Why the Government Hates Gold

10/31/2015

From the Stansberry Digest

By Bill Bonner,

Prices are being discovered again… by free declaration of buyers and sellers.

Owners of Greek stocks are discovering that their equity stakes aren’t as valuable as they believed.

But for every seller, there is a buyer…

Sellers are losing money. Buyers believe they are getting a bargain.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, and most of the people once in a while.

You can obstruct price discovery and you can disguise and distort the real value of things. But Mr. Market will get even someday. He always does.

Alan Greenspan betrayed Mr. Market…

In 1987, after President Reagan appointed him Paul Volker’s successor as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Greenspan went over to the zombies… or more precisely, to their allies, the cronies.

It must not have been easy for the former defender of the free market and member of Ayn Rand’s inner circle…

The Largest Paper Money Racket Ever

In the late 1980s and early 1990s – you could almost see Greenspan struggling with the contradictions.

He had been loyal to free markets. But his job carried with it the biggest central planning authority of all time. He knew that currency unbacked by gold was a scam, but his position as chief of the Fed put him in charge of the largest paper money racket ever.

Greenspan believed in letting Mr. Market set prices. But as gatekeeper of U.S. credit, he corrupted more prices than any human being ever had before him.

But what was he to do?

In 1993, at her husband’s inaugural address to Congress, Mrs. Clinton – now the leading Democratic candidate for president – chose to stand next to Greenspan. It was one of those magic moments in history, when power and money came together to celebrate.

(When we were in Vancouver, we went to an Anglican church. A banner hung down from the ceiling proudly proclaiming the trinity: “King, Country, God.” The parishioners like to imagine that all their leaders are united… It spares them the trouble of choosing just one.)

Of all the bigwigs in Washington, it was Alan Greenspan who had the biggest wig of all. He was practically a god to the members of Congress, to whom the economy was as big a mystery as Heaven itself.

Gold Stymies the “Welfare Statists”

To the American people, Greenspan was a combination of Mr. Fixit and the Wizard of Oz.

They didn’t understand a word of what he said. And why should they?

Greenspan made no sense when he spoke as Fed chairman – intentionally. As he later explained:
What I’ve learned at the Federal Reserve is a new language, which is called Fed-speak. You soon learn how to mumble with great incoherence.
But the blither and blather worked. The politicians kneeled before him. The press took off their hats. And the masses, awestruck by the incomprehensible, thought he was a genius.

What was he supposed to do? Turn his back on all that for the sake of the truth?

“What was the truth?” asked the jesting Greenspan. And he did not wait for an answer.

We wrote contemptuously about Mr. Greenspan from the end of the 1990s until he stepped down as Fed chairman in 2006.

He did his thinking in the bathtub, the press reported. Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan, we renamed him.

He had sold out – for glory, for money, and for power. But we had to admit: He got a good price! Had we been in his shoes, we probably would have been bought at half the price.

But what a pleasure it was to rediscover the old Alan Greenspan, before he turned his coat and forked his tongue. Back in 1966, when he still believed in free markets and sound money, he expressed himself clearly…
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.

If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods.

The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.
Credit Nation

But now, who speaks the truth?

No one.

Because the elites – economists… businessmen… academics… policymakers – are paid not to see it. And if they do catch a glimpse of it by mistake, they keep their mouths shut.

Like Alan Greenspan, it is all very well to understand how things really worked. But you wouldn’t want to give up money, power, or status for it.

The Huffington Post explains how the cronies bought the economics profession:
The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni, and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession…

One critical way the Fed exerts control on academic economists is through its relationships with the field’s gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of Monetary Economics, a must-publish venue for rising economists, more than half of the editorial board members are currently on the Fed payroll – and the rest have been in the past…

A Fed spokeswoman says that exact figures for the number of economists contracted with weren’t available. But, she says, the Federal Reserve spent $389.2 million in 2008 on “monetary and economic policy,” money spent on analysis, research, data gathering, and studies on market structure; $433 million is budgeted for 2009. That’s a lot of money for a relatively small number of economists.
But the Huffington Post misses the really big story…

The feds have bought off the entire intellectual, financial, business, and academic establishment.

How?

With easy money.

As we explained in our speech at the Sprott-Stansberry Natural Resource Symposium in Vancouver, there is scarcely a single public figure with substantial wealth or reputation who doesn’t owe it to the great credit expansion.

In 1999, for example, Fortune magazine named Jack Welch “Manager of the Century.”

Was it because of Welch’s genius… or the fact that GE had moved into financial services during a credit boom?

Warren Buffett is regarded as the greatest investor who ever lived. But it was Buffett’s great fortune to be investing during the greatest credit expansion there ever was.

And how did Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen get to be heads of the Fed?

They could not have done so without the wind of credit expansion behind them, which seemed to make sense of their preposterous theories.

While the cheap credit embellished résumés and reputations, it also made people dependent. Academia reaped tax-free donations from people who had made their fortunes in debt-fueled finance… not to mention more than $1 trillion in tuition fees financed by the feds’ student loan program.

Corporations sold their products on cheap credit… made their profits from cheap credit… and then depended on cheap credit to issue their bonds, buy back their own stock, and pay their bonuses.

Meanwhile, Washington ran deficit after deficit – again, all made possible by cheap credit.

And now, practically every sentient being in the nation (and some Democrats, too!) needs cheap credit to pay his mortgage, keep his job, boost his stocks, and hold down his finance costs.

Who is left to speak the truth?

Regards,

Bill Bonner
Bill’s subscribers know exactly what steps to take to protect their wealth and their family from the credit crisis he’s predicting. If you want to know how this will all play out – and how to protect yourself and even profit from the coming financial disaster – click here.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


US On Road To Third World

10/30/2015

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/29/us-on-road-to-third-world-paul-craig-roberts/

By Paul Craig Roberts
On January 6, 2004, Senator Charles Schumer and I challenged the erroneous idea that jobs off-shoring was free trade in a New York Times op-ed. Our article so astounded economists that within a few days Schumer and I were summoned to a Brookings Institution conference in Washington, DC, to explain our heresy. In the nationally televised conference, I declared that the consequence of jobs off-shoring would be that the US would be a Third World country in 20 years.

That was 11 years ago, and the US is on course to descend to Third World status before the remaining 9 years of my prediction have expired.

The evidence is everywhere. In September the US Bureau of the Census released its report on US household income by quintile. Every quintile, as well as the top 5%, has experienced a decline in real household income since their peaks. The bottom quintile (lower 20 percent) has had a 17.1% decline in real income from the 1999 peak (from $14,092 to $11,676). The 4th quintile has had a 10.8% fall in real income since 2000 (from $34,863 to $31,087). The middle quintile has had a 6.9% decline in real income since 2000 (from $58,058 to $54,041). The 2nd quintile has had a 2.8% fall in real income since 2007 (from $90,331 to $87,834). The top quintile has had a decline in real income since 2006 of 1.7% (from $197,466 to $194,053). The top 5% has experienced a 4.8% reduction in real income since 2006 (from $349,215 to $332,347). Only the top One Percent or less (mainly the 0.1%) has experienced growth in income and wealth.

The Census Bureau uses official measures of inflation to arrive at real income. These measures are understated. If more accurate measures of inflation are used (such as those available from shadowstats.com), the declines in real household income are larger and have been decling for a longer period. Some measures show real median annual household income below levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Note that these declines have occurred during an alleged six-year economic recovery from 2009 to the current time, and during a period when the labor force was shrinking due to a sustained decline in the labor force participation rate. On April 3, 2015 the US Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 93,175,000 Americans of working age are not in the work force, a historical record. Normally, an economic recovery is marked by a rise in the labor force participation rate. John Williams reports that when discouraged workers are included among the measure of the unemployed, the US unemployment rate is currently 23%, not the 5.2% reported figure.
In a recently released report, the Social Security Administration provides annual income data on an individual basis. Are you ready for this?

In 2014 38% of all American workers made less than $20,000; 51% made less than $30,000; 63% made less than $40,000; and 72% made less than $50,000.
The scarcity of jobs and the low pay are direct consequences of jobs off-shoring. Under pressure from “shareholder advocates” (Wall Street) and large retailers, US manufacturing companies moved their manufacturing abroad to countries where the rock bottom price of labor results in a rise in corporate profits, executive “performance bonuses,” and stock prices.
The departure of well-paid US manufacturing jobs was soon followed by the departure of software engineering, IT, and other professional service jobs.

Incompetent economic studies by careless economists, such as Michael Porter at Harvard and Matthew Slaughter at Dartmouth, concluded that the gift of vast numbers of US high productivity, high value-added jobs to foreign countries was a great benefit to the US economy.

In articles and books I challenged this absurd conclusion, and all of the economic evidence proves that I am correct. The promised better jobs that the “New Economy” would create to replace the jobs gifted to foreigners have never appeared. Instead, the economy creates lowly-paid part-time jobs, such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks, and ambulatory health care services, while full-time jobs with benefits continue to shrink as a percentage of total jobs.

These part-time jobs do not provide enough income to form a household. Consequently, as a Federal Reserve study reports, “Nationally, nearly half of 25-year-olds lived with their parents in 2012-2013, up from just over 25% in 1999.”

When half of 25-year olds cannot form households, the market for houses and home furnishings collapses.
Finance is the only sector of the US economy that is growing. The financial industry’s share of GDP has risen from less than 4% in 1960 to about 8% today. As Michael Hudson has shown, finance is not a productive activity. It is a looting activity (Killing The Host).

Moreover, extraordinary financial concentration and reckless risk and debt leverage have made the financial sector a grave threat to the economy.

The absence of growth in real consumer income means that there is no growth in aggregate demand to drive the economy. Consumer indebtedness limits the ability of consumers to expand their spending with credit. These spending limits on consumers mean that new investment has limited appeal to businesses. The economy simply cannot go anywhere, except down as businesses continue to lower their costs by substituting part-time jobs for full-time jobs and by substituting foreign for domestic workers. Government at every level is over-indebted, and quantitative easing has over-supplied the US currency.

This is not the end of the story. When manufacturing jobs depart, research, development, design, and innovation follow. An economy that doesn’t make things does not innovate. The entire economy is lost, not merely the supply chains.

The economic and social infrastructure is collapsing, including the family itself, the rule of law, and the accountability of government.

When college graduates can’t find employment because their jobs have been off-shored or given to foreigners on work visas, the demand for college education declines. To become indebted only to find employment that cannot service student loans becomes a bad economic decision.
We already have the situation where college and university administrations spend 75% of the university’s budget on themselves, hiring adjuncts to teach the classes for a few thousand dollars. The demand for full time faculty with a career before them has collapsed. When the consequences of putting short-term corporate profits before jobs for Americans fully hit, the demand for university education will collapse and with it American science and technology.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that ever happened to the United States. The two main consequences of the Soviet collapse have been devastating. One consequence was the rise of the neoconservative hubris of US world hegemony, which has resulted in 14 years of wars that have cost $6 trillion. The other consequence was a change of mind in socialist India and communist China, large countries that responded to “the end of history” by opening their vast under-utilized labor forces to Western capital, which resulted in the American economic decline that this article describes, leaving a struggling economy to bear the enormous war debt.

It is a reasonable conclusion that a social-political-economic system so incompetently run already is a Third World country.

References:

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/americans-not-labor-force-exceed-93-million-first-time-627-labor-force

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/october/millennials-living-home-student-debt-housing-labor?&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SM&utm_term=communities&utm_content=oteblog&utm_campaign=5124

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Community Preparations For Catastrophic Events

10/29/2015

http://alt-market.com/articles/2723-community-preparations-for-catastrophic-events

10-29-2015 9-29-50 AMThis article was written by Tom Chatham and originally published at Project Chesapeake
Many people now feel that pending trouble is in the air. They may not know what or why but they can feel it deep in their bones. For these people the urge to prepare for potential problems is now incorporated into their everyday lives. When something far reaching and catastrophic happens the ability of groups and communities to pull together is one way to deal with the aftermath and work through the problems to remain safe and healthy.
When something happens that may prevent outside help from reaching you, it is necessary to have the infrastructure and supplies to help yourself until the situation stabilizes. For the group or community there are certain actions that can be taken beforehand to insure the group can sustain themselves for the duration.
A potable water supply must be present to sustain the group for as long as necessary. The water source must be available when current systems may be interrupted or destroyed due to the emergency. A water filtering system must be available when necessary to filter any suspect water from potentially contaminated sources.
A supply of food must be stocked to insure the group can maintain their health and strength. It is easy enough to store food for individuals or small groups but there must be a system in place to store extra for those that have no supplies for various reasons. If the community can be fed after an event it will greatly decrease the potential for acts of violence and help maintain order. This can be accomplished by storing bulk items for use by large populations. Grain bunkers can be constructed to store bulk grains for this purpose. A minimum of one bushel each of wheat, oats, corn, beans and rice per person per year for the expected population will provide the basics for feeding the affected population following the event. Any food items beyond this would be of additional benefit.
A team to assist those in need that may be trapped or injured must be available. This is where the local civil defense unit would be useful following an event. The local CD unit should be able to provide search and rescue, shelter, medical help, food and leadership after an event that may destroy local infrastructure and leadership.
A team to provide security for the group must be available to insure the groups safety. The local volunteer militia group, with the necessary training would work with the CD unit to maintain order and security to the population after an event. Some events have the ability to destroy local law enforcement abilities or at the least overwhelm their abilities to maintain order causing even more chaos.
Energy systems to provide power for necessary infrastructure to rebuild and repair systems to enhance and support a decent quality of life for the group. Electrical power to provide heat, cooking, lights, communications and water pumping are essential to long term living. Liquid fuels to provide transportation and generating capability will be needed in the days following any event. The ability to provide at least some power from sources such as solar and wind will greatly reduce the need to store large quantities of fuel and lesson the impact of loosing these supplies.
Safe shelter is necessary to provide protection from the elements and potential hazardous conditions that may exist as a result of the emergency. In these modern times the threat of an NBC event is as likely as any natural catastrophe. Many of the sheltering needs are similar in these events and any overlap will reduce costs in preparing for these eventualities.
The ability of the government to respond to emergencies is limited and requires days before help arrives in many cases. Any large scale event that affects a wide region or the whole nation will overwhelm government resources to the point that many localities may not get the necessary help. In this event it will be up to each locality to provide their own emergency management and solve their problems locally. In most cases emergency management is directed to survival of government operations and civilian populations only receive excess resources from government entities.
In some cases such as an act of war, events may eliminate government at some or all levels and necessitate that communities help themselves. If the community relies solely on government preparations and leadership and suddenly finds that entity gone or even hostile to the people, chaos can grow very quickly destroying any continuity that still remains among the population. Having a civilian group outside of government control to administer to the community today is not only logical but imperative given the nature of events that continue to unfold.
Of all the preparations that should be addressed by local communities, the need to have bulk food supplies available is the most pressing. Storing several hundred bushels of grain may seem too much for the average citizen but it is not beyond the abilities of many farmers. In the event of any supply disruptions, locally available food supplies will determine whether the community can maintain continuity for the duration. As it stands now, most large cities will collapse and most small towns will follow during any supply disruption. The government no longer stores sufficient grain to supply the civilian population in the face of any catastrophic event. It is therefore up to each community to take the necessary steps today to insure survivability if the worst should happen.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

For a moment I considered not posting this article and only did so as a related article to today’s other post. WHY? Because I still do not have any confidence that “the People” have the intelligence to form groups without destroying it from bickering about different subjects. Nowadays, Americans are too self-centered to allow someone with better ideas to get all the attention. The majority, are so self centered, egotistical, and verbally combative, they would disagree with any thoughts not their own. This is what we got from our habitual television watching, and admiration of the pretty people! Maybe, a little hardship will do them some good.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Why Is the IRS Spying on Americans Phone Calls?

10/28/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/why-is-the-irs-spying-on-americans-phone-calls.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=0df157191a-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-0df157191a-387807997

10-28-2015 8-45-43 AMBy Derrick Broze
Following the first ever congressional hearing on “Stingray” cellphone surveillance, new details reveal the Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service are also using the controversial spying devices.
At a congressional hearing last Wednesday, officials with the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security released new details about the federal government’s use of “Stingray” cellphone surveillance. Stingrays, also known as cell site simulators, constitute another example of military tools finding their way into the hands of federal agencies and local police departments across the United States.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
The Stingray is a brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) Catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cellphone tower – to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not – and tricks your phone into connecting to it. As a result, the government can figure out who, when and to where you are calling, the precise location of every device within the range, and with some devices, even capture the content of your conversations.
Elana Tyrangiel, a deputy assistant attorney at the Justice Department, told lawmakers the particular cell site simulators employed by the DOJ do not collect the content of calls. The devices do, however, collect location and the number being dialed.
Much of the discussion at the hearing centered around the use of warrants. In early September, the Justice Department announced rules about how the department will handle the use of Stingrays, including new warrant requirements. After the rules were announced, Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking member on the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, challenged the warrant exemptions and the overall effectiveness of the rules. According to the District Sentinel, Leahy stated, “I will press the Department to justify them.”
As of last week, the Department of Homeland Security is now following similar rules. Officials warned Congress the devices would be used without obtaining warrants in “time-sensitive, emergency situations.”
California Congressman Ted Lieu, a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told CNN he believes “The mass surveillance of peoples’ [sic] cell phone signals requires a warrant.”
The AP reports that during the hearing, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Seth M. Stodder revealed a new policy that allows the Secret Service to use cell site simulators without a warrant if they believe there is a “nonspecific threat to the president or another protected person.”
Stodder stated that under “exceptional circumstances,” exceptions would be made and use of the device would only require approval from “executive-level personnel” at Secret Service headquarters and the U.S. attorney for the relevant jurisdiction. Despite the exemption, Stodder said the Secret Service would not use the devices in routine criminal investigations.
Just days after the congressional hearing, The Guardian has revealed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is also making use of the Stingray devices. The Guardian reports:
Invoices obtained following a request under the Freedom of Information Act show purchases made in 2009 and 2012 by the federal tax agency with Harris Corporation, one of a number of companies that manufacture the devices. Privacy advocates said the revelation “shows the wide proliferation of this very invasive surveillance technology.
The 2009 IRS/Harris Corp invoice is mostly redacted under section B(4) of the Freedom of Information Act, which is intended to protect trade secrets and privileged information. However, an invoice from 2012, which is also partially redacted, reports that the agency spent $65,652 on upgrading a Stingray II to a HailStorm, a more powerful version of the same device, as well as $6,000 on training from Harris Corporation.
The HailStorm is an upgraded version of the Stingray, which is capable of gathering the actual contents of conversations and images in addition to gathering location and numbers dialed.
The history of the use of Stingrays is filled with secrecy, lies, and redacted documents. The FBI, the Harris Corporation, and local police departments continue to hide the details of how exactly the devices are being used. Should we trust government officials when they tell us they will get a warrant unless “exceptional circumstances” arise? Who defines what exactly “exceptional” means anyway? It would be wise for all those who value privacy and freedom to begin challenging the official narrative and investing in technologies that can counter the State’s surveillance.
We should also take a moment to acknowledge all the activists and journalists who have been working to expose this issue for the last several years. As Christopher Soghoian, an ACLU technologist, pointed out, “This is the first ever congressional hearing on Stingrays. This is a device the FBI started using in 1995. It shouldn’t take 20 years to get a hearing on a surveillance technology.”
It is through the work of the awakened masses that the collective springs into action. Without YOU spreading information through the internet and in the streets, this important topic would not have become part of the national dialogue. However, we must not rest. There is much work to do. For a more in-depth look at the use of Stingrays, please read this investigation.

This article (Why Is the IRS Spying on Americans’ Phone Calls?) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


THE TYRANNY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

10/27/2015

http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan419.htm

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of “The Rise of Tyranny” and
“Global Censorship of Health Information” and
“Restore The Republic”
NewsWithViews.com

Almost all federal law is not the product of those we elect but, rather, of the unelected heads of the federal administrative agencies. Because those agencies are run by politically appointed partisans who are given vast executive, legislative, and judicial powers combined, they rule like absolute monarchies and their governance of American commerce meets the Founding Fathers’ definition of tyranny.

The tens of thousands of regulations the unelected heads of federal agencies promulgate and enforce each year form a complex labyrinth through which every business of any size must pass or pay a major, often devastating, price. As those businesses pass through the regulatory labyrinth, they learn all too well that the federal government is their lord and master and determines who among them will win and who will lose in the market. The very engine upon which we depend for innovation and for sustaining the economy and generating employment is now greatly constricted by the suffocating embrace and weight of an all-intrusive and overwhelmingly burdensome administrative state.

To cope with the complexities and costs of administrative law, American enterprise is forced to divert profit to the employment of administrative attorneys, accountants, risk managers, and former government bureaucrats. Each year the cost of those services rises commensurate with the unending growth of regulatory law.

For industry leaders, the mass of regulation forms a convenient anti-competitive barrier, keeping market entrants out and, if they manage to get in, denying those entrants the freedom to engage in aggressive advertising and market challenges to industry incumbents. Large firms employ lawyers to lobby agencies for the adoption of ever more anti-competitive regulation, regulation that masquerades beneath a faux public interest veneer, which the agencies then sell to the public as essential for consumer protection. Agency heads know that if they play their cards right and favor particular industry sectors over others, they will be able to leave office and enjoy lucrative positions as payback for their service to market leaders. That form of corruption is commonplace in Washington. The federal government is very much a government for sale.

For new market entrants, the federal regulatory burden is costly and substantial. They must cope not only with competition from entrenched incumbents who enjoy a cozy relationship with regulators but also from regulations that prevent them from communicating precisely how their products work, that overwhelm them with regulatory traps for the unwary, and that force them to employ administrative lawyers, accountants, and risk managers to navigate through the regulations. If they fail to comply with the regulatory constraints that surround them, the consequences are often the equivalent of capital punishment (huge fines, prosecution that can include criminal charges, repeat federal inspections which, quite often, they must pay for, and record keeping requirements that may last for decades).

The favorite tool of the administrative state is prior restraint on speech and trade. Rather than simply codify acts which are unlawful, regulators create restraints on commercial speech and trade that embrace the law-abiding. Because those intent on criminal acts by definition violate the law, regulation only encumbers the law abiding by restricting freedom of choice. Thus, at root, the administrative state relies upon tools that destroy innovation, restrict market options, and reduce competition.

The solution to this problem is to eliminate the administrative state in favor of existing statutory law which already makes unlawful those acts which cause injury to others. Prior restraint is the bane of freedom essential to progress yet it is the essence of administrative law. Prior restraint enslaves the law abiding.

We should eliminate all law that fails to conform to the test for “rightful liberty” given us by Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to Benjamin Rush dated April 21, 1803, Jefferson wrote: “Of liberty I would say that in the whole plentitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual.”
© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, seven on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of the Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, Global Censorship of Health Information, and Restore the Republic. He is the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine and joins Robert Scott Bell weekly for “Jonathan Emord’s Sacred Fire of Liberty,” an hour long radio program on government threats to individual liberty. For more info visit Emord.com, join the Emord FDA/FTC Law Group on Linkedin, and follow Jonathan on twitter (@jonathanwemord).
Website: Emord.com
E-Mail: jemord@emord.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

It is a rare event when I post anything written by an un-constitutional bar Attorney, but that’s a different subject altogether and what he has written here today is a fact that cannot be denied. The only possible cure for this condition is for the people who know what happened in the beginning of America to make a life time commitment to educating everyone they possibly can. It is past time for the internet Patriots to wake up to the truth, learn it, and revise their commentary to fight it with all their might. This means educate the sheep non stop until they are as outraged as we all should be. We need to get this information out to a hundred million people ASAP. Why would an entire Nation accept a Corporation for a government? There is only one way for things to change for the better, and that is for a hundred million people to read this: You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

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://anationbeguiled.com

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS FOLKS, THE BASTARDS LIED TO US!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


EXACTLY WHO ARE OUR GOVERNMENT’S ENEMIES AND WHO ARE ITS ALLIES.

10/26/2015

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/22/vladimir-putin-accuses-us-backing-terrorism-middle-east

Michael Gaddy

This week we learned what our government fears most are those who oppose its implementation of unconstitutional edicts, Marxist Socialism and tyrannical government while at the same time supporting international and 1960s domestic terrorism.

The Department of (in)justice (DOJ) working in conjunction with George Washington University and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has created the Domestic Terrorism Counsel (DTC) in order to more effectively address domestic terrorism in this country. Of course, the created-by-government, “racial” proclivities of the Charleston Church shooter were used as motivation for this new government entity.

Assistant AG John Carlin, obviously no philosophical clone of George by the same name, stated ““Looking back over the past few years, it is clear that domestic terrorists and homegrown violent extremists remain a real and present danger to the United States, we recognize that, over the past few years, more people have died in this country in attacks by domestic extremists than in attacks associated with international terrorist groups.”

SPLC Senior fellow, Mark Potok states his group has been “pushing for something like this for quite a few years.” Of course they have!

This same Mark Potok once said of those who oppose open border policies, amnesty and enforcement of laws that demand such things as voter ID and other common sense protections of our country, that he would “destroy them, completely destroy them” with his program called, “ritual defamation.”

And yes, this is the same SPLC that sponsors a website known as Tolerance.org. Neat sounding name, huh? The stated purpose of this website is to “teach tolerance to primary and secondary schools.” The man in charge of Tolerance.org is/was one William Ayers of the Socialist group “The Weather Underground” himself a “domestic terrorist” of the 1960’s who admitted to setting off bombs at the US Capitol. Doesn’t appear he has changed his socialist stripes for he has stated “I don’t regret setting off the bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough.”

The SPLC is also affiliated with, through director James Rucker, the organization called the “Color of Change” which was founded by Van Jones, who was forced to resign from the Obama administration for openly advocating “Urban Marxism” and “Third World Communism.” (Source: Racial Racketeering for Fun and Profit by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo)

None of the so-called “domestic terrorist” groups named/listed by the SPLC are left leaning or socialist in nature, only those who support what America was intended to be are demonized by these wonderful, extremely wealthy, Communist folks.

Kind of ironic when one realizes the people and/or groups the government fears most are those who oppose Marxist Socialism, while those who support it get very wealthy off taxpayer dollars.

While constitutionalists, Second Amendment supporters, Christians, Veterans, Southerners, anti-abortion and other folks who are hopelessly afflicted with the desire for Liberty are being demonized and eventually criminalized by folks like Mark Potok, William Ayers and Van Jones, all supported by taxpayer dollars, our government is spending untold billions/trillions supporting/arming Muslim jihadists (read foreign terrorists) in the Middle East. Who else could better expose this blatant hypocrisy than Vlad Putin?

In the article linked to below, Putin asks a very relevant question. Our government complains the Russians are bombing “moderate forces” in Syria, Putin asks, “what is the difference in a moderate jihadist terrorist, supported by the US and ISIS?”

Looks as if our government is willing to support Socialist Marxism, collectivism and 1960s domestic terrorists over those of us who stand for Liberty and the culture that founded this country. Hang on, it can only get worse—because we keep electing Marxist Socialist sympathizers to public office.

I know it is not much of a compliment considering the field to choose from, but am I the only one who considers Putin to be head and shoulders in intellect above anything we have to offer?

In Rightful Liberty,
Mike

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Things Are Getting Scary Global Police Precrime and the War on Domestic Extremists’

10/25/2015

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82887b643445&id=e76b6e25b3&e=84f74f6a6a

By John W. Whitehead

• Are you afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms?
• Do you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law?
• Do you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car?
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police.
As such, you are now viewed as a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda.
Let that sink in a moment.
If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.
Police agencies now believe the “main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists.”
A New York Times editorial backs up these findings:
Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”
So what is the government doing about these so-called terrorists?
The government is going to war.
Again.
Only this time, it has declared war against so-called American “extremists.”
After decades spent waging costly, deadly and ineffective military campaigns overseas in pursuit of elusive ISIS and al Qaeda operatives and terror cells (including the recent “accidental” bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan that left 22 patients and medical staff dead), the Obama administration has announced a campaign to focus its terror-fighting forces inwards.
Under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Obama administration has agreed to partner with the United Nations to take part in its Strong Cities Network program. Funded by the State Department through 2016, after which “charities are expected to take over funding,” the cities included in the global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo.
Working with the UN, the federal government will train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal.
What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.
Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the community in order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime. The problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.
When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc.
In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.
Consider how Attorney General Loretta Lynch describes the initiative:
As residents and experts in their communities, local leaders are often best positioned to pinpoint sources of unrest and discord; best equipped to identify signs of potential danger; and best able to recognize and accommodate community cultures, traditions, sensitivities, and customs. By creating a series of partnerships that draws on the knowledge and expertise of our local officials, we can create a more effective response to this virulent threat.
Translation: U.S. police agencies are embarking on an effort to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats. (If you want a foretaste of how “extreme” things could get in the U.S.: new anti-terrorism measures in the U.K. require that extremists be treated like pedophiles and banned from working with youngsters and vulnerable people.)
The government’s war on extremists, of which the Strong Cities program is a part, is being sold to Americans in much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was sold to Americans: as a means of combatting terrorists who seek to destroy America.
For instance, making the case for the government’s war on domestic extremism, the Obama administration has suggested that it may require greater legal powers to combat violent attacks by lone wolves (such as “people motivated by racial and religious hatred and anti-government views” who “communicate their hatred over the Internet and through social media”).
Enter the government’s newest employee: a domestic terrorism czar.
However, as we now know, the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that has turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect.
Similarly, the concern with the government’s anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.
Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.
For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.
Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably.
That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.
Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home, lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.
Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the UN’s Strong Cities Network with its globalized police forces, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.
Hopefully you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label and target individuals as “extremist.”
We’re living in a scary world.
Unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion and globalization of the government’s powers, we’re not going to recognize this country 20 years from now.
Frankly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the landscape has already shifted dramatically from what it was like 10 or 20 years ago. It’s taken less than a generation for our freedoms to be eroded and the police state structure to be erected, expanded and entrenched.
Rest assured that the government will not save us from the chains of the police state. The UN’s Strong Cities Network program will not save us. The next occupant of the White House will not save us. For that matter, anarchy and violent revolution will not save us.
If there is to be any hope of freeing ourselves, it rests—as it always has—at the local level, with you and your fellow citizens taking part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level.
Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.
And then, while you’re at it, urge your local governments to nullify everything the federal government does that is illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.
If this sounds anti-government or extremist, perhaps it is, in much the same way that King himself was considered anti-government and extremist. Recognizing that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” King’s tactics—while nonviolent—were extreme by the standards of his day.
As King noted in his 1963 “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”:
[A]s I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love—“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist—“This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?
So how do you not only push back against the police state’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?
Take a cue from King.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM