequences of their acts either to themselves or to others. Society can subject the distribution of wealth to whatever rules it thinks best; but what practical results will flow from the operation of those rules must be discovered, like any other physical or mental truths, by observation and reasoning.

He understood that the link between work and reward was strongest when the gains from effort were the property of the producer of wealth, and the resulting output might be negatively affected under prevailing human circumstances with a break in this linkage.

Individuals Know Their Own Interests Better Than Government

Mill also believed that individuals have a far greater understanding of their own surroundings in terms of enterprise decisions than any government agents and bureaucrats could ever possess. Even if one were to imagine that they possessed the same knowledge as the actors in the different corners of the division of labor, those representatives of the government would never have the same incentive to use that knowledge as productively and profitably as the separate individuals in the market arena.

However, in fact, there is more knowledge in the minds of all the members of a society combined than any one or group of government officials could ever know or master, Mill pointed out. Thus, it was better to leave the use of such dispersed and personal knowledge to those who possessed it, rather than the government taking on commercial and enterprising tasks for which it was not competent.

In addition, given the reality of self-interest on the part of all members of society, whether in the market or in government, Mill warned the presumption needed to be the constant danger of misuse and abuse of political power and governmental position.

Government the Greatest Threat to Person and Property

Essential for individual and social prosperity was security of person and property, Mill insisted. But there is always the eternal problem: who guards the people from the guardians meant to protect people’s lives and possessions? Or as Mill expressed it:

By security I mean the completeness of the protection which society affords to its members. This consists of protection by the government and protection against the government. The latter is the most important.

Where a person known to possess anything worth taking away, can expect nothing but to have it torn from him, by every circumstance of tyrannical violence, by the agents of a rapacious government, it is not likely that many will exert themselves to produce much more than necessaries . . . The only insecurity which is altogether paralyzing to the entire energies of producers, is that arising from the government, or from persons invested with its authority . . .

It is sufficient to remark, that the efficiency of industry may be expected to be great, in proportion as the fruits of industry are insured to the person exerting it; and that all social arrangements are conducive to useful exertion, according as they provide that the reward of every one for his labor shall be proportioned as much as possible to the benefit which it produces.

All laws and usages which . . . chain up the efforts of any part of the community in pursuit of their own good, or stand between efforts and their natural fruits . . . [tend] to make the aggregate productive powers of the community productive in a less degree than they would otherwise be.

Government Services Should Not be Monopolized

Though Mill may have concluded that government in a liberal society should extend its responsibilities beyond the narrower confines of a more strict laissez-faire policy, he nonetheless remained suspicious and indeed critical of any monopolization of such tasks.

For instance, he believed that state involvement in education was essential to assure the development of a generally literate, intelligent and informed citizenry. But while he argued government funding and supplying of schools were desirable for a functioning and free society of reasoning and reasonable individuals, he was forcefully against the exclusion of educational competition.

Nothing was more to be feared than total government control over any facet of life that would threaten to stifle the creative, innovative and uniquely original ideas that only emerge from diverse and free minds able to think and experiment:

“One thing must be strenuously insisted on: that the government must claim no monopoly for its education, either in the lower or in the higher branches . . . It is not endurable that a government should either de jure or de facto, have a complete control over the education of the people. To possess such a control, and to actually exert it, is to be despotic. A government that can mold the opinions and sentiments of the people from their youth onwards can do with them whatever it pleases.

“Though a government, therefore, may, and in many cases ought to, establish schools and colleges, it must neither compel nor bribe any person to come to them; nor ought the power of individuals to set up rival establishments depend in any degree upon its authorization.”

Dangers from Democracy and the Need to Limit the Franchise

In his famous essay “On Liberty,” Mill had warned about both the political tyranny of the minority and, now, in his “democratic” age the growing danger of a tyranny of the majority. (See my article, “John Stuart Mill and the Dangers to Liberty.”)

In the Principles, he emphasized the same point, arguing that, “Experience, however, proves that the depositories of power who are mere delegates of the people, that is of a majority, are quite as ready (when they think they can count on popular support) as any organs of oligarchy to assume arbitrary power, and encroach unduly on the liberty of private life.”

Indeed, Mill suggested that a tyranny of the majority was potentially more dangerous than the monarchies or oligarchies of the past, since when “the people” assert their sovereignty there remain few if any of the intermediary institutions of society to protect and support the threatened individual from the abuse of the “masses.”

This danger of an unbridled voting majority taking advantage of their numbers to plunder others in society was an especial problem in democratic society, Mill warned. Therefore, in his 1861 book,Reflections on Representative Government, Mill argued that those who received “public assistance” (government welfare) should be denied the voting franchise for as long as they receive such tax-based financial support and livelihood.

Simply put, Mill reasoned that this creates an inescapable conflict of interest, in the ability of some to vote for the very government funds that are taxed away from others for their own benefit. Or as Mill expressed it:

“It is important, that the assembly which votes the taxes, either general or local, should be elected exclusively by those who pay something towards the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, disposing by their votes of other people’s money, have every motive to be lavish and none to economize.

As far as money matters are concerned, any power of voting possessed by them is a violation of the fundamental principle of free government . . . It amounts to allowing them to put their hands into other people’s pockets for any purpose which they think fit to call a public one.

Mill went on to explain why he considered this to be especially true for those relying upon tax-based, redistributed welfare dependency, which in nineteenth century Great Britain was dispersed by the local parishes of the Church of England. Said Mill:

I regard it as required by first principles, that the receipt of parish relief should be a peremptory disqualification for the [voting] franchise. He who cannot by his labor suffice for his own support has no claim to the privilege of helping himself to the money of others . . .

Those to whom he is indebted for the continuance of his very existence may justly claim the exclusive management of those common concerns, to which he now brings nothing, or less than he takes away.

As a condition of the franchise, a term should be fixed, say five years previous to the registry, during which the applicant’s name has not been on the parish books as a recipient of relief.

I would suggest that the same argument could be extended, today, to all those who work for the government, for as long as they are employed by the government they are directly living off the taxed income and wealth of others.

If it is said that government employees pay taxes, too, the reply should be that if you receive a $100 salary from the government and pay in taxes, say, $30, you remain the net recipient of $70 of other people’s money and are not a contributor to the costs of government.

Extending Mill’s logic a little further, I think that the same case could be made that all those who live off government expenditures in the form of government contracts or subsidies, should likewise be excluded from voting for the same conflict of interest reasons.

Such individuals and their private enterprises may not be totally dependent upon government expenditures for their livelihood. A rule might be implemented that to be eligible for the right to vote: no individual or the private enterprise from which he draws an income should receive (just for purpose of example), say, more than 10 percent of his or her gross income from government spending of any sort.

If a form of Mill’s voting restriction rule had been in effect 100 year ago, it is difficult to see how the government could ever have grown to the size and cost that it now has in society.

In turn, if there were any way to implement such a vote-restricting rule, it is equally hard to see how the current, gigantic interventionist-welfare state could long remain in existence. Government, no doubt, would soon be cut down to a far more limited and less intrusive size.

Mill’s Illusion of Calculating “Social Utility”

Finally, what was the source of how someone like John Stuart Mill could, on the one hand, argue so persuasively on the dangers of unlimited government, especially in its modern democratic form, speak so eloquently on behalf of the liberty of the individual against the tyrannies of minorities or majorities, yet make the case that the “laws of distribution” were a matter of “society’s” choice, and government should intrude in various and sundry ways into the market and related aspects of people’s lives for the “good of all”?

The basic reason is the philosophical premise from which John Stuart Mill grounded his arguments concerning freedom, society and the government. Though he changed his views over the years, he fundamentally remained a “utilitarian.” The goal of public (that is, government) policy is to maximize the happiness of “society,” and therefore “goodness” of every social arrangement – the “rights” of individuals to any liberty, the ownership of property and the distribution of any material wealth produced – was a matter of estimating whether they generated more collective “pleasure” than “pain,” more “happiness” than “harm” to the society as a whole.

The individual was allowed to keep or have redistributed to him from others what the “social collective” decided was to be his out of the total of “society’s” material wealth. The individual, in other words, is made a material slave to the community of which he is a member.

One of Mill’s contemporaries, the social philosopher Herbert Spencer, pointed out, in Social Statics (1851), the insolubility of this train of reasoning saying that if we argue, “a man is not at liberty . . . to do what may give unhappiness [negative social utility] to his neighbors, we find ourselves involved in complicated estimates of pleasures and pains, to the obvious peril of our conclusions.”

Such notions as “pleasure” and “pain” or “happiness” and “unhappiness” are certainly real feelings that individuals experience and which influence and guide both the goals they set for themselves looking to the future and their judgments after the fact as they evaluate how things have turned out.

But there is no way to quantify, measure, or sum up such inner feelings that an individual experiences, and there is certainly no way to, then, add them up over a community of individuals to determine whether one set of social institutions or government policies can be “objectively” said to make “society” as a whole better or worse off, more “happy” or “unhappy.”

Such a purely utilitarian approach to governmental decision-making is a swamp of subjective judgments, pseudo-scientific calculations based upon arbitrary assumptions assigned by the policy-maker, and a battlefield of competing conceptions of the “social good” that easily plays into the hands of those desiring political power and those wishing to rationalize the use of that power to coercively manipulate markets and wealth redistributions to benefit some at the expense of others.

“Natural Rights” and the Purpose of Government

What John Stuart Mill rejected in attempting to redesign society according to this shaky premise of “social utility” was the older tradition upon which the great achievements of winning liberty was based in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the tradition of “natural rights.”

It had taken on its early “modern” form in the writings of the British philosopher, John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government(1689), in which he had said that individual rights did not come from government, but were derivable from reasoned reflection on the nature of man, the requirements for his survival and betterment and the social arrangements most likely to be conducive to the improvement of each individual’s life while assuring the exclusion of force or fraud from human relationships.

Government, in this tradition, has a rationale for its existence in the need and usefulness of an enforcement institution to secure each individual in his right to his life, liberty and peacefully produced or acquired property from the plundering and murdering hands of others.

In the tradition of a reasoned conception of individual rights prior to and independent of government, the delineation of “just” associative relationships between human beings is their basis in mutual agreement and voluntary exchange.

In such a social setting, the role and delimitation of the duties and functions of government is to use coercive power to protect each individual’s liberty and not to apply its authorized use of force to, itself, abridge one person’s life, liberty or property to benefit another – and most certainly not on the basis of some arbitrary measure of people’s “pleasures” and “pains” to maximize some imaginary “total” of “happiness” for the entire society.

It is this natural rights tradition that was the basis for the principles expressed in the American Declaration of Independence, and it is the political philosophical tradition that needs to be restated, refined and persuasively articulated in our own times if liberty is to be restored and real social peace and mutual prosperity are to be effectively assured.

(See my article, “The Case for Freedom and Free Markets in the Writings of Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand“.)

Dr. Richard Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan (2009-2014). He served as president of the Foundation for Economic Education (2003-2008) and held theLudwig von Mises Chair in Economics at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan (1988-2003).

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


WHO REALLY CONTROLS THE WORLD?

08/18/2015

http://www.outsiderclub.com/report/who-really-controls-the-world/1032

By Jimmy Mengel

It’s the question that conspiracy theorists dedicate their lives to answering…

It’s the question that conspiracy theorists dedicate their lives to answering…

Who is pulling the strings?

Who is hiding behind the curtain?

These questions have long been subject to speculation, scapegoating, and paranoid ravings — some more well-founded than others.

Now, thanks to the science of complex system theory, the answer may actually be right in front of our faces…

This scientific process sheds light on the dark corners of bank control and international finance and pulls some of the major players out from the shadows.

And it goes back to the old credo: Just follow the money.

Systems theorist James B. Glattfelder did just that.

From a massive database of 37 million companies, Glattfelder pulled out the 43,060 transnational corporations (companies that operate in more than one country) that are all connected by their shareholders.

Digging further, he constructed a model that actually displays just how connected these companies are to one another through ownership of shares and their corresponding operating revenues.

8-12-2015 9-25-26 AM

The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy. 
Superconnected companies are red, very connected companies are yellow. The size of the dot represents revenue. 

I’ll openly admit that this graphic almost scared me off. Complex scientific theories are not my forte, and this looks like some sort of intergalactic snow globe.

But Glattfelder has done a remarkable job of boiling these connections down to the main actors — as well as pinpointing how much power they have over the global market. These “ownership networks” can reveal who the key players are, how they are organized, and exactly how interconnected these powers are.

From New Scientist:

Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network.

According to his data, Glattfelder found that the top 730 shareholders control a whopping 80% of the entire revenue of transnational corporations.

And — surprise, surprise! — they are mostly financial institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom.

That is a huge amount of concentrated control in a small number of hands…

Here are the top ten transnational companies that hold the most control over the global economy (and if you are one of the millions that are convinced Big Banks run the world, you should get a creeping sense of validation from this list):

  1. Barclays plc
  2. Capital Group Companies Inc.
  3. FMR Corporation
  4. AXA
  5. State Street Corporation
  6. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  7. Legal & General Group plc
  8. Vanguard Group Inc.
  9. UBS AG
  10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc.

Some of the other usual suspects round out the top 25, including Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, and Goldman Sachs.

What you won’t find are ExxonMobil, Microsoft, or General Electric, which I found shocking. In fact, you have to scroll all the way down to China Petrochemical Group Company at number 50 to find a company that actually creates something.

The top 49 corporations are financial institutions, banks, and insurance companies — with the exception of Wal-Mart, which ranks at number 15…

The rest essentially just push money around to one another.

Here’s the interconnectedness of the top players in this international scheme:

8-12-2015 10-07-07 AM

And here’s a fun fact about the number one player, Barclays:

Barclays was a main player in the LIBOR manipulation scandal and was found to have committed fraud and collusion with other interconnected big banks. It was fined $200 million by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $160 million by the United States Department of Justice, and £59.5 million by the Financial Services Authority for “attempted manipulation” of the LIBOR and Euribor rates.

Despite its crimes, Barclays still paid $3.9 billion in bonuses last year, including a whopping $27,371,750 to investment banking head Rich Ricci. And yes, that’s actually his real name…

These are the guys who run the world.

It’s essentially the “too big to fail” argument laid out in scientific setting — only instead of just the U.S. banks, we’re talking about an international cabal of banks and financial institutions so intertwined that they pose a serious threat to global economics.

And instead of “too big to fail,” we’re looking at “too connected to fail”…

Glattfelder contends that “a high degree of interconnectivity can be bad for stability, because stress can spread through the system like an epidemic.”

Industrialist Henry Ford once quipped, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

It’s one thing to have suspicions that someone is working behind the scenes to control the world’s money supply. It’s quite another to have scientific evidence that clearly supports it…
Just another reason to stay on the Outside.
Godspeed,

Jimmy Mengel

@mengeled on Twitter

Jimmy is a managing editor for Outsider Club and the Investment Director of the personal finance advisory The Crow’s Nest. You may also know him as the architect behind the wildly popular finance and investing website Wealth Wire, where he’s brought readers the stories behind the mainstream financial news each and every day. For more on Jimmy, check out his editor’s page.

*Follow Outsider Club on Facebook and Twitter.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Americans “Too Fearful to Face Facts” That the Republic is Dead, the Country is Gone!

08/17/2015

http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2015/08/americans-too-fearful-to-face-facts-that-the-republic-is-dead-the-country-is-gone-2581400.html

2-12-2015 9-29-40 AM

Art by Anthony Frieda. Anthonyfreda.com

 B y Bernie Suarez

 This excellent article was written by Bernie Suarez for Activist Post.com. Please follow their fine work.

Editor’s Comment: No matter what happens in the news, most Americans just can’t face it. At ballgames, schools, churches, meetings, jobs and stores, Americans tend to salute the flag, accept b.s. rationales for evil deeds and stupid policies, and shun inconvenient truths that would otherwise inform a thinking person that the game is rigged, that the Republic is dead, and that the country is gone.

Agree or not, the issues raised below are crucial to the arrangement of government, and the power of the people in that government. By all accounts, corruption has become legalized, government has assumed all meaningful power – except that which is reserved to the corporations and banks – and rule of law has been replaced by rule of an elite who make their own rules. Academic studies, Congressman and Federal Reserve chairs now acknowledge that the United States has become an oligarchy… and oligarchies consist mainly of a few noblemen, and a mass population of obedient and powerless serfs. Better face up, because nothing is going to change for the better by ignoring it.

10 Disturbing Facts Most Americans Are Too Fearful To Face

By Bernie Suarez

Sometimes you have to put out information in hopes that those who haven’t heard this will at least absorb a fraction of it. If you haven’t heard this and you absorb just one of these random points, I believe that may be enough to cause a major paradigm shift in your life or in the life of someone you know. Here are 10 random, mostly recent but some archival information that is factual and verifiable for anyone willing to look it up.

  1. Genetically Modified Foods are illegal in many countries for health and medical reasons all the while the U.S. passes laws making GMO labeling illegal.

You may be thinking, say what? That’s right. U.S. citizens are being propagandized daily and are being practically forced to blindly consume GMOs while countries like Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, Australia, Russia, France and Switzerland all have booted Monsanto and their GMO crops from their countries. That’s like being booted out of a town for being a rapist and child molester only to have that same person settle into the next town over and become a grade school teacher or pastor. Now imagine the citizens of that other town having a law forced on them that says rapists and child molesters must be allowed to teach little kids and run churches. That’s what we’re talking about here.

While humanity in other countries wakes up fully to the dangers of GMO foods, Monsanto and other GMO food producers are having a feast in the U.S. buying out politicians, distorting news, research and evidence that proves GMO foods are directly linked to cancer. Like a scene from a bad movie, only it’s not a movie. Actually it’s YOUR life if you are in the United States dealing with this nightmare.

As bizarre as it seems, only in the U.S. do criminal corporations like Monsanto enjoy the benefits of the support of the political and legal system. A bird’s eye view of the situation clearly shows how corrupt and evil the control system in the United States really is. Sadly, most Americans have no idea that they are being lied to every day and lured into eating dangerous cancer-causing and health-destroying food just so that someone can profit from your disease later on.

  1. As a result of “Act of 1871″by the 41st Congress, the United States “Corporation” was created to trample the original Republic.

Shockingly, this fraudulent synthetic corporate government entity is the only “United States” most people in America know today. And this non-governmental corporate entity covering a 10-square-mile grid in Washington D.C. parades as a sovereign legitimate government and has been doing so for over 100 years.

Of all the things that need to be repaired and reversed in the United States, this single issue is one of the most important root issues for people to wrap their heads around.

Imagine the impact of getting a real grassroots movement of people to push awareness of the truth of the current District of Columbia U.S. Corporate Government and the corresponding imitation Constitution OF the United States (instead of “For” the United States as stated in the original organic document).

This is one of those issues that most people don’t know where to start, how to apply this idea, and how to lead this idea in a meaningful way so they simply give up. The fact is that people are afraid to face this mega-sized issue with overwhelming implications for the average person.

  1. “7 countries in 5 years.”

This wide open confession came straight out of the mouth of U.S. General Wesley Clark years after the illegal invasion of Iraq. The General openly spilled the beans on the U.S. military’s plan to illegally invade 7 countries in the Middle East under the lie of the war on terror. Shockingly, to this day no war crimes trials have taken place. No one has been executed, convicted or imprisoned for these massive crimes against humanity. Shockingly, the criminals even still make TV appearances and prance around the country offering their opinions and enjoying a comfortable life appearing at events and speaking.

In fact, General Wesley Clark himself ended up being promoted to lead NATO units in the Middle East. He has even made recent propaganda appearances on TV playing into the Jade Helm “master the human domain” psyop teasing freedom lovers with Hitler-like rhetoric about caging anyone who doesn’t agree with the U.S. government!

  1. The U.S. military and its defense contractors have over 150+ live and legitimate patentsfor spraying the sky with nano-particles, all the while the masses are told it’s a “conspiracy.”

Those still unaware of this may be shocked to know these patents are not even hidden from the public. You can read them all for yourself. Despite this open knowledge these programs roll on comfortably as we have observed their spraying techniques change from various forms of chemtrails to aerosolized plumes/injections or chembombs to a mixture of both.

Astoundingly, we are now living at a time when we are surrounded by a generation of young Americans that think tic-tac-toe is normal in the sky. They think that crazy lines in the sky are part of nature. They see advertisements with lines in the sky and think nothing of it. They have no idea that not long ago there was a time when there were no lines in the sky at all. They have no concept of blue skies and clear starry nights. Shockingly and sadly an integral part of this lack of knowledge is the fear of knowing. More than any other topic, probably the spraying of our skies is cloaked in fear and anxiety of what to do if it is true. Many people would rather not know.

  1. As briefly mentioned in #3, the United States Military is currently conducting an admitted A.I. psychological operation on the human domain as people carry on as usual.

It’s called Jade Helm and right now learning more about Jade Helm for many Americans means putting down that remote control, turning off that ballgame, pausing the video game or missing their favorite TV show. It takes work to research this and, more importantly, the insecurity that comes with knowing that our own military is studying you the individual to control you is again too profound to really understand for some. They might ask, why would the military do this? Not knowing that the new world order has been planned for over 100 years now.

This is another issue that is too overwhelming for the average person to understand or, more importantly, face head-on. SOCOM documents exposed by researchers are clear about the intention of Jade Helm Jade 2 software and no matter how much you ignore it, it’s still here, it’s very real and it’s in motion as we speak.

  1. The entire debt-based fiat worthless paper money circulating in the U.S. is supplied and controlled by a private corporation with no legal authority to do so.

We call them the Federal Reserve. It’s the illegal private banking system created officially in 1913 under the Federal Reserve Act which Congress gave a green light to. This single act essentially handed the United States of America to a gang of private bankers with no accountability to the people. Along with the Act of 1871, this Federal Reserve Act is also one of the most significant and horrific turning points in the history of America. An act that accounts for many of the problems and sufferings in America for now over 100 years.

If enough people could finally wrap their heads around this single reality, that a private illegal mob of banksters have psyched out and enslaved Americans, fooling them into accepting their fake fiat currency while ensuring their perpetual enslavement, the full-on revolution would start today.

  1. Throughout the history of humanity people do things by planning it out; this simple act of organizing is considered bizarre, unlikely and improbable by a generation of brainwashed people controlled by one hypnotic phrase – “conspiracy”!

That’s right. You may be reading this and thinking this refers to you. The simple phrase “conspiracy” or “conspiracy theory” has singlehandedly mind-controlled millions of Americans like no other word or phrase has. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. “Conspiracy” is a substitute word for an otherwise ordinary act of planning or coordinating. Something all people do, especially groups like corporations and governments. You MUST plan, organize, or “conspire” to do things. That’s how things get done!

  1. The U.S. has been caught numerous times militarily defending, arming, supplying and training ISISfighters.

Here we are at the one-year anniversary of the ISIS super psyop American TV marketing campaign, and today the ISIS psyop has been blown wide open more often than the amount of times the global warming movement has been exposed as lies. These reports trapping U.S. and Israeli (NATO) governments in baldfaced staged lies and capturing solid evidence of their support for ISIS have gone completely ignored and censored by U.S. mainstream media to keep the ISIS psyop narrative going in the minds of Americans.

The situation is so controlled and so propagandized that even if every member of ISIS went on TV tomorrow exclusively expressing their partnership with the CIA and Mossad, the very next day U.S. mainstream media will present another ISIS story telling you how much they are the enemy and need to be defeated. Make no mistake, this control system is completely immune and entirely unfazed by truth, hard evidence and hard facts.

  1. Turning back the clock – 5 Israeli men were caught, arrested, fingerprinted and detained on September 11th 2001.

After they were celebrating the destruction of the world trade center seconds after the buildings were destroyed, while the buildings burned AND while the rest of America watched in shock and tears. These men were later mysteriously released back to Israel where they bragged on camera about being in New York City to “document the event”. The history of Israeli entities’ involvement in the 9/11 attacks are particularly concrete, yet the frightening reality is that today’s U.S. mainstream media acts like none of this ever happened.

For this reason it’s always good to remind everyone that this is very real. The individuals names are Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shonvel, Oded Ellner and Omer Gavriel Marmari and they were given a clean pass back to Israel by then Chief of Justice Department Michael Chertoff. Of course Chertoff would later become Director of George Bush’s Homeland Security and play a significant role in writing the Patriot Act. Plainly put, one of the head masterminds of 9/11 essentially singlehandedly released a handful of key 9/11 suspects and allowed them to fly peacefully and freely back to their Israel homeland to brag about what they did.

  1. In the U.S, like it was with Hitler’s Germany, propaganda is perfectly legal.

Most Americans have no idea this is the case. They don’t realize that the U.S. corporate fraudulent government can legally lie to you every single day to get you to believe whatever they want you to believe and then turn around behind closed doors and laugh at you for believing their legal lies. Try telling that to most Americans and see how they look at you.

This is another example of a hard-to-handle lie that is pushed on Americans every day; and the average working American has no time to truly wrap their heads around this stunning fact so they bury their heads in the sand instead, unwilling to look at the issue because they fear they won’t know what to do with the information.

It’s no wonder that today’s TV shows and comedic rants are often shaped to put a positive slant on lying. To trivialize the seriousness and the consequences of lying. They even make lying seem like an evil necessity or even a cool trend. Most people are completely unaware of these subliminal messages that endorse the control of a government whose survival is dependent on continuous lies and deceit.

 Solutions

Let’s keep sharing the information and forcing people to look at this information. These are just 10 random issues I felt are important, but there could be another 10 here just as easily. Information is spreading and people are getting this. Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom before people take action and start to think differently. Whatever drives someone you can always be sure that pushing the information will help accelerate this process. Let’s keep doing that and if you agree share this information with someone and give them something to think about.

 This article has been contributed by SHTF Plan. Visit www.SHTFplan.com for alternative news, commentary and preparedness info.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Bernie is absolutely correct! If each one of you reading this does not participate in educating everyone you can, then you deserve what you are going to get. My children depend on you to do your job just as much as yours do. Think of someone besides yourself for once. What kind of parents are you? If you are already participating, I apologize! AND THANK YOU!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Americans Are Finally Learning About False Flag Terror

08/15/2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americans-are-finally-learning-about-false-flag-terror/5359234

8-15-2015 10-14-16 AM

First published by GR in November 2013.

By Washington’s Blog

Global Research, August 14, 2015

Governments Admit They Carry Out False Flag Terror

Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:

  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
  • Soviet leader  Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939, and declared that the fire originated from Finland as a basis launching the Winter War four days later
  • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news reportthe official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
  • 2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
  • And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals
  • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing
  • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
  • Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)
  • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
  • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
  • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
  • United Press International reported in June 2005:U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
  • Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians
  • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)
  • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
  • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
  • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
  • The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – admitted last the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists
  • 8-15-2015 10-16-52 AM
  • Painting by Anthony Freda

    So Common … There’s a Name for It

    This tactic is so common that it was given a name  hundreds of years ago.

    “False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

    False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

    The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

    Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for navalair and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

    Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

    Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

    “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
    – Plato

    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
    – U.S. President James Madison

    “A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche

    “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
    – Adolph Hitler

    “Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
    – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

    “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
    – Josef Stalin

    People Are Waking Up to False Flags

    People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war.

    More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before.

    Copyright © Washington’s BlogWashington’s Blog, 2015

    2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


SUPREMECOURTCASE

08/14/2015

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/

  Memorandum of Law lays bare the hoax that is the Internal Revenue Code

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari presents incontrovertible evidence that every Federal trial court in America is a territorial (not a constitutional) court with jurisdiction only in the District of Columbia or other Federal territory.

THIS INCLUDES THE FACT THAT TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS

Breakthrough Memorandum of Law obliterates in 20 pages the fraud that has made the 3,837-page Internal Revenue Code a monolith of impenetrability. General knowledge of the contents of the Memorandum ultimately will result in withdrawal of cooperation on the part of a sufficient number of former victims of the fraud so as to lead to its elimination.

The commercial artifice known as “income tax” has its origins in 1622 in Amsterdam, Holland, and is the creation of goldsmith-bankers of the private Bank of Amsterdam[1] (est. 1609), parent bank of the private Bank of England[2] (est. 1694), in turn, parent bank of the private Federal Reserve[3] (est. 1913), and whose principals are the collective architect of the Internal Revenue Code and, in this country, sole beneficiary of the object thereof: revenue from collections of income tax (see Memorandum for evidence and proof).

When principals of the private Bank of Amsterdam in 1622 fail to sell the Dutch government on the idea of income tax they decide to procure their own government and country and thereafter hire Oliver Cromwell, finance and foment the English Revolution, orchestrate the execution of King Charles I of England, and install their own puppet, the Dutch prince, William III of Orange, on the British throne.

William’s most important act is the granting, on July 21, 1694, of the charter of incorporation of “The Governor and Company of the Bank of England,” the world’s first state-sanctioned “fractional reserve banking” institution, allowing the bank to masquerade as a department of government (“Bank of England”) and circulate (lend) its own promissory notes, each of which bears the bank’s promise to pay to the bearer on demand a certain quantity of gold, but for which there is no gold in the bank’s vaults. The arrangement permits the private Bank of England to loan its own paper currency at no cost to itself (i.e., Monopoly™ money) under the protection of the government; to wit:

“The bank hath benefit of the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”[4] William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England.

“It [the Bank of England] coined, in short, its own credit into paper money.”[5] James E. Thorold Rogers, Professor of Economics, Oxford University.

The difference between the promissory notes of the private Bank of England and Federal Reserve Notes of the private Federal Reserve is that Fed bankers did away with the promise-to-pay-gold nuisance a long time ago (House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933), having swindled and shipped to England and Germany nearly all of America’s gold between 1916 and 1932.

Enjoying a monopoly as they do, today’s banks “loan” computer-keypad keystroke entries of digits, called “credit” (modern equivalent of the Bank of England’s hollow promissory notes), at no cost to themselves. As explained by the senior government banking official, then-Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson:

“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. This money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”[6]

The Federal Reserve banking system cannot endure without constant extraction, by way of collection of income tax by the Internal Revenue Service to hide the fraud of inflation, of a huge percentage of the digits created and injected into circulation by banks in the loan process; hence the need for the overwhelming complexity of the Internal Revenue Code and heartlessness of those who enforce its provisions. Notwithstanding the best-laid plans of the architects thereof, however, and efforts of their enforcers, no one can stop a grass-roots movement and anyone can disabuse himself of the hoax in the pages of the attached Memorandum.

[1] J. De Vries and A. Van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997), p. 107.

[2] A. Andréadès, History of the Bank of England 1640 to 1903, Fourth Edition (Reprint), Christabel Meredith, translator (Frank Cass & Co., Ltd.: London, 1966), pp. 59-65, quoted in David Astle, The Babylonian Woe: A study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices, and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day (Published privately: Toronto, 1975), p. 140.

[3] Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, Second Edition, 1992 Election Edition (Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization: Staunton, Va., 1992), p. 102.

[4] William Paterson, quoted in Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations: A Financial Study of English History, First American Edition (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York, 1936), p. 30.

[5] James E. Thorold Rogers, The First Nine Years of the Bank of England: An Enquiry Into a Weekly Record of The Price of Bank Stock from August 17, 1694 to September 17, 1703 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1887), p. 9, quoted in Andréadès (supra, fn. 2), p. 82.

[6] Robert B. Anderson, quoted in “How Much Will Your Dollar Buy – Interview with Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson,” U.S. News & World Report, August 31, 1959, pp. 68-69.

Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015

Supreme Court denies the petition—but because of extraordinary intervening circumstances the case is not over.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari presents incontrovertible evidence that every Federal trial court in America is a territorial(not a constitutional) court with jurisdiction only in the District of Columbia or other Federal territory.

Notwithstanding this legal fact—which no one denies—the Supreme Court on June 8, 2015, issued an order denying certiorari.

This means that there is some other overriding non-constitutional (statutory) factor—unknown to Petitioner at time of filing of the petition but known by all bench officers involved in this case—that allows the Justices to approve of the judgment of the appeals court affirming the judgment of the district court despite the fact that the district court is a territorial court with no jurisdiction in Texas (where Petitioner resides).

Supreme Court Rule 44.2 provides that under certain extraordinary conditions a petition may be presented a second time, through a “Petition for Rehearing.”

Such conditions have arisen since the original filing April 29, 2015.

Wherefore, Petitioner on June 30, 2015, filed a Petition for Rehearing.

The Petition for Rehearing, though only 14 pages in length, is comprehensive and reveals, among other things:

  • On what, exactly, the district court relies for authority to exercise jurisdiction, despite the fact that Petitioner resides (and Petitioner’s property is located) without the territory over which the court has jurisdiction;
  • The particular section of the Internal Revenue Code that is used to ensnare American nontaxpayers into an implied contract that makes them liable to Federal income taxes no matter where they may reside, but also provides the exact procedure whereby any such American can reverse the process, extinguish the implied contract, and be relieved of liability to Federal income taxes;
  • The precise meaning of the definition of the most important statutory term in existence, around which literally everything else revolves: “United States”;
  • The universal and simple but semi-secret rules of statutory construction (used by Congress to legislate the law into existence and every Federal judge and magistrate and Supreme Court Justice to interpret and pronounce it thereafter) that allow anyone to determine the exact meaning of any definition (no matter how vague, complicated, or confusing) of any statutory term in any body of law; and
  • Documentary evidence in the record of the case that shows that the district judge is not an impartial arbiter but rather an agent of the plaintiff, i.e., the United States, secretly working in its behalf to defeat Petitioner—a setting known as a kangaroo court:

kangaroo court. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th ed., p. 359

12 – Supreme Court denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari June 8, 2015

13 – Petition For Rehearing, filed June 30, 2015

14 – ‘Sua sponte’ defined

15 – Supreme Court Docket – June 30, 2015

Landmark Income Tax Case: Supreme Court No. 14-1305

There are two kinds of federal trial courts: those of general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction) and those of limited jurisdiction (subject-matter jurisdiction only).

Everyone is familiar with federal rules and regulations: Code of Federal Regulations, United States Code, Internal Revenue Code, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), National Defense Authorization Act, etc.

The only federal courts authorized by the Constitution to hear civil or criminal matters brought against individual Americans for alleged violation of federal rules or regulations are courts of general jurisdiction.Today, every federal court located within the respective exterior limits of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union, e.g., Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, etc., is a court of general jurisdiction.The problem is that the only geographic area in which federal courts of general jurisdiction are authorized by the Constitution to exercise jurisdiction is federal territory; e.g., District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.

There is no constitutional authority for a federal court of general jurisdiction to hear a civil or criminal matter against any American who resides and is domiciled in geographic area occupied by one of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union—and no one can produce any such authority.

Notwithstanding this discrepancy: Federal courts of general jurisdiction now blanket every state in the Union and prosecute individual Americans residing there for alleged civil or criminal violation of federal rules and regulations—such as the Internal Revenue Code.

The within petition displays incontrovertible legal evidence and proof of (1) felony(fraud, i.e., gross negligence), by reason of dereliction of the jurisdictional provisions of the Constitution, and treason to the Constitution, by reason of usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area, on the part of every federal judge of every federal court located within the Union, and (2) no jurisdiction for the district court of first instance to hear this matter against Petitioner for alleged violation of the Internal Revenue Code.

THERE IS NO ONE ON EARTH WHOSE LIFE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS SITUATION.

 

1 – Supreme Court No. 14-1305, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed April 29, 2015

2 – ‘Petition,’ ‘writ,’ and ‘certiorari’ defined

3 – Proof of Service on Solicitor General – April 29, 2015

4 – Solicitor General waives right to file response – May 12, 2015

5 – Update – May 18, 2015

6 – Supreme Court Docket – May 19, 2015

7 – Update – May 21, 2015

8 – Ad runs in Houston Chronicle May 29 – June 3

9 – U.S. naval, military legal offices provided with evidence of felony and treason to the Constitution on the part of certain federal judges

10 – June 1, 2015 – Joint Chiefs of Staff alerted of felony and treason to the Constitution

11 – June 1, 2015 – Thirty-four commanders of naval, military installations alerted of felony and treason to the Constitution

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

The ignorant layman’s comprehension of law is “THOSE WHO HAVE THE POWER”, so what we have here, “in a laymen’s mind is” an incomprehensible struggle between those who have power, and someone who does not, but believes he is not subject to their authority. For those of us with limited intellect, it is like being confronted by a three hundred pound professional wrestler demanding I cannot deny his authority. Just what the hell am I going to do? The bottom line is, America has been hijacked by people who have enough money power to buy millions of assistants and enforcers, and invents their own legal system only they understand, so now they have us by the short hairs, and we have no weapons with which to fight back. Dear readers you have to admire these folks who are prostrate on their backs with a three hundred pound judge on their face. When you refuse to obey, you wind up dead or imprisoned. It takes a lot of guts to fight these low life monster scumbags!

MAY THE LORD OF HOSTS BE WITH THEM!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Will China Play The “Gold Card”?

08/13/2015

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2667-will-china-play-the-gold-card

8-13-2015 11-36-39 AM

This article was written by Hugo Salinas Price and originally published at Plata.com

Alasdair Macleod has posted an article at www.goldmoney.com which I think is important.

The thrust of the article is that China, at some point, will have to revalue gold in China; which means, in other words, that China will decide to devalue the Yuan against gold.

Since “mainstream economics” holds that gold is no longer important in world business, such a measure might be regarded as just an idiosyncrasy of Chinese thinking, and not politically significant, as would be a devaluation against the dollar, which is a no-no amongst the Central Bank community of the world.

However, as I understand the measure, it would be indeed world-shaking.

Here’s how I see it:

Currently, the price of an ounce of gold in Shanghai is roughly 6.20 Yuan x $1084 Dollars = 6,721 Yuan.

Now suppose that China decides to revalue gold in China to 9408 Yuan per ounce: a devaluation of the Yuan of 40%, from 6721 to 9408 Yuan.

What would have to happen?

Importers around the world would immediately purchase physical gold at $1,084 Dollars an ounce, and ship it to Shanghai, where they would sell it for 9408 Yuan, where the price was formerly 6,721 Yuan.

The Chinese economy operates in Yuan and prices there would not be affected – at least not immediately – by the devaluation of the Yuan against gold.

Importers of Chinese goods would then be able to purchase 40% more goods for the same amount of Dollars they were paying before the devaluation of the Yuan against gold. What importer of Chinese goods could resist the temptation to purchase goods now so much cheaper? China would then consolidate its position as a great manufacturing power. Its languishing economy would recuperate spectacularly.

The purchase of physical gold would take off, no longer the activity of detested “gold-bugs”, but an activity linked to making money, albeit fiat money. Inevitably, the price of physical gold in Dollars would separate from the price of the “paper gold” traded on Comex and go higher, leaving paper gold way behind in price.

If the US were to provide the market with physical gold in the quantities being purchased for trade with China, it might be able to prevent the rise in the price of gold in Dollars; however, we know that Comex has only one ounce of physical gold for every 124 owners of paper gold, so that action would be impossible. China would be sucking up the world’s gold at a huge rate, if the price of gold in Dollars were to remain where it is at present.

The only way that the US might counter the Chinese move, would be to revalue gold in Dollars; which is to say, the US would have to effect a corresponding devaluation of the Dollar against gold, to nullify the effect of the Chinese devaluation of the Yuan against gold.

At a Dollar price of gold of $1,517 Dollars per ounce, the Chinese devaluation would be left without effect: the present Yuan/Dollar exchange rate would then remain at 6.20 Yuan per Dollar: 9,408 Yuan/6.20 exchange rate = $1,517 Dollars per ounce.

This is the old policy of the 1930’s, commonly known as “beggar thy neighbor”, where countries carried out competitive devaluations against gold in order to preserve their manufactures and continue exporting. The response of importing nations was to raise tariffs on imported goods. (Say good-bye to an integrated world economy.)

Will China decide to “beggar its neighbors”, the US and Europe? I think that the huge problem of keeping the Chinese economy on its feet and avoiding the political instability which would rage through China by not doing so – with a population in excess of 1.3 billion human beings – will be so compelling that China will practically inevitably resort to raising the price of gold in China.

When might this happen? The world economy is going from bad to worse by the day. The Chinese may opt for this measure out of sheer desperation, and it may be a reality soon. I have the sensation that things are falling apart around the world at an increasing rate of speed.Perhaps China will move this Fall?

Devaluing the Dollar on the part of the US would upset the apple-cart of Dollar hegemony in the world. But not to devalue would price US goods out of world markets, along with European goods. “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

Dollar devaluation would force a Euro devaluation and all Hell would break lose, as all countries would belatedly realize the importance of having gold reserves, and one country after another would devalue their currencies against gold. Import tariffs and restrictions on imports would once again prevail. The dream of “Globalization based on the fiat dollar” would evaporate in the orgy of currency devaluations against gold.

The era of the Dollar as reserve currency of the world, would have ended.

When the dust shall have settled on this giant crisis, the powers of this world will have recognized, once again, that gold is money; what would remain would be the work of establishing the gold standard de jure, by international accords, in order to abolish tariffs and import restrictions and renew the free international flow of goods.

However, another horrible scenario is possible: the US, run by those who insist on maintaining the plan for world domination through endless war, may decide to go to war with China and with Russia, too, for good measure. Let us hope that reason prevails and that the Dollar loses its status as world reserve currency in a peaceful manner.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


So who really controls the world The Illuminati Freemasons The Bilderberg Group?

08/12/2015

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/exposing-shadow-elite-controlling-world.html

Or are these all red herrings to distract your prying eyes from the real global elite? The answer, like most topics worth exploring, is not quite so simple. Have no doubt, there are secretive global powers whose only goal is to keep and grow that power. But it really may not be as secretive as you would think. And that is what makes it even more nefarious.

But don’t take my word for it, we have both science and insider testimony to back it up.

8-12-2015 10-03-52 AM

We are going to break this down into three categories: Financial, Political and Media. This is a harder task than you may imagine, since they all work in concert by design.

Financial Elite

Thanks to the science of complex system theory, the answer may actually be right in front of our faces. This scientific process sheds light on the dark corners of bank control and international finance and pulls some of the major players out from the shadows. It goes back to the old credo: Just follow the money. Systems theorist James B. Glattfelder did just that.

From a massive database of 37 million companies, Glattfelder pulled out the 43,060 transnational corporations (companies that operate in more than one country) that are all connected by their shareholders.

Digging further, he constructed a model that actually displays just how connected these companies are to one another through ownership of shares and their corresponding operating revenues.

See the globe chart bellow:

8-12-2015 9-25-26 AM

The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy.

Super-connected companies are red, very connected companies are yellow.

The size of the dot represents revenue.

I will openly admit that this graphic almost scared me off. Complex scientific theories are not my forte, and this looks like some sort of intergalactic snow globe.

But Glattfelder has done a remarkable job of boiling these connections down to the main actors — as well as pinpointing how much power they have over the global market. These “ownership networks” can reveal who the key players are, how they are organized, and exactly how interconnected these powers are.

From New Scientist:

Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies and, on average, they were connected to 20. What is more, although they represented 20% of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own, through their shares, the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms—the “real” economy — representing a further 60% of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “superentity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies — all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity — that controlled 40% of the total wealth in the network.

According to his data, Glattfelder found that the top 730 shareholders control a whopping 80% of the entire revenue of transnational corporations. And — surprise, surprise! — they are mostly financial institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom. That is a huge amount of concentrated control in a small number of hands.

The Financial Deception

Here are the top ten transnational companies that hold the most control over the global economy (and if you are one of the millions that are convinced Big Banks run the world, you should get a creeping sense of validation from this list):
1). Barclays plc
2). Capital Group Companies Inc.
3). FMR Corporation
4). AXA
5). State Street Corporation
6). JPMorgan Chase & Co.
7). Legal & General Group plc
8). Vanguard Group Inc.
9). UBS AG
10). Merrill Lynch & Co Inc.

Some of the other usual suspects round out the top 25, including JP Morgan, UBS, Credit Suisse, and Goldman Sachs.

What you will not find are ExxonMobil, Microsoft, or General Electric, which I found shocking.

In fact, you have to scroll all the way down to China Petrochemical Group Company at number 50 to find a company that actually creates something.

The top 49 corporations are financial institutions, banks, and insurance companies — with the exception of Wal-Mart, which ranks at number 15.

The rest essentially just push money around to one another.

Here is the interconnectedness of the top players in this international scheme:

8-12-2015 10-07-07 AM

Here is a fun fact about the number one player, Barclays:

Barclays was a main player in the LIBOR manipulation scandal, and were found to have committed fraud and collusion with other interconnected big banks. They were fined $200 million by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $160 million by the United States Department of Justice and £59.5 million by the Financial Services Authority for “attempted manipulation” of the Libor and Euribor rates.

Despite their crimes, Barclays still paid $61,781,950 in bonuses earlier this year, including a whopping $27,371,750 to investment banking head Rich Ricci. And yes, that’s actually his real name.

These are the guys that run the world.

It is essentially the “too big to fail” argument laid out in a scientific setting — only instead of just the U.S. banks, we are talking about an international cabal of banks and financial institutions so intertwined that they pose a serious threat to global economics. Instead of “too big to fail,” we are looking at “too connected to fail”.

Glattfelder contends that “a high degree of interconnectivity can be bad for stability, because stress can spread through the system like an epidemic.”

Industrialist Henry Ford once quipped, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

It is one thing to have suspicions that someone is working behind the scenes to control the world’s money supply. It is quite another to have scientific evidence that clearly supports it. But these guys can only exist within a political system that supports their goals. And those political systems are pretty much operating in the open.

Political Elite

For the sake of brevity, let us cut right to the chase. Every major geopolitical decision of the last few decades has been run through one of these three organizations: the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Bank/International Monetary Fund (IMF).

An IMF whistle blower has admitted that the IMF was deeply involved in global fraud and contends that “the public doesn’t really know what’s going on and… we do not have a democracy.” (This will be covered in a future article).

The Trilateral Commission

In 1973, the infamous David Rockefeller created a group of the world’s power brokers to work together — outside of any official governmental or political allegiance — to bring about cooperation of North America, Western Europe and Japan. They launched under the guise of working together to solve the world’s problems. A noble goal — but “problems” are very subjective.

Here is the rundown of members:

The North American continent is represented by 120 members (20 Canadian, 13 Mexican and 87 U.S. citizens).

The European group has reached its limit of 170 members from almost every country on the continent; the ceilings for individual countries are 20 for Germany, 18 for France, Italy and the United Kingdom, 12 for Spain and 1-6 for the rest.

At first, Asia and Oceania were represented only by Japan. However, in 2000, the Japanese group of 85 members expanded itself, becoming the Pacific Asia group, composed of 117 members: 75 Japanese, 11 South Koreans, 7 Australian and New Zealand citizens, and 15 members from the ASEAN nations (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). The Pacific Asia group also included 9 members from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Currently, the Trilateral Commission claims “more than 100” Pacific Asian members.

It is a global who’s-who of power brokers. While the Trilateral Commission excludes anyone currently holding public office from membership, it serves as a revolving door of the rich and powerful from the financial, political and academic elite.

Most suspicions of the group began during the Jimmy Carter administration, when Carter — himself a member of the Trilateral Commission — made Zbigniew Brzezinski his National Security advisor. Brzezinski was the Trilateral Commission’s first executive director.

Carter’s Vice President Walter Mondale was also a member. Perhaps most importantly, Trilateral member Paul Volker served as Carter’s Chair of the Federal Reserve. He is still the North American Honorary Chairman.

Such a concentration of power in a U.S. president’s cabinet obviously made people nervous.

Notable recent additions include Austan Goolsbe — former chairman for Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors. I would suggest you familiarize yourselves with the entire member list here. You will be shocked at who else is part of this secretive organization.

And we haven’t yet talked about the rest of the financial global elite: the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

One Bank to Rule Them All: World Bank Whistle-blower Reveals Bank Conspiracy

Note: This is not some wild conspiracy theory. It’s systems theory, a serious scientific discipline, used by researcher James B. Gladfelder to prove that a small group of banks essentially control the world’s finances.

Gladfelder’s research proved that the top 730 shareholders control a whopping 80% of the entire revenue of transnational corporations.

But the truth is the global banking elite simply cannot maintain a stranglehold on the world’s power all by themselves. And so, while they run off with the money, their lackeys in the political sphere acts as gatekeepers.

Again, we’re not relying on labyrinthine explanations and vague fears of domination; we’re looking at the matter through scientific discipline and actual admissions from the power brokers themselves.

The fact is we simply cannot talk about global control without talking about the World Bank…

The World Bank represents 188 different countries from Albania to Zimbabwe. However, it is controlled by a small number of powerful countries, each with its own serious economic interests.

Since there is no voting for the leadership and chief economists at the bank, the United States and other large countries have complete control to appoint who they’d like to do their bidding — and they have appointed some highly questionable folks to run the behemoth:

Robert McNamara – JFK’s former secretary of defense and president of Ford Motor Company was chosen to lead the Bank in 1968, fresh off his disastrous handling of the Vietnam War.

Lewis T. Preston – a bank executive with J.P. Morgan. We all know J.P. Morgan doesn’t have the interest of the working poor at heart, as evidenced by years of abuse of regular folks, culminating in their record $13 billion fine this year.

Robert Zoellick – a bank executive with Goldman Sachs. Again, if the head of Goldman Sachs is at the helm, you know the bidding of the powerful will get its due… After all, you don’t earn a nickname like “The Great Vampire Squid” for your altruism.

Paul Wolfowitz – Much like McNamara, Wolfowitz was handed the reigns to the World Bank after helping orchestrate George Bush’s outrageous war on Iraq. While president of the Bank, he gave his girlfriend massive pay raises — more than double what she was entitled to!

The fact that the head of the World Bank could engage in such petty corruption doesn’t bode well for the bank at large, considering the immense power they wield. Wolfowitz was eventually forced to resign.

Perhaps more alarmingly, the World Bank also receives complete immunity from any and all countries it does “business” with, so it cannot be held legally accountable for its actions.

The United States has complete veto power over the Bank’s actions as well, which it can use to block any action by the Bank that may threaten national interests — and the interests of the global financial powers that control them.

The World Bank’s stated purpose is to help poor and developing countries by providing loans.

The catch? To obtain one of these loans, you have to comply with the Bank’s draconian wish lists.

Examples of the conditions countries must meet to gain access to a loan include suppressing wages, cutting programs like education and health care, and easing limits on foreign investment.

How do the results stack up with its stated mission?

Not well. In fact, data shows most countries that have taken the World Bank’s money and agreed to its terms are no better off today then they were when they received their first loan — and many are actually worse off.

From the Heritage Foundation:

Of the 66 less-developed countries receiving money from the World Bank for more than 25 years (most for more than 30 years), 37 are no better off today than they were before they received such loans.

Of these 37 countries, most (20 in all) are actually poorer today than they were before receiving aid from the Bank.

Former less-developed countries that have prospered over the past 30 years did so by freeing up the productive forces of their economies. The best examples are Hong Kong and Singapore: Even though a country like Singapore received a small amount of money from the World Bank, the evidence shows that what most affected economic growth was not World Bank aid, but economic freedom.

What’s more, an ex-World Bank employee described something far more nefarious than ineptitude…

Karen Hudes watched first-hand as the World Bank manipulated and covered up corruption in its economic development projects.

It’s important to know Hudes wasn’t some disgruntled lackey; she served as Senior Counsel and worked for the bank for 20 years. During those two decades at the World Bank, Hudes saw systematic and widespread corruption.

“It’s a mafia,” she told the New American.

“These culprits that have grabbed all this economic power have succeeded in infiltrating both sides of the issue, so you will find people who are supposedly trying to fight corruption who are just there to spread disinformation and as a placeholder to trip up anybody who manages to get their act together. Those thugs think that if they can keep the world ignorant, they can bleed it longer.”

Hudes saw large-scale enrichment of the powerful, while the poor the Bank was supposed to be helping were getting stiffed.

“I realized we were now dealing with something known as state capture, which is where the institutions of government are co-opted by the group that’s corrupt,” she noted.

Hudes was eventually fired after she spoke out against the Bank’s attempt to cover up a botched bailout of a crooked bank in the Philippines.

Here are a few choice examples of what happens to the $2.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer money that is funneled into the World Bank each and every year, from the American Enterprise Institute:

38 countries have amassed $71 billion in unpayable multilateral loans, encouraged by the Bank’s self-serving projections of country growth, on which rich-country taxpayers must now make good.

Corruption has been exposed both within the World Bank and in its programs, and is now estimated at more than $100 billion.

Protest is rising among leading African scholars who seek to stop all aid because it serves only to entrench and enrich a series of corrupt elites. Massive anecdotal evidence of waste, ineptitude, and outright theft can no longer be ignored.

Not exactly the poverty-fighting superhero the institution makes itself out to be.

The World Bank works in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, which operates in the same vein of enriching Wall Street and supporting dictators.

By Jimmy Mengel, Outsider Club;

 

08 12 15 REVEALED THE CAPITALIST NETWORK THAT RUNS THE WORLD

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/

8-12-2015 9-26-20 AM

AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters’ worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

The study’s assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York’s Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world’s transnational corporations (TNCs).

“Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it’s conspiracy theories or free-market,” says James Glattfelder. “Our analysis is reality-based.”

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world’s economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy – whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company’s operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. “If one [company] suffers distress,” says Glattfelder, “this propagates.”

“It’s disconcerting to see how connected things really are,” agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system’s behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

One thing won’t chime with some of the protesters’ claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. “Such structures are common in nature,” says Sugihara.

Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, “is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups”. Or as Braha puts it: “The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy.”

So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.

When this article was first posted, the comment in the final sentence of the paragraph beginning “Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power…” was misattributed.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies

  1. Barclays plc
    2. Capital Group Companies Inc
    3. FMR Corporation
    4. AXA
    5. State Street Corporation
    6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
    7. Legal & General Group plc
    8. Vanguard Group Inc
    9. UBS AG
    10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
    11. Wellington Management Co LLP
    12. Deutsche Bank AG
    13. Franklin Resources Inc
    14. Credit Suisse Group
    15. Walton Enterprises LLC
    16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
    17. Natixis
    18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
    19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
    20. Legg Mason Inc
    21. Morgan Stanley
    22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
    23. Northern Trust Corporation
    24. Société Générale
    25. Bank of America Corporation
    26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
    27. Invesco plc
    28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
    30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
    31. Aviva plc
    32. Schroders plc
    33. Dodge & Cox
    34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
    35. Sun Life Financial Inc
    36. Standard Life plc
    37. CNCE
    38. Nomura Holdings Inc
    39. The Depository Trust Company
    40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
    41. ING Groep NV
    42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
    43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
    44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
    45. Vereniging Aegon
    46. BNP Paribas
    47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
    48. Resona Holdings Inc
    49. Capital Group International Inc
    50. China Petrochemical Group Company

* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

Graphic: The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy

(Data: PLoS One)    

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

I have been saying this for years: Unless one of the more advanced militaries of the world conduct a covert strike on the elite controllers, life as we know it will extinguish. These ego maniacs deserve the cruelest death imaginable, and ditto for their families. In fact all who have supported or profited from them should be fed to sharks and other flesh eating creatures, and then burn the creatures!

No single person, or group of people are capable of itemizing the atrocities of these monsters. Our only other chance of survival is to conduct a world wide rebellion on governments and capital commerce.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


JOHN STUART MILL AND THE DANGERS TO LIBERTY

08/11/2015

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/572/Richard-Ebeling-John-Stuart-Mill-and-the-Dangers-to-LIberty/

By Richard Ebeling  

This year marks the 150th anniversary of John Stuart Mill’s famous essay “On Liberty.” Originally published in 1859, it remains one of the most enduring and powerful defenses of individual liberty ever penned. Both advocates and enemies of personal freedom have challenged either the premises or the logic in Mill’s argument. They have pointed out inconsistencies or incompleteness in his reasoning. But the fact remains that a century and a half after its appearance, few essays continue to justify being read and pondered with the same care and attention as “On Liberty.”

Mill’s essay takes on particular significance and importance at the present time when governments around the world, including in the United States, are hell-bent on extending their power and control over the economic and social affairs of ordinary men and women.

Everywhere we look, government is claiming the duty and responsibility to care for our old age; manage our health care; regulate our industry and the wages we earn through the presidential appointment of various political planning “czars.” The government controls what we eat; oversees what we buy; paternalistically supervises with whom and how we interact with others in society. The government also educates our children and determines what they learn. And the government may soon subsidize and therefore influence what we read in our local newspapers.

John Stuart Mill focused on several dangers to our liberty. He started with the importance of freedom of thought, and went on to analyze the dangers from the tyranny of the minority, the tyranny of the majority, and the tyranny from rigid customs and traditions that stifle the individual’s ability for self-expression and action.

Mill defended freedom of thought on several grounds. First, we should accept the fact that none of us can claim an infallibility of knowledge or a final and definite insight into ultimate truth. Thus, we should value and defend liberty of thought and argument because a dissenter or a critic of conventional and generally accepted views may offer reasons for disagreeing that correct our own errors of knowledge and mistakes in judgment about the truth of things.

Second, sometimes the truth about things exists as half-truths held by different people, and through controversy the truth in the parts can be made into a great unified truth of the whole.

And, third, even if we are really certain that we have the truth and a correct understanding of things, unless we are open to challenging and rethinking that which we take for granted, our ideas and beliefs can easily become atrophied dogmas. The people in each generation must be taught to think and reason for themselves. If ideas and beliefs are to remain living and meaningful, people must arrive at their own conclusions through reflection and thought.

Mill not only defended freedom of thought but liberty of action as well. To make men conform to a uniformity in their conduct would prevent that which is an inherent hallmark of each of us as a human being: our individuality. The libertarian political philosopher and free-market economist, Murray Rothbard, once neatly expressed Mill’s point on this theme:

“If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom. If individual men, like ants, were uniform, interchangeable, devoid of specific personality traits of their own, then who would care whether they were free or not? Who, indeed, would care if they lived or died? The glory of the human race is the uniqueness of each individual, the fact that every person, though similar in many ways to others, possesses a completely individuated personality of his own. It is the fact of each person’s uniqueness – the fact that no two people can be wholly interchangeable – that makes each and every man irreplaceable and that makes us care whether he lives or dies, whether he is happy or oppressed. And, finally, it is the fact that these unique personalities need freedom for their full development that constitutes one of the major arguments for a free society….”

Every man must have freedom, must have the scope to form, test, and act upon his own choices for any sort of development of his own personality to take place. He must, in short, be free in order that he may be fully human.

Classical liberals have often pointed out that a weak link in Mill’s argument is the vagueness or inconsistency in how he defines the arena within which the individual may claim protection from political infringements on his individual freedom of action.

But in the broadest sense, Mill defines the range of a person’s right to unrestrained liberty over his own choices as extending to that point at which his actions would infringe upon and violate the equal rights of other people to their freedom.

And the weakest point in Mill’s defense of individual liberty is his failure to clearly align his case for human freedom with the right to private property and its use in all ways that do not violate the comparable individual rights of others.

But within the context of his own premises, Mill was a fairly strong advocate of much of what today we usually call civil liberties. Thus, for example, he opposed the attempt by some to prohibit the consumption of alcohol by others, insisting that it was an inappropriate restraint on individual freedom of choice.

Men of the most honest intentions and goodwill may reason with their fellow human beings and offer their own lives as examples of better ways of living. But it would be an unjustifiable violation of another’s personal freedom to coercively attempt to prevent him from ingesting some substance that he – however wrong-headedly from the critic’s perspective – finds desirable, useful, or pleasurable.

But Mill, unfortunately, conceded to the government as necessary responsibilities far more powers of intervention into social and economic affairs than most modern classical liberals and libertarians consider justifiable.

Three forms of tyranny
And this gets to the issue of what can stifle or prevent an individual from exercising his personal freedom in the manner he wants. Mill argued that there were, historically, three forms of tyranny that have endangered liberty through the ages.

The oldest was the tyranny of the one or the few over the many. A single dictator or an oligarchy imposed prohibitions on or commanded certain forms of behavior over the majority of the society. The spontaneous individualism and individuality of each person was denied. The one or the few determined how others might live and what they might say and do and, therefore, in what forms their human potential would be allowed to develop.

The newer form of tyranny, Mill said, was the rule of the many over the one. The revolt against the tyranny of the one or the few resulted in the growing idea that the people should rule themselves. And since the people, surely, could not tyrannize themselves, the unrestrained will of the people became the ideal of those who advocated unlimited democracy.

But in practice this inevitably became the rule of the majority over the minority. Individual freedom was denied purely on the basis of numbers, that is, on the basis of which group or coalition of groups formed that larger number of people dominating the political process. Their ideas, ideals, and values were to be imposed on all those representing less than 50 percent of the electorate.

But whether it was the tyranny of the few over the many or the many over the few, the source of their tyrannical power was the control and use of political coercion. State power is what enabled some to deny liberty to others. The threat or the use of force by government is what enabled freedom to be taken away from individuals who believed in ideas, ideals, or values different from those holding the reins of political power.

The “tyranny” of custom and tradition
Mill also said that there was a third source of tyranny over the individual in society, and this was the tyranny of custom and tradition. He argued:

The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement, being in unceasing antagonism to that disposition to aim at something better than the customary, which is called, according to circumstances, the spirit of liberty, or that of progress or improvement…. Custom is there, in all things, the final appeal; justice and right mean conformity to custom…. All deviations … come to be considered impious, immoral, even monstrous and contrary to nature.

Mill argued with great passion that societal customs and traditions could, indeed, very often be the worst tyranny of all. They were binding rules on conduct and belief that owed their force not to coercion but to their being the shared ideas of the right and proper held by the vast majority in the society. They represent what the ancient Greek Pericles referred to as “that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.”

Customs and traditions weigh down on the individual, they stifle his sense and desire to be different, to experiment with the new, to creatively design ways of doing things that have not been tried before, and to break out of the confinement of conformity. Custom and tradition can be the straitjacket that restricts a person’s cry for his peaceful and nonviolent individuality.

But while customs and traditions may hold such power over men, because of their fear of disgrace and ostracism by family, friends, and neighbors, they are still not coercion. No matter how strong a hold custom and tradition may have over men’s minds and therefore their conduct in society, an individual can still choose to go his own way and be the eccentric and outcast, if he is willing to pay the price in terms of the disapproval of others in his community. Political force is not the weapon that ensures obedience. The power of custom and tradition comes from social and psychological pressure and the human desire to avoid being shunned by those whose association is wanted.

Private property and the free market
What Mill does not give emphasis to or fully appreciate in his essay “On Liberty” is that what enables an individual to follow his own path even in the face of strong customs and traditions is the institution of private property and the free and voluntary relationships of the market economy.

Private property gives an individual ownership and control of a portion of the means of production through which he may then choose how and for what purposes he will live his life. Private property gives him a “territory” that is under his own jurisdiction for a degree of “self-rule.” In his home and on his property, in the free society he can design his one-person “country” to fit his values, ideals, and desires. What the customs of others consider eccentric can be lived as the norm and the normal on the territory of his private property.

It is true that no man is an island. Unless an individual wishes to attempt existence in self-sufficient isolation, he must participate in the interdependent social system of the division of labor.

But the advantage of the market economy is that an individual can choose how and in what form he will find his niche in the nexus of voluntary exchange to acquire those things that will enable him to fulfill his own vision of the good life and its purposes.

This will not come without a cost. To earn the income that permits him, as a consumer, to buy the things that will enable him to live that unconventional life may require him to work as a producer at tasks he finds irksome or unattractive.

On the other hand, he can choose to earn a living doing something he enjoys more, but then he may have to forgo the higher income that he could have earned if he had produced and supplied something that potential customers might have valued more highly.

The market economy also offers the individual a degree of anonymity that helps shield and guard him from prying eyes and the imposed values of others.

Rarely do the consumers of multitudes of market-supplied goods and services know or care about the values, beliefs, or lifestyles of those in the production process who participate in bringing demanded commodities to the buying public.

A person can earn a living making a product to finance his personal vision of the good life, even when many of the buyers of his product would, perhaps, radically disapprove of the way he leads his life with the income he has earned serving their wants.

It is precisely this type of freedom that the market economy makes possible to all its participants that arouses the disapproval and anger of those who resent the ability of some to flaunt the customs and traditions believed in and practiced by many if not most of the other members of society.

The danger to liberty arises when those who resent breaches of tradition cry for coercion to be used to impose obedience to custom. Only then does the tyranny of custom, as understood by Mill, become the coercion of the many over the few. Only then is freedom denied, indeed suffocated, by politically enforced conformity.

It is the misuse and abuse of political power – the threat or the application of legitimized force by a government within a geographical area – that always has been the greatest threat to liberty. All tyranny, whether it be the few over the many or the many over the few, results from the use of force to make others conform to the conduct desired by the rulers, even when those being coerced have done nothing to violate the rights of others.

That John Stuart Mill failed to sufficiently see this and defend liberty on this basis does not detract from the fact that “On Liberty” remains one of the greatest works that has been written in behalf of individual freedom during the last 150 years.

And with the continuing growth of “Big Government” in our own time, his classic essay remains as fresh and relevant as when it first appeared in 1859.

(A slightly different version of this article originally appeared in Freedom Daily (February 1993) published by the Future of Freedom Foundation, Fairfax, Virginia.)

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


United States to Spend Nearly 1 Trillion Updating Nuclear Arsenal

08/10/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/united-states-to-spend-nearly-1.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1dba03c40d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-1dba03c40d-387807993

8-10-2015 12-04-02 PM

By Carey Wedler

Updating America’s behemoth nuclear arsenal could cost nearly one trillion dollars, according to a new report from independent researchers at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Though previous Pentagon assessments claimed that updating the United States’ nuclear weapons could cost $270 billion, the price now appears to be much higher.

This week’s daunting projections coincide with the 70th anniversary of the United States deadly detonation of two atomic bombs over Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

In 2013, President Obama announced plans to update the military’s nuclear weapons program over a period of 30 years. More specifically, the White House intended to update the “nuclear triad”—the intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines, and aircraft responsible for delivering nuclear warheads.

However, Obama failed to provide full data on projected costs. As Al Jazeera noted, the White House “has to date only released a $73 billion estimate that covers fiscal years 2016 to 2020 — years before the program’s costs are projected to spike.”

The new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment—which works closely with the Pentagon— says that between 2014 and 2043, the total could be as high as $963 billion. Further, researchers Todd Harrison and Evan Montgomery noted that “Ultimately, this report finds that the Pentagon will…require as much as $12 to 13 billion per year in additional funding to support nuclearmaintenance and modernization during the 2020s, when spending on U.S. nuclear forces will peak.” The figure itself may be suspect considering the tendency of war mongers to underestimate the costs of war and the Pentagon’s fiscal ineptitude.

The new report’s findings are consistent with a widely-cited study released last year that projected a similar figure, but the cost to maintain one of the world’s biggest nuclear arsenals is chronically high.The Manhattan Project—which spawned the bombs dropped on Japan in August of 1945, cost $20 billion (adjusted for current inflation). From 1957 to 1964 alone, the U.S. spent the equivalent $14 billion on intercontinental ballistic missile launch pads and silos, as well as support facilities.

With 7,300 total nuclear warheads as of 2014, the United States leads the world in nuclear stockpiles. It is followed by Russia, the U.K., France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The United States is the first and only nation to openly and unabashedly drop a nuclear bomb on civilian populations. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed 70 years ago in an attack military commanders—including General Dwight D. Eisenhower—deemed wholly unnecessary. 

Though some might argue that $1 trillion over 30 years to maintain a nuclear stockpile is “only” a fraction of the United States’ presumed military budget over the same time period, that fact alone is alarming. It reveals disturbingly misplaced priorities within one of the world’s wealthiest nations.

Worse, the projected costs highlight the grotesque hypocrisy in Obama’s conduct of foreign affairs. While his recent nuclear deal with Iran is laudable for its attempt to prioritize diplomacy over war, it remains comical that a nation that fervently stockpiles nuclear weapons—and is the only one with the audacity to detonate them—should control the conversation and conduct of other nations’ ability to wield nuclear power. There is no evidence that Iran detonated nuclear bombs for the sake of bolstering a powerful image and testing out new toys. That was, of course, the United States under Harry Truman.

While Obama once campaigned on promises of nuclear disarmament, his actions in office signal the opposite approach. Nowhere in his Iran deal—which is ostensibly intended to reduce the threat of nuclear violence—did he suggest the United States scale back its arsenal. An Onion headline once satirically summed up this conundrum—long before the recent deal: “Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8500th Nuclear Weapon,“ it read, highlighting the ridiculousness of the global empire’s purported fear of a nation surrounded by United States military bases.

As the United States machine continues to expand its militaristic misadventures—in defending his Iran deal this week, Obama bragged that he had bombed seven countries—its desperation to cling to aggressive power becomes all the more obvious. While the outrageous costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal should spark serious discussion about America’s priorities, they merely expose its politicians’ hubris in demanding—and exercising violent power—while commanding others to lay down their arms.

Carey Wedler writes for theAntiMedia.orgAnti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

Carey Wedler joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in September of 2014. As a senior editor, her topics of interest include the police and warfare states, the Drug War, the relevance of history to current problems and solutions, and positive developments that drive humanity forward. She currently resides in Los Angeles, California, where she was born and raised. Learn more about Wedler here!

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

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Life in the New Empire

08/08/2015

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36462/Paul-Rosenberg-Production-Versus-Plunder-Part-19-Life-in-the-New-Empire/?uuid=D61DE0D0-0752-0845-33435892AAF62EB6

8-8-2015 8-59-12 AMBy Paul Rosenberg – August 08, 2015

One of the great changes of the last fifty years is that broad populations have lost their respect for politicians. Such changes can have profound effects. Without legitimacy, it’s only a matter of time before an empire fails.

Continued from last week

LIFE IN THE NEW EMPIRE

Daily life during the reign of the Church in Europe was stable. Life was not especially good – there were, for example, frequent famines and ever-changing political alliances – but the Church was clearly regarded as the moral center of the universe, and they were generally able to move the various secular rulers into paths that the Church chose, or at least into paths they could use with a back-up plan.

The Pope reigned as a king of kings, by maintaining a monopoly on legitimacy.

The Europeans of the Middle Ages were convinced that the order of their lives had been established by God and that to challenge that divine order would be a horrible offense. They saw a world made up of three types of people:

  1. Latores– The kings and lesser nobles, who protected everyone else.
  2. Oratores– The clergy, who interceded with God for everyone else.
  3. Laboratores– The peasants, who fed everyone else.

There were always a few specialists on the fringes, such as itinerant traders and Jews, but they were not terribly many and always subject to violence if they attracted too much attention. So, they seldom made much trouble.

Obviously, this was a horrible structure for production. Humans, after all, vary greatly in their talents, and any system that makes good use of human ability must allow people to operate where their personal talents are most effective. But, if breaking out of your hereditary ‘place’ is a sin, your talents are a non-issue. It was God’s will that you were born into a certain class, so that is where you had to stay. And, once again, this rigid structure was first prescribed by Plato. He writes:

You are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you he has made like gold, who have the power of command, and also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be auxillaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. … God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. … If the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan … When a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be destroyed.

A very interesting comment follows, after someone asks whether installing this idea in the populace is a practical possibility in the current situation. Plato goes on:

Not in the present generation… there is no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and their sons’ sons, and posterity after them.

This is precisely what was done in medieval Europe. The people were made to believe something that did not come naturally to them – and it enslaved their minds for a thousand years. And, to an extent, this idea remains. This formulation of Plato and his empire has strongly contributed to the gut feeling of many mixed-race people that they are somehow inferior. The amount of human suffering caused by this giant lie has been astronomical.

GATHERING THE SURPLUS

We have previously described methods of expansion for previous civilizations, and showed that they all involved surplus production. This is a critical mechanism, and one that Professor Quigley defines as the defining characteristic of a civilization.

In the Mesopotamian civilization, surplus went directly upward from the people to a ruler. Then, as small centers of ruler-dominance were strung together into empires, portions went upward through middle layers of administrators and to the top levels of kings-of-kings, also called emperors. All through this era, surplus was used to build armies and monuments, and very little went to productive uses, such as the improvement of agriculture, metallurgy or the like.

In classical civilization, surplus-gathering was decentralized. Surplus passed into the hands of a local farmer, who put it to work productively. In the early days of Greece and Rome, very little surplus left the places where it was used productively, and the civilizations thrived. Only later did both groups divert surplus to central political centers, where, again, it was used for armies and monuments. And, once again, the civilizations rotted.

During the time of this Platonic Empire, surplus was gathered by spiritual coercion far more than it was by direct force or even by political authority. Although production through this era was relatively low, there was surplus, and it was primarily gathered by the Church in the form of tithes, alms and other donations. (Some did go to kings, who used it for the usual armies and lavish living, though not much for monuments – that would have been condemned by the Church, so it was not done. The kings and princes did not want to risk the little legitimacy they retained.)

Probably the most effective method of surplus-gathering was bequests to the Church. A bequest to the Church assured that the deceased would have many Masses said for him, greatly reducing the unpleasant time he would otherwise have to spend in Purgatory. By the time of the Protestant reformation, the Catholic Church owned a shockingly large number of properties in Europe. This may have exceeded a third (and possibly approached half) of all the land that comprises modern France.

ONCE AGAIN, LEGITIMACY FAILS

In the film, Ben Hur, the Tribune Messala utters a memorable line, saying: I’ll tell you how to fight an idea – with another idea! This is what happened to the Church of Rome. In fact, it was a source of their own legitimacy that ruined them, a great irony.

During the reign of the Church knowledge was contained and controlled, but it could not be utterly done away with. For one thing, they needed to be the arbiters of Jesus, and that required the ability to quote him. With their legitimacy justified by being the successors to Jesus, Church functionaries had to be familiar with the story. They were very careful, however, that only the clergy had full access to Jesus’ words. In fact, there are comments from the end of this period where the scriptures are called “the pearl of the clergy,” which is taken from a saying of Jesus. Seeing this passage to completion, it was said that this pearl should not be “cast to the swine.” The “swine,” of course, being common people.

But, Jesus’ words had been written. They remained. The Empire tried to keep them wrapped up, but they also needed literacy in order to operate their empire. And that meant that real human beings had to be able to read. And that was risky. The Church losing control of Jesus’ words would make alternate interpretations possible. This would bring them back to the days before Constantine’s council of Nicea and a unified doctrine. And if that happened, their legitimacy would be fractured and scattered in any number of directions. With no monopoly on legitimacy, their rule would end.

There are anecdotal stories all though the rule of the Church, telling of non-conformists in the Alps who retained both the scriptures and their own interpretations of them. Additional stories tell of these people doing things like smuggling passages of scripture into schools. But, there is little confirmation for these stories. It is certain that such people did exist by the 12th century (1101-1200), commonly called Waldensians1. And, the Church, understanding the threat, used great effort to eliminate them by any means available, including massacre.

There were always clergymen differing with the Pope during the rule of the Church, but the massive authority of the papacy was quickly brought against them and none spread their variant ideas very far. Ironically, it was the writings of Plato’s ancient adversary, Aristotle, that were pivotal in turning the tide.

While manuscripts of Aristotle had long existed in Latin, they didn’t get much play. The Crusaders, however, returned from the east in the 11th and 12th centuries with more and better copies in Greek. Aristotle’s ideas were not only new to most of the Europeans, but they had been highly respected in ancient times, which gave them some legitimacy. This made them very attractive in a time when thinking was restricted to one path only.

By the early 13th century, Aristotle was very popular in the schools of Paris. As a result, a Papal legate in Paris forbade teachers to lecture on Aristotle in 1225. Deeming this insufficient, Pope Gregory IX formed a commission to edit out all objectionable passages of Aristotle’s works in 1231. But there were, at this moment, another group of forgotten heroes in Paris – more of the true benefactors of our race, whose names are lost to history. These people were willing to face serious risks for what they believed, and they simply disobeyed the Pope, his emissaries and his orders. The seemingly omnipotent authority of the papacy was unable to stop them. As a result, by 1260 Aristotle was taught in virtually every Christian school. The Church did its best to merge Aristotle with their teachings, but it was a difficult mix. The Church had been built upon Plato, and Aristotle wrote some of his works in refutation of Plato.

It is fairly well known that most early Christian reformers were clergy. These were the people who had access to the New Testament, and reading Jesus’ teachings led them to question the system they served. Ultimately, it made the bravest of them reject the Roman Catholic system, which had become horribly corrupt over time… as structures of central power always do.

The first great reformer was John Wycliffe, and he undertook the work of condemning the Church for extra-biblical teachings and corruption with exceptional ability. Then, Wycliffe created an even greater irritation to the Church by publishing the New Testament in English. This was a gigantic threat to the Church’s precious legitimacy. Once anyone could read the record of Jesus for himself, he could form his own opinions and the Church’s monopoly on legitimacy would be dead.

The Church tried to stop John Wycliffe, but he was far from Rome and the processes of the day were ill-designed for this sort of threat. By the time they came for Wycliffe, he was already dead2. Worse, there was a decentralized group of followers called Lollards continuing his work. Over time, they influenced many more reformers, such as Hus and Luther, who put a final end to Rome’s monopoly on legitimacy.

The Church struggled long, dirty and hard to reverse the situation, but by the year 1500 it was clear that the changes were unstoppable. Guttenberg’s printing press not only made Protestantism’s victory certain, but it greatly sped up the process. The official end of Plato’s Empire came in 1638, when the Peace of Westphalia legally removed religious compulsion from rulership and gave Protestantism (in any number of forms) equal standing with the Church of Rome.

Certainly the Church of Rome continues, and certainly it continues to claim a special legitimacy, but its ability to maintain a monopoly on legitimacy is gone, and with it, its empire.

NOTES:

1There are stories tracing the line of the Waldensians back to Claude of Turin in the 9th Century, but though these stories do have their appeal, I have yet to find much evidence to support their authenticity.
2They did dig up his body, burn it, and throw his ashes in a nearby river.

To be continued…

Click here for links to all weekly segments of Production Versus Plunder at The Daily Bell.

You can get much more from Paul Rosenberg in his unique monthly newsletter, Free-Man’s Perspective.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Federalism personage and freedom

08/07/2015

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/08/06/federalism-personage-and-freedom/#more-10169

 CLINTON GAVE US THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE OUR “LEGAL CHARACTER”, BUT DIDN’T BOTHER TO TELL US!

8-7-2015 1-24-13 PM

By AL Whitney © copyround 2015
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and AntiCorruptionSociety.com is acknowledged.

On August 10, 1999 President Clinton, as CEO of USA INC, signed an Executive Order called “Federalism” that few people know about.

NOTE: Since March, 1933 USA INC has been kept in a permanent state of “national emergency” by those sitting in the White House. (See: Senate Report 93-549) This report officially validates that during a state of emergency or war, the office of the President can exert unlimited power, as demonstrated by the thousands of Executive Orders, Signing Statements, and secret Presidential Policy Directives, etc. that they have signed since 1933. During the state of emergency Congress is powerless, which explains why they have so many hearings which result only in recommendations, never in policy changes.

President Clinton’s (who, like all Presidents, was just another a puppet for the Federal Reserve banksters) EO 13132 redefined freedom as it applies to the “people of the States”.

Executive Order 13132
Federalism

Section 2
(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

While this information is readily available to anyone who knows to look for it, it is not taught in our schools, including our law schools.

The freedom to choose your political and legal character is everything.

  1. If you have registered to vote for politicians running for office, you have chosen to recognize the bogus corporate network now calling itself our government as legitimate, which it is not.
  2. All of the corporate government network’s rules and regulations (that they refer to as laws) are written for dead legal fiction “persons”. If you choose not to define your “legal character” as a “person” but as a living flesh and blood man or woman, you have removed yourself from their statutory jurisdiction.

This is so very important to know and understand. All of the corporation’s rules and regulations that we are told are “laws” are just creations of the corporate (legal fiction) so-called government and only apply to their creation – the dead legal fiction referred to as a “person”.

A great example of this nonsense can be found in the definition of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA’s definitions regarding their statutes:

  1. “Person” includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.

SO, DON’T DEFINE YOUR LEGAL CHARACTER AS A DEAD LEGAL FICTION “PERSON”!

The public is not told of this fraud many refer to as “personage”, so they blindly volunteer themselves into this legal character. As our courts are run under the principle “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, assent to choose to define yourself as a “person” is presumed – unless denied.

What has happened to our government and legal system, since the permanent state of emergency made room for the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to be implanted across the country (without the people’s knowledge or consent), is nothing short of absolute fraud.

For people to regain control over their lives they MUST understand three primary principles:
1) All government entities are now corporations operating under the UCC aka the laws of contract. So, we have to educate ourselves on the basics of contract law and demand they perform honorably.

2) All statutes are written for “persons” by the government-corporate entities. An assumption is made that we have chosen to define our legal character as “person”. We can choose to define our legal character as the living flesh and blood men and women we actually are and rebut this assumption.

3) BAR attorneys can’t help us as they created this system and are trained to implement it and keep it in place. In fact, the American Bar Association is an arm of Rothschild’s London BAR Guild and was established to create a legal system whereas contract law was above both Constitutional Law and Common Law. Therefore, they cannot help us challenge it unless they are willing to sacrifice their BAR cards. Very few will choose that path.

SO, DON’T ASSENT (CONSENT) TO HAVING YOUR LEGAL CHARACTER DEFINED AS A “PERSON”!

Claim yourself as a living flesh and blood human in all of your communications and interactions with ALL corporate government entities.

Here is an example of a notice that can be handed to any law enforcement employee that attempts to interact with you.https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/pocket-card-notices.pdf

 This is a notice of non-consent.

FACTS:

  1. All law enforcement employees in the UNITED STATES work for private corporations listed on Dun and Bradstreet that use private commercial script (FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES) and are bound by the laws of contracts (UCC). [See Clearfield Doctrine]
  2. Laws, statutes, rules and regulation passed by FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL corporations are for non-human legal “persons” . . . not for living flesh and blood men and women – unless we consent or agree to contract!
  3. No agency or employee of the corporate (or private) government network can be granted the authority to deprive living men and women of their human unalienable rights – unless we consent or agree to contract!
  4. Enforcement of private corporate statutes, rules, regulations or Presidential Executive Orders by law enforcement employees upon flesh and blood men and women – without consent to contract – are unlawful and these officers can be held personally liable for their actions.
  5. Enforcement of corporate statutes, rules, regulations or Executive Orders by law enforcement officers – without full disclosure and written consent – are unlawful and these officers can be held personally liable for their actions.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE

“. . . a vague law is a violation of due process because the law does not provide fair warning of a prohibition and fails to set standards for enforcement that would govern the exercise of the police power.” http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/void-for-vagueness-doctrine.html

Name of corporation employee notified:

I am not a non-human legal “person”.

I do not consent to your request. __________________________________

I do not wish to contract with you.

_____________________

Badge or ID #

_____________________________________________________ _______________

Signature: first and last name Date

_____________________________________________________ _______________

Witness (if available): first and last name Date

– Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal – Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent –

This ‘notice of non-consent and no contract’ should be taken under advisement.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM