The Age of Authoritarianism: Government of the Politicians, by the Military, or the Corporations

02/29/2016

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_age_of_authoritarianism_government_of_the_politicians_by_the_milit2

By John W. Whitehead

“I was astonished, bewildered. This was America, a country where, whatever its faults, people could speak, write, assemble, demonstrate without fear. It was in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. We were a democracy… But I knew it wasn’t a dream; there was a painful lump on the side of my head… The state and its police were not neutral referees in a society of contending interests.

They were on the side of the rich and powerful. Free speech? Try it and the police will be there with their horses, their clubs, their guns, to stop you. From that moment on, I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy. I was a radical, believing that something fundamental was wrong in this country—not just the existence of poverty amidst great wealth, not just the horrible treatment of black people, but something rotten at the root. The situation required not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society—cooperative, peaceful, egalitarian.” ― Historian Howard Zinn

America is at a crossroads.

History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a militaristic state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom.

Certainly, this is a time when government officials operate off their own inscrutable, self-serving playbook with little in the way of checks and balances, while American citizens are subjected to all manner of indignities and violations with little hope of defending themselves.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have moved beyond the era of representative government and entered a new age—the age of authoritarianism. Even with its constantly shifting terrain, this topsy-turvy travesty of law and government has become America’s new normal.

Don’t believe me?

Let me take you on a brief guided tour, but prepare yourself. The landscape is particularly disheartening to anyone who remembers what America used to be.

The Executive Branch: Whether it’s the Obama administration’s war on whistleblowers, the systematic surveillance of journalists and regular citizens, the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay, or the occupation of Afghanistan, Barack Obama has surpassed his predecessors in terms of his abuse of the Constitution and the rule of law. President Obama, like many of his predecessors, has routinely disregarded the Constitution when it has suited his purposes, operating largely above the law and behind a veil of secrecy, executive orders and specious legal justifications. Rest assured that no matter who wins this next presidential election, very little will change. The policies of the American police state will continue.

The Legislative Branch: It is not overstating matters to say that Congress may well be the most self-serving, semi-corrupt institution in America. Abuses of office run the gamut from elected representatives neglecting their constituencies to engaging in self-serving practices, including the misuse of eminent domain, earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracting in return for personal gain and campaign contributions, having inappropriate ties to lobbyist groups and incorrectly or incompletely disclosing financial information. Pork barrel spending, hastily passed legislation, partisan bickering, a skewed work ethic, graft and moral turpitude have all contributed to the public’s increasing dissatisfaction with congressional leadership. No wonder 86 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

The Judicial Branch: The Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the justices of the United States Supreme Court have become the guardians of the American police state in which we now live. As a result, sound judgment and justice have largely taken a back seat to legalism, statism and elitism, while preserving the rights of the people has been deprioritized and made to play second fiddle to both governmental and corporate interests.

Shadow Government: America’s next president will inherit more than a bitterly divided nation teetering on the brink of financial catastrophe when he or she assumes office. He or she will also inherit a shadow government, one that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country. Referred to as the Deep State, this shadow government is comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes right now.

Law Enforcement: By and large the term “law enforcement” encompasses all agents within a militarized police state, including the military, local police, and the various agencies such as the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace but now extensions of the military, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens. In the latest move to insulate police from charges of misconduct, Virginia lawmakers are considering legislation to keep police officers’ names secret, ostensibly creating secret police forces.

A Suspect Surveillance Society: Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful. By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, the government knows what you say. By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts and text messages, the government knows what you write. By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, the government knows where you go. By churning through all of the detritus of your life—what you read, where you go, what you say—the government can predict what you will do.

By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientists—and in turn, the government—will soon know what you remember. And by accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. Consequently, in the face of DNA evidence that places us at the scene of a crime, behavior sensing technology that interprets our body temperature and facial tics as suspicious, and government surveillance devices that cross-check our biometrics, license plates and DNA against a growing database of unsolved crimes and potential criminals, we are no longer “innocent until proven guilty.”
Military Empire: America’s endless global wars and burgeoning military empire—funded by taxpayer dollars—have depleted our resources, over-extended our military and increased our similarities to the Roman Empire and its eventual demise.

The U.S. now operates approximately 800 military bases in foreign countries around the globe at an annual cost of at least $156 billion. The consequences of financing a global military presence are dire. In fact, David Walker, former comptroller general of the U.S., believes there are “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that contributed to the fall of Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.”

I haven’t even touched on the corporate state, the military industrial complex, SWAT team raids, invasive surveillance technology, zero tolerance policies in the schools, overcriminalization, or privatized prisons, to name just a few, but what I have touched on should be enough to show that the landscape of our freedoms has already changed dramatically from what it once was and will no doubt continue to deteriorate unless Americans can find a way to wrest back control of their government and reclaim their freedoms.

That brings me to the final and most important factor in bringing about America’s shift into authoritarianism: “we the people.” We are the government. Thus, if the government has become a tyrannical agency, it is because we have allowed it to happen, either through our inaction or our blind trust.

Essentially, there are four camps of thought among the citizenry when it comes to holding the government accountable. Which camp you fall into says a lot about your view of government—or, at least, your view of whichever administration happens to be in power at the time.

In the first camp are those who trust the government to do the right thing, despite the government’s repeated failures in this department. In the second camp are those who not only don’t trust the government but think the government is out to get them. In the third camp are those who see government neither as an angel nor a devil, but merely as an entity that needs to be controlled, or as Thomas Jefferson phrased it, bound “down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”

Then there’s the fourth camp, comprised of individuals who pay little to no attention to the workings of government, so much so that they barely vote, let alone know who’s in office. Easily entertained, easily distracted, easily led, these are the ones who make the government’s job far easier than it should be.

It is easy to be diverted, distracted and amused by the antics of the presidential candidates, the pomp and circumstance of awards shows, athletic events, and entertainment news, and the feel-good evangelism that passes for religion today. What is far more difficult to face up to is the reality of life in America, where unemployment, poverty, inequality, injustice and violence by government agents are increasingly norms.

The powers-that-be want us to remain divided, alienated from each other based on our politics, our bank accounts, our religion, our race and our value systems. Yet as George Orwell observed, “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

The only distinction that matters anymore is where you stand in the American police state. In other words, you’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.

10 13 11 flagbar


New Obamacare Mental Health Policies Can Take Your Gun and Put You In a FEMA Camp

02/27/2016

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/02/26/new-obamacare-mental-health-policies-can-take-your-gun-and-put-you-in-a-fema-camp/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-obamacare-mental-health-policies-can-take-your-gun-and-put-you-in-a-fema-camp

2-27-2016 9-31-14 AM

by Dave Hodges

There is an ongoing battle for the psychological health and welfare of America’s children and eventually all Americans. Since 2002, the government has been intent on testing millions for mental illness. This obsession even extends to our veterans as they return from combat and leave the service. The veterans are increasingly being diagnosed as having PTSD and they are subsequently being adjudicated to not being eligible to own a firearm.

Marti Oakley has been at the forefront on covering elderly abuse in which the courts are stealing the property and incarcerating the elderly into mandatory detention in a care facility because they are mentally infirm. And why is this happening? If an elderly person fails to balance their checkbook, for example, they are robbed and confined by the courts.
These practices are reminiscent of how the Soviets used to imprison political enemies. The Soviets simply said if anyone disagree with the government, they must have “political schizophrenia” and required to have treatment in a mental healthcare facility.

All “Conspiracy Theorists” Are Mentally Ill According to DSM V

When I went through my clinical training, the Bible of mental illness, The Statistical and Diagnostic Manual (DSM-4r) defined Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) as a highly controversial mental illness used to describe children and teens as mentally ill if they exhibited disobedience and defiance. When I was first nationally credentialed, most practitioners did not take this diagnosis seriously and we mistakenly believed that it would fade away. We uniformly believed this to be true because defiance and oppositional behaviors are hallmark traits of healthy rebellion exhibited by children and teens as they seek independence. Rather than ODD fading away, the diagnosis has become the tool of the ruling elite.

The new DSM (5) has expanded the definition of ODD to include adults who exemplify “paranoid ideation” about the government and frequently express these delusional ideations on the Internet.
In most states, the government could arrest a member of the Independent Media based upon a charge of “threat to self and others due to paranoid ideation under the new ODD. The hold of the media types would be f0r 72 hours. The “patient” would not be able to speak with family and more importantly, with an attorney. The result could be a sentence which remands one to a mental health facility where they are forcibly drugged since they are now a ward of the state. Personal assets can be seized in order to pay for “treatment”.

President Bush and the New Freedoms Commission

In April of 2002, by Executive Order, President George W. Bush convened a 22 member panel which sought to identify policies that could be implemented by all levels of government which would promote successful mental health treatment for all children and adults. Essentially this was payback to the Bush campaign contributors, such as Eli Lilly, to create more psychiatric patients which would have to medicated.

Bush’s new organization, The New Freedoms Commission (NFC) was the enforcemnt arm for mental health care treatment. All 50 states were mandated to implement compulsory mental health screening. The screening exams were to be administered in kindergarten, fourth and ninth grade. The screening program required no parental notification and carries the force of law and this program continues unabated to 2012, when public outcry and law suits effectively shut the program down.

In July of 2003, the NFC formally recommended that schools were in the best position to commence the screening of all Americans beginning with America’s students and school employees. The NFC implemented their recommendations, in November of 2004, with a $20 million dollar appropriation.

I Scream, You Scream, We All Should Have Sreamed at Teen Screen

TeenScreen, created by Laurie Flynn, arose out of the expressed desire of the NFC to test all American school children. Teen Screen lauded itself as the first line of defense to screen for suicidal behavior in teens. Under this program, teens were pulled out of class and offered movie tickets and pizza coupons if they took a computer generated, forced-response Teen Screen screening device, and they were not just looking for suicidal behavior.

The screening device had a high rate of false positives (84%). The rigor (e.g., measure of reliability and validity, utilization of genuinely representative population samples used in the norming process) of the screening mechanics have also been called into question. Additionally, TeenScreen allowed for the use of unsupervised nonprofessionals to both administer and interpret the screening instrument. Further, school-initiated treatment protocols could and would be be triggered as a result of the findings. This included forced medication without parental approval.

2-27-2016 9-30-47 AM

In 2002, TeenScreen contracted with the public relations firm of Rabin Strategic Partners to provide each teen in the United States with easy access to this free mental health screening program. Rabin’s marketing efforts have proven to be a huge success. Rabin provided TeenScreen with a 10 year marketing strategy. The marketing plan called for an intense public relations plan including lobbying and advertising in order to expand and implement the plan. TeenScreen’s use of Rabin’s marketing strategy was paying great returns. For example, a 2004 progress report stated, mental health screening programs were eventually established in 48 states. Further the report added that a total of 19 national groups approved the screening of our youth’s mental health. Disturbingly, Rabin claims a waiting list of 250 additional Kool-Aid drinking communities which have expressed interest in the screening program.

2-27-2016 9-30-04 AM

The lobbying efforts have also paid tremendous dividends as TeenScreen eventually claims a market penetration in 45 states.

One of the questions which appeared on TeenScreen was:

1) Have you often felt nervous or uncomfortable when you have been with a group of children or young people — say, like in the lunchroom at school or a party?
Who has not felt any of these feelings? As a former nationally certified mental health practitioner and an instructor of research and statistical methods, I am left wondering if I was absent from graduate school the day that these types of feelings were declared to be representative of a mental illness or emotional disturbance? If enough yes answers are given, the child may be referred to an “expert” for treatment (i.e., medication) purposes.

With the high level of reported false positive diagnostic rates and serious questions surrounding the safety of the use of the newer psychotropic medications on developing, young brains, many children’s brains were chemically destroyed before reaching adulthood.
Eventually the outcry again Teen Screen became so intense that they closed their doors almost four years ago. However, and as we know all too well, nothing born from the globalists ever goes away, it just comes back in a different form.

The Affordable Health Care Act Replaces Teen Screen and Expands to the Mental Health Screening of All Adults

Next time you visit your doctor, be aware that your doctor is being required to assess your mental health on an informal basis. Be careful how you respond to your doctor, because you may be branded as mentally ill which could mean mandatory incarceration for “treatment” and forfeiture of assets to pay for said treatment. This is a thinly veiled version of the old Soviet Union’s “political schizophrenia”.

A panel advising the Obama administration, in partnership with Big Pharma, is in the process of requiring all doctors to screen American adults and children over age 12 to screening for alleged “mental health” disorders, especially for depression. Ultimately, anyone found to possess any type of mental disorder will undergo state mandated “therapy” Part and parcel to this therapy comes some very well-documented and highly dangerous side effects from the required medications which can be administered without the consent of the patient.

As it was with Teen Screen, teachers, social workers, and more are already being required to search for supposed “mental and behavioral health” issues

Therapists are drawing upon a very new frontier in order to force people into treatment as psychiatrists invent new “illnesses such as ODD.” The ultimate goal is the mass medicating of the American people. And with a judgment of mental illness, this is Obama’s latest strategy of gun confiscation.

The controversial “recommendations” include screening all Americans between the ages of 12 and 18 for depression. A separate but related recommendation seeks to have all U.S. adults checked for “mental illness,” too. And consider that the list of “illnesses” is subjective (homosexuality was a mental disorder a few decades ago) and is constantly expanding as psychiatrists vote to create new ones, literally, as part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — the “Bible” of psychiatry that has been widely criticized, even by leading psychiatrists.

This new application of mental health treatment is being done under the auspices of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, or USPSTF. Make no mistake about it, this organization, appointed by the Obama administration’s increasingly radical and United Nations controlled Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recommends various unconstitutional federal health policies which will result in the evisceration of civil liberties for millions of unsuspecting Americans.

The new guidelines published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years,” the HHS task force said in the summary of its position. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.” The testing is be mandated and will required with no exceptions. You don’t have to be on

Obamacare. All doctors will be required to participate.

Further, the Obama HHS panel wrote. The recommendations also call for using previously proven dangerous medications such as Prozac to be administered to children between 12 and 17, while advocating powerful psychotropic substances such as Lexapro for children as young as the third grade.

“The USPSTF said it also recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”

Dr. Ron Paul has weighed in on this insanity and called the proposed mandatory screenings a “depressing thought” in his column stated. Paul stated “Basic economics, as well as the Obamacare disaster, should have shown this task force that government health insurance mandates harm Americans”. He warned that this plot would raise insurance costs, will likely result in new federal databases containing the results of the screenings,and will be used to deny even more Americans their right to keep and bear arms.

Mental Institutions Are the New FEMA Camps

2-27-2016 9-29-19 AM

If this were the end of the story, we would still be left with a scandal of epic proportions. However, it is far worse than you can imagine. I recently interviewed Joshua Coy, the popular talk show host of WYDE-FM, the largest radio station in Alabama. Coy has learned that the government is creating mental health facilities out of existing structures and building new facilities in remote areas such as in Northern Alabama.

Here is the interview in which Coy offers these stunning revelations.

Conclusion

After seven years of dealing with the abomination in the White House, there is nothing that surprises me anymore. the plot to seize guns and incarcerate those people with political schizophrenia, is at least 14 years old. Despite overwhelming documentation, the nation is not paying attention. in the meantime, be very careful what you tell your doctor.

10 13 11 flagbar


Hold your real assets outside of the banking system in a private international facility

02/26/2016

https://www.sprottmoney.com/blog/a-tale-of-two-crashes-part-1-jeff-nielson.html

2-26-2016 10-11-07 AM

Part 1 -By Jeff Nielson

By now, regular readers are familiar with the eight-year, bubble-and-crash cycles in our markets and economies which are manufactured by the crime syndicate known as “the One Bank.” The reason the cycles are roughly eight years long has also been explained: to coincide with the U.S. political cycle, and the rotation of its two puppet parties.

With the last crash being the almost-terminal Crash of ’08, readers have been warned on many occasions that the Next Crash is scheduled for this year. With that manufactured collapse now being only a few months (weeks? days?) away, it is instructive to compare these two cycles of financial crime.

The analysis of patterns can yield insights in two opposing manners. Value can be gleaned in looking at how these repeating cycles are the same, but perhaps more revealing is how and why they differ. In this particular piece, the focus will be on (hard) commodity prices in each of these cycles, and how and why the bubble-and-crash pattern have been significantly different in this respect.

2-26-2016 10-10-44 AM

Most readers will recall the spiral in prices which occurred in nearly all commodity markets – hard and soft – right up to the eve of the Crash of ’08, as seen in the table above. This analysis will examine strictly hard commodity prices, since soft commodity markets (and their prices) are affected by several other variables totally outside the economic cycle.

There were two reasons for the spiral in commodity prices which occurred leading into the Crash of ’08, but only one of those reasons is ever discussed by corporate media. The known reason is a massive spike in global demand, the catalyst for which being the rapid industrialization of “BRICS” nations, as well as a number of other, so-called “Emerging Market” economies.

The rapid dilution/debasement of the world’s paper currencies, especially in the West, has been hidden from us. These corrupt regimes have had the audacity to refer to this destruction of our currencies as“competitive devaluation” – a race to see which central bank can destroy its own currency first.

The concept of “dilution” is well understood in the corporate world, when it comes to the paper instrument known as “stock.” When a corporation prints more stock, (all other things being equal) it thus dilutes its share structure, and all shares lose value.

Incredibly, the concept of dilution is virtually entirely unknown with respect to the paper instrument known as “currency,” despite the fact that the principal of dilution applies in an identical manner. When a government (via its central bank) creates more currency, all existing currency loses value. This is the true meaning, and correct definition of the term “inflation.”

2-26-2016 10-10-20 AM

2-26-2016 10-15-50 AM

Western governments, in particular, were already accelerating the pace of their currency-creation (andcurrency dilution ) in the years immediately prior to the Crash of ’08. Therefore, the great spike in commodity markets which occurred immediately prior to the crash was not a simple function of demand. Rather it was the more complex product of demand and (central bank) inflation.

It is important that readers are fully clear on the fact that these commodity prices are supposed to be strongly influenced by the extremely excessive money-printing of our central banks. This explains how and why it was necessary (for the One Bank) to modify the 2009–2016 bubble-and-crash cycle.

The importance of this point becomes even more apparent when we view a chart of the hyperinflationary explosion of U.S. money-printing. This is the infamous “helicopter drop” which B.S. Bernanke warned and promised the world, back when he was first appointed as a Federal Reserve Governor. Below is the last, legitimate representation of the U.S. monetary base, before the chart and data were falsified beyond recognition, in order to hide the unequivocal picture below.

2-26-2016 10-09-25 AM

As has already been explained on numerous occasions, this is a chart of a currency which has already been hyper-inflated ( past tense ). In any legitimate monetary system, the supply of money is a virtually flat, horizontal line – as we saw with the U.S. money supply, until approximately 20 years ago. The extreme, parabolic curve leading into a near-vertical line is the mathematical and economic representation of hyperinflation. The U.S. dollar is already fundamentally worthless, beyond any possible argument .

Federal Reserve-generated inflation was already a serious factor for the U.S. (and global economy) in the years leading up to ’08. Yet, as the chart above indicates, U.S. dollar-based inflation should have been a much more significant factor in the current 2009—2016 cycle. Why has this not been the case?

Once again, there are two answers to this question. Once again, we never see the second answer from the mainstream media propaganda machine.

Part of the answer is, again, demand. Prior to the Crash of ’08, demand for most commodities was near or at record levels. Conversely, in the current eight-year cycle we have seen what could be described (at best) as anemic demand. In the fantasy-world of the mainstream media, demand has “fallen.” In the real world, it has been deliberately destroyed.

Many readers will be skeptical of such an assertion. How can a crime syndicate, even one as large and malevolent as the One Bank, destroy global demand for commodities? In conceptual terms, the answer is actually quite simple. If one sabotages many of the world’s economies (especially larger economies), then obviously those nations will consume far less commodities, and aggregate demand will fall.

In fact, readers have already seen it explained and documented how the One Bank has engaged in extreme acts of economic terrorism against first India, then Russia, and now even China. In each of these three campaigns of economic terrorism, sabotaging the exchange rate of that nation’s currency has been a large or central part of the overall terrorism.

Again, this will come as no surprise to regular readers. The Big Banks of the West—the principal tentacles of crime of the One Bank—were recently convicted of serially manipulating all of the world’s currencies, going back to at least 2008.

Showing the endemic corruption of our entire system, these financial terrorists were destroying the Russian ruble at precisely the same time they were receiving their slap-on-the-wrist fines from our “regulators.” The One Bank would never allow a little thing like a sham-prosecution to interfere with “business.”

What hasn’t been reported in previous commentaries is that this rampant economic terrorism (primarilyU.S.-based) isn’t restricted to just these three, major nations, but rather it is global in scope. Look around the world, and see how many nations outside of the corrupt West are currently in the midst of a “currency crisis,” or at the least, dealing with what is called (by the media) a “weak currency.”

One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes in order to connect the world’s most notorious currency-manipulators to each and every one of these “currency crises.” Does no one think it strange that thebankrupt Western nations, with their hopelessly crippled economies, and near-zero interest rates have (supposedly) the world’s “strongest currencies,” while the healthy and productive nations of Asia, South America, and elsewhere all have “weak currencies,” despite much higher interest rates? Not in the feeble world of the mainstream media.

Not once will you see it suggested that any of these “currency crises” could be even slightly connected to the serial manipulation of all of the world’s currencies, by the convicted currency-manipulators of Western Big Banks. Why is such serial currency manipulation completely censored by the corporate media propaganda machine?

The answer to the previous question is, in fact, also the answer to the following question. Why is currency manipulation such an important element in “the tale of two crashes?” It is because if you manipulate the exchange rate of a currency higher, the price of everything else dominated in that currency automatically goes lower.

Each time the One Bank pushes the exchange rate of the worthless U.S. dollar up to an even more absurd level, the price of every other asset on the planet valued in dollars (including all commodities) goes lower. Via the one tool of currency manipulation, these economic terrorists can literally destroy economies, and simultaneously move any and all prices.

Manipulate the value of currencies higher, and “prices” fall. Manipulate the value of currencies lower, and “prices” rise. Now take a look at an updated table of commodity prices:

2-26-2016 10-09-01 AM

Based upon the market principle and the economics principle and the mathematics principle and the common sense principal of “dilution,” commodity prices (in U.S. dollars) should have been exploding higher at a much more rapid rate during the current bubble-and-crash cycle than during the previous one. The exponential explosion in Federal Reserve money-printing drowns out any and all changes in demand, by literally orders of magnitude.

What we see, however, is nothing more than an anemic rise in prices, which abruptly halted in 2011, at which point all of these commodity markets began descending lower in price. How? Why?
Part II of this series will explain the extreme manipulation of commodity markets/prices which has taken place since 2009, and then complete the explanation of how and why this bubble-and-crash cycle has been significantly different from the last.

10 13 11 flagbar


The Frightening Truth About What Is Really Happening In The United States

02/25/2016

http://kingworldnews.com/paul-craig-roberts-the-frightening-truth-about-what-is-really-happening-in-the-united-states/

2-25-2016 12-44-57 PM

By Paul Craig Roberts at KWNs

Jobs offshoring benefitted corporate executives and shareholders, because lower labor and compliance costs resulted in higher profits. These profits flowed through to shareholders in the form of capital gains and to executives in the form of “performance bonuses.” Wall Street benefitted from the bull market generated by higher profits.

However, jobs offshoring also offshored US GDP and consumer purchasing power. Despite promises of a “New Economy” and better jobs, the replacement jobs have been increasingly part-time, lowly-paid jobs in domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses and bartenders.
The offshoring of US manufacturing and professional service jobs to Asia stopped the growth of consumer demand in the US, decimated the middle class, and left insufficient employment for college graduates to be able to service their student loans. The ladders of upward mobility that had made the United States an “opportunity society” were taken down in the interest of higher short-term profits.

Without growth in consumer incomes to drive the economy, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted the growth in consumer debt to take the place of the missing growth in consumer income. Under the Greenspan regime, Americans’ stagnant and declining incomes were augmented with the ability to spend on credit. One source of this credit was the rise in housing prices that the Federal Reserves low interest rate policy made possible. Consumers could refinance their now higher-valued home at lower interest rates and take out the “equity” and spend it.

The debt expansion, tied heavily to housing mortgages, came to a halt when the fraud perpetrated by a deregulated financial system crashed the real estate and stock markets. The bailout of the guilty imposed further costs on the very people that the guilty had victimized.

2-25-2016 12-44-40 PM

Under Fed chairman Bernanke the economy was kept going with Quantitative Easing, a massive increase in the money supply in order to bail out the “banks too big to fail.” Liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve found its way into stock and bond prices and made those invested in these financial instruments richer. Corporate executives helped to boost the stock market by using the companies’ profits and by taking out loans in order to buy back the companies’ stocks, thus further expanding debt.

Those few benefitting from inflated financial asset prices produced by Quantitative Easing and buy-backs are a much smaller percentage of the population than was affected by the Greenspan consumer credit expansion. A relatively few rich people are an insufficient number to drive the economy.

The Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy was designed to support the balance sheets of the mega-banks and denied Americans interest income on their savings. This policy decreased the incomes of retirees and forced the elderly to reduce their consumption and/or draw down their savings more rapidly, leaving no safety net for heirs.

2-25-2016 12-44-02 PM

Using the smoke and mirrors of under-reported inflation and unemployment, the US government kept alive the appearance of economic recovery. Foreigners fooled by the deception continue to support the US dollar by holding US financial instruments.

The official inflation measures were “reformed” during the Clinton era in order to dramatically understate inflation. The measures do this in two ways. One way is to discard from the weighted basket of goods that comprises the inflation index those goods whose price rises. In their place, inferior lower-priced goods are substituted.

For example, if the price of New York strip steak rises, round steak is substituted in its place. The former official inflation index measured the cost of a constant standard of living. The “reformed” index measures the cost of a falling standard of living.

The other way the “reformed” measure of inflation understates the cost of living is to discard price rises as “quality improvements.” It is true that quality improvements can result in higher prices. However, it is still a price rise for the consumer as the former product is no longer available. Moreover, not all price rises are quality improvements; yet many prices rises that are not can be misinterpreted as “quality improvements.”

These two “reforms” resulted in no reported inflation and a halt to cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients. The fall in Social Security real incomes also negatively impacted aggregate consumer demand.

The rigged understatement of inflation deceived people into believing that the US economy was in recovery. The lower the measure of inflation, the higher is real GDP when nominal GDP is deflated by the inflation measure. By understating inflation, the US government has overstated GDP growth.

2-25-2016 12-43-42 PM

What I have written is easily ascertained and proven; yet the financial press does not question the propaganda that sustains the psychology that the US economy is sound. This carefully cultivated psychology keeps the rest of the world invested in dollars, thus sustaining the House of Cards.
John Maynard Keynes understood that the Great Depression was the product of an insufficiency of consumer demand to take off the shelves the goods produced by industry. The post-WW II macroeconomic policy focused on maintaining the adequacy of aggregate demand in order to avoid high unemployment. The supply-side policy of President Reagan successfully corrected a defect in Keynesian macroeconomic policy and kept the US economy functioning without the “stagflation” from worsening “Philips Curve” trade-offs between inflation and employment. In the 21st century, jobs offshoring has depleted consumer demand’s ability to maintain US full employment.

The unemployment measure that the presstitute press reports is meaningless as it counts no discouraged workers, and discouraged workers are a huge part of American unemployment. The reported unemployment rate is about 5%, which is the U-3 measure that does not count as unemployed workers too discouraged to continue searching for jobs.

The US government has a second official unemployment measure, U-6, that counts workers discouraged for less than one-year. This official rate of unemployment is 10%.

2-25-2016 12-43-21 PM

When long term (more than one year) discouraged workers are included in the measure of unemployment, as once was done, the US unemployment rate is 23%. (See John Williams, shadowstats.com)

Fiscal and monetary stimulus can pull the unemployed back to work if jobs for them still exist domestically. But if the jobs have been sent offshore, monetary and fiscal policy cannot work.
What jobs offshoring does is to give away US GDP to the countries to which US corporations move the jobs. In other words, with the jobs go American careers, consumer purchasing power and the tax base of state, local, and federal governments. There are only a few American winners, and they are the shareholders of the companies that offshored the jobs and the executives of the companies who receive multi-million dollar “performance bonuses” for raising profits by lowering labor costs. And, of course, the economists, who get grants, speaking engagements, and corporate board memberships for shilling for the offshoring policy that worsens the distribution of income and wealth. An economy run for a few only benefits the few, and the few, no matter how large their incomes, cannot consume enough to keep the economy growing.

In the 21st century US economic policy has destroyed the ability of real aggregate demand in the US to increase. Economists will deny this, because they are shills for globalism and jobs offshoring. They misrepresent jobs offshoring as free trade and, as in their ideology free trade benefits everyone, claim that America is benefitting from jobs offshoring. Yet, they cannot show any evidence whatsoever of these alleged benefits. (See my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West.

As an economist, it is a mystery to me how any economist can think that a population that does not produce the larger part of the goods that it consumes can afford to purchase the goods that it consumes. Where does the income come from to pay for imports when imports are swollen by the products of offshored production?

We were told that the income would come from better-paid replacement jobs provided by the “New Economy,” but neither the payroll jobs reports or the US Labor Departments’s projections of future jobs show any sign of this mythical “New Economy.”

There is no “New Economy.” The “New Economy” is like the neoconservatives’ promise that the Iraq war would be a six-week “cake walk” paid for by Iraqi oil revenues, not a $3 trillion dollar expense to American taxpayers (according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes) and a war that has lasted the entirely of the 21st century to date and is getting more dangerous.
The American “New Economy” is the American Third World economy in which the only jobs created are low productivity, low paid nontradable domestic service jobs incapable of producing export earnings with which to pay for the goods and services produced offshore for US consumption.

The massive debt arising from Washington’s endless wars for neoconservative hegemony now threaten Social Security and the entirety of the social safety net. The presstitute media are blaming not the policy that has devastated Americans, but, instead, the Americans who have been devastated by the policy.

Earlier this month I posted readers’ reports on the job situation in Ohio, Southern Illinois, and Texas. In the March issue of Chronicles, Wayne Allensworth describes America’s declining rural towns and once great industrial cities as consequences of “globalizing capitalism.” A thin layer of very rich people rule over those “who have been left behind”—a shrinking middle class and a growing underclass. According to a poll last autumn, 53 percent of Americans say that they feel like a stranger in their own country.

Most certainly these Americans have no political representation. As Republicans and Democrats work to raise the retirement age in order to reduce Social Security outlays, Princeton University experts report that the mortality rates for the white working class are rising.

The United States government has abandoned everyone except the rich. IMPORTANT: There was a technical problem wth the Andrew Maguire audio interview that delayed its release. KWN was able to fix this issue and the entire audio will be released later today, including a new update from Maguire on the gold and silver markets.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Do Americans Live In A False Reality Created By Orchestrated Events?

02/24/2016

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/02/24/do-americans-live-in-a-false-reality-created-by-orchestrated-events-paul-craig-roberts/

By Paul Craig Roberts

Most people who are aware and capable of thought have given up on what is called the “mainstream media.” The presstitutes have destroyed their credibility by helping Washington to lie—“Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” “Iranian nukes,” “Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” “Russian invasion of Ukraine,” and so forth. The “mainstream media” has also destroyed its credibility by its complete acceptance of whatever government authorities say about alleged “terrorist events,” such as 9/11 and Boston Marathon Bombing, or alleged mass shootings such as Sandy Hook and San Bernardino. Despite glaring inconsistencies, contradictions, and security failures that seem too unlikely to be believable, the “mainstream media” never asks questions or investigates. It merely reports as fact whatever authorities say.

The sign of a totalitarian or authoritarian state is a media that feels no responsibility to investigate and to find the truth, accepting the role of propagandist instead. The entire Western media has been in the propaganda mode for a long time. In the US the transformation of journalists into propagandists was completed with the concentration of a diverse and independent media in six mega-corporations that are no longer run by journalists.

As a consequence, thoughtful and aware people increasingly rely on alternative media that does question, marshall facts, and offers analysis in place of an unbelievable official story line.
The prime example is 9/11. Large numbers of experts have destroyed the official story that has no factual evidence in its behalf. However, even without the hard evidence that 9/11 truthers have provided, the official story gives itself away. We are supposed to believe that a few Saudi Arabians with no technology beyond box cutters and no support from any government’s intelligence service were able to outwit the massive surveillance technology created by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and NSA (National Security Agency) and deal the most humiliating blow to a superpower ever delivered in human history. Moreover, they were able to do this without the President of the United States, the US Congress, and the “mainstream media” demanding accountability for such a total failure of the high-tech national security state.

Instead of a White House led investigation of such a massive security failure, the White House resisted for more than one year any investigation whatsoever until finally giving in to demands from 9/11 families that could not be bought off and agreeing to a 9/11 Commission.

The Commission did not investigate but merely sat and wrote down the story told to it by the government. Afterwards, the Commission’s chairman, co-chairman, and legal counsel wrote books in which they said that information was withheld from the Commission, that the Commission was lied to by officials of the government, and that the Commission “was set up to fail.” Despite all of this, the presstitutes still repeat the official propaganda, and there remain enough gullible Americans to prevent accountability.

Competent historians know that false flag events are used to bring to fruition agendas that cannot otherwise be achieved. 9/11 gave the neoconservatives, who controlled the George W. Bush administration, the New Pearl Harbor that they said was necessary in order to launch their hegemonic military invasions of Muslim countries. The Boston Marathon Bombing permitted a trial run of the American Police State, complete with shutting down a large American city, putting 10,000 armed troops and SWAT teams on the streets where the troops conducted house to house searches forcing the residents out of their homes at gunpoint. This unprecedented operation was justified as necessary in order to locate one wounded 19 year old man, who clearly was a patsy.

There are so many anomalies in the Sandy Hook story that it has generated a cottage industry of skeptics. I agree that there are anomalies, but I don’t have the time to study the issue and come to my own conclusion. What I have noticed is that we are not given many good explanations of the anomalies. For example, in this video made from the TV news coverage, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaHtxlSDgbk the video’s creator makes a case that the person who is the grieving father who lost his son is the same person outfitted in SWAT clothes at Sandy Hook following the shooting. The person is identified as a known actor. Now, it seems to me that this is easy to test.

The grieving father is known, the actor is known, and the authorities have to know who the SWAT team member is. If these three people, who can pass for one another, can be assembled in one room at the same time, we can dismiss the expose claimed in this one video. However, if three separate people cannot be produced together, then we must ask why this deception, which raises questions about the entire story. You can watch the entire video or just skip to the 9:30 mark and observe what appears to be the same person in two different roles.

The “mainstream media” has the ability to make these simple investigations, but does not. Instead, the “mainstream media” calls skeptics “conspiracy theorists.”

There is a book by Professor Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek that says Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill to promote gun control and that no one died at Sandy Hook. The book was available on amazon.com but was suddenly banned. Why ban a book?

Here is a free download of the book: http://rense.com/general96/nobodydied.html I have not read the book and have no opinion. I do know, however, that the police state that America is becoming certainly has a powerful interest in disarming the public. I also heard today a news report that people said to be parents of the dead children are bringing a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer, which is consistent with Fetzer’s claim.

Here is a Buzzsaw interview with Jim Fetzer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-W3rIEe-ag If the information Fetzer provides is correct, clearly the US government has an authoritarian agenda and is using orchestrated events to create a false reality for Americans in order to achieve the agenda.

It seems to me that Fetzer’s facts can be easily checked. If his facts check out, then a real investigation is required. If his facts do not check out, the official story gains credibility as Fetzer is one of the most energetic skeptics.

Fetzer cannot be dismissed as a kook. He graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University, has a Ph.D. from Indiana University and was Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University of Minnesota until his retirement in 2006. He has had a National Science Foundation fellowship, and he has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on philosophy of science and philosophy of cognitive science. He is an expert in artificial intelligence and computer science and founded the international journal Minds and Machines. In the late 1990s, Fetzer was asked to organize a symposium on philosophy of mind.

For an intelligent person, the official stories of President Kennedy’s assassination and 9/11 are simply not believable, because the official stories are not consistent with the evidence and what we know. Fetzer’s frustration with less capable and less observant people increasingly shows, and this works to his disadvantage.

It seems to me that if the authorities behind the official Sandy Hook story are secure with the official story, they would jump on the opportunity to confront and disprove Fetzer’s facts. Moreover, somewhere there must be photographs of the dead children, but, like the alleged large number of recordings by security cameras of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, no one has ever seen them. At least not that I know of.

What disturbs me is that no one in authority or in the mainstream media has any interest in checking the facts. Instead, those who raise awkward matters are dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
Why this is damning is puzzling. The government’s story of 9/11 is a story of a conspiracy as is the government’s story of the Boston Marathon Bombing. These things happen because of conspiracies.

What is at issue is: whose conspiracy? We know from Operation Gladio and Operation Northwoods that governments do engage in murderous conspiracies against their own citizens. Therefore, it is a mistake to conclude that governments do not engage in conspiracies.
One often hears the objection that if 9/11 was a false flag attack, someone would have talked.
Why would they have talked? Only those who organized the conspiracy would know. Why would they undermine their own conspiracy?

Recall William Binney. He developed the surveillance system used by NSA. When he saw that it was being used against the American people, he talked. But he had taken no documents with which to prove his claims, which saved him from successful prosecution but gave him no evidence for his claims. This is why Edward Snowden took the documents and released them. Nevertheless, many see Snowden as a spy who stole national security secrets, not as a whistleblower warning us that the Constitution that protects us is being overthrown.

High level government officials have contradicted parts of the 9/11 official story and the official story that links the invasion of Iraq to 9/11 and to weapons of mass destruction. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta contradicted Vice President Cheney and the official 9/11 story timeline. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill has said that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the subject of the first cabinet meeting in the George W. Bush administration long before 9/11. He wrote it in a book and told it on CBS News’ 60 Minutes. CNN and other news stations reported it. But it had no effect.
Whistleblowers pay a high price. Many of them are in prison. Obama has prosecuted and imprisoned a record number. Once they are thrown in prison, the question becomes: “Who would believe a criminal?”

As for 9/11 all sorts of people have talked. Over 100 police, firemen and first responders have
reported hearing and experiencing a large number of explosions in the Twin Towers. Maintanence personnel report experiencing massive explosions in the sub-basements prior to the building being hit by an airplane. None of this testimony has had any effect on the authorities behind the official story or on the presstitutes.

There are 2,300 architects and engineers who have written to Congress requesting a real investigation. Instead of the request being treated with the respect that 2,300 professionals deserve, the professionals are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.”

An international panel of scientists have reported the presence of reacted and unreacted nanothermite in the dust of the World Trade Centers. They have offered their samples to government agencies and to scientists for confirmation. No one will touch it. The reason is clear. Today science funding is heavily dependent on the federal government and on private companies that have federal contracts. Scientists understand that speaking out about 9/11 means the termination of their career.

The government has us where it wants us—powerless and disinformed. Most Americans are too uneducated to be able to tell the difference between a building falling down from asymetrical damage and one blowing up. Mainstream journalists cannot question and investigate and keep their jobs. Scientists cannot speak out and continue to be funded.

Truth telling has been shoved off into the alternative Internet media where I would wager the government runs sites that proclaim wild conspiracies, the purpose of which is to discredit all skeptics.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

For quite some time I have re-posted Mr. Roberts articles because he is very experienced with our rogue government, and it is my objective to expose to my readers just how many illegal actions it is involved in,but I am becoming more and more concerned because he continues to ignore the simple fact that this government is not our legitimate Constitutional Government. In Fact it is a Government Services Corporation and dictates to the States instead of being their subordinate. All of this information is readily available on the net and especially at http://www.annavonreitz.com/ Mr. Roberts you must read this site if you want to remain relevant in the fight to expose them and educate your readers.

10 13 11 flagbar


The Public Is Being Looted By Privatization And Deregulation

02/23/2016

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/02/23/the-public-is-being-looted-by-privatization-and-deregulation-paul-craig-roberts/

The Public Is Being Looted By Privatization And Deregulation

Paul Craig Roberts

The privatization movement and the deregulation movement have turned out to be failures.
Privatization in Britain under the Thatcher government had its origin in the belief that the absence of incentivized managers and shareholders with a stake in the bottom line resulted in nationalized companies operating inefficiently, with their losses covered by government like the big private banks’ losses today. Thatcher’s government believed that privatizing socialized firms would reduce the UK budget deficit and take pressure off the British pound.

Today privatization is a way that governments can reward cronies by giving them valuable public resources for a low price. When the UK government privatized the postal system, there were news reports that one postal property in London alone was worth the purchase price of the entire postal service.

Privatization is also a way that conservatives, who object to social pensions and national health, can stop “taxpayer support of welfare.” In the US conservatives want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. In the UK conservatives want to privatize the National Health System.
It looks like the UK Conservative government is taking a step in the direction of privatizing the national health system, one of the great social reforms in British history. https://www.rt.com/uk/333270-nhs-professionals-privatized-deloitte/

In the US there are advocates of privatizing the national forests. In some ways the forests are already privatized as private timber companies are allowed to “harvest” the trees at favorable prices, and often the government even builds the roads for them.

In the US deregulation has resulted in high prices and poor service. When airlines were regulated, they competed on service. They had spare equipment so that mechanical problems did not mean cancelled flights. Stopovers did not involve additional costs.

When AT&T had a regulated communication monopoly, the service was excellent and the price was low. Today we have a large number of unregulated local monopolies, and the prices are high. The bottom line and managerial bonuses are more important than service. Customers experience constant service interruptions. Maintenance and broadband improvements are sacrificed to executive salaries.

In the US and UK public university tuition has risen so high that the universities have in effect been privatized. When I went to college there was no such thing as student loans. In-state tuition was nominal, and colleges provided inexpensive housing and meals. Most students in state universities were residents of the state.

Many aspects of the US military have been privatized. Services that the military formerly provided in-house are now contracted out to private companies at high costs.
The case for privatization and deregulation needs to be reexamined in light of the evidence and the real reasons they are being pursued.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

This is the two hundred year old plan to acquire enough wealth to implement a one world currency and Government, with total control over every remaining human being. The cost of controlling all governments was high, and we are paying for it. Their most successful program was seizing control of all education, which produced dumbed down citizens too self centered and lazy to have the instinct to know something was wrong and learn on their own. Those few who know what and how this happened and how to correct it will be culled like sick cattle. My greatest thrill in this life is going to come when they try to force their way into my home and fall like cord wood.

WAKE UP FOLKS!

10 13 11 flagbar


Free speech is dying under the Obama administration

02/22/2016

http://freedom.news/2016-02-19-free-speech-is-dying-under-the-obama-administration.html

2-22-2016 11-11-57 AM

By Jon E. Dougherty

(Freedom.news) One of Americans’ most sacred constitutional protections – the right to say virtually anything we want – is withering away during the reign of Barack Obama, aided by a number of factors that have largely been manufactured out of whole cloth by the politically correct movement and via federal statutes.

That’s the conclusion of one of the Federal Communications Commission members, Ajit Pai, who told the Washington Examiner this week that the American traditions of free speech, expression and respectful discourse are slipping away, as evidenced by the environment on many college campuses and the actions of Twitter.

“I think that poses a special danger to a country that cherishes First Amendment speech, freedom of expression, even freedom of association,” he said. “I think it’s dangerous, frankly, that we don’t see more often people espousing the First Amendment view that we should have a robust marketplace of ideas where everybody should be willing and able to participate.”

“Largely what we’re seeing, especially on college campuses, is that if my view is in the majority and I don’t agree with your view, then I have the right to shout you down, disrupt your events, or otherwise suppress your ability to get your voice heard,” Pai continued.

“Private actors like Twitter have the freedom to operate their platform as they see fit,” he said, “[but] I would hope that everybody embraces the idea of the marketplace of ideas. The proverbial street corner of the 21st century, where people can gather to debate issues is increasingly social media, which serves as a platform for public discourse.”

Just last week Twitter announced last week it was setting up a “Trust and Safety” panel specifically to police speech, which is sure to make it a non-platform for a number of users who refuse to have their speech censored by the PC police.

More: Report: Nearly half of all U.S. colleges and universities restrict speech
As for Pai, he said that if voters and American institutions refuse to defend speech within their own zones of influence then it will eventually to more government regulations curtailing such freedoms.

“The text of the First Amendment is enshrined in our Constitution, but there are certain cultural values that undergird the amendment that are critical for its protections to have actual meaning,” Pai told the Washington Examiner. “If that culture starts to wither away, then so too will the freedom that it supports.”

Appointed to the FCC in 2012, Pai has been a stalwart advocate for less regulation of speech, despite the panel’s efforts to impose more. Last year the commission ruled that the First Amendment did not apply to Internet service providers, leaving open the possibility that political speech could be regulated in the future on Web sites like The Drudge Report and, of course, this one as well.

“It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse,” Pai said shortly after the ruling. “The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.”

“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News … is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” he added.

Speech is being severely limited on American college campuses, once bastions of dissent and free speech. We noted in October that “in 2015, college campuses have largely been transformed into zones of intolerance, where speech and expression is tightly regulated by

Left-wing academics who push propaganda and progressive indoctrination upon impressionable young minds.”

Worse a recent survey demonstrated how successful they have been. As noted in the November issue of New Criterion and featured in The Wall Street Journal, more than half of students – 51 percent – favor some kind of speech code on campus, compared to just 36 percent who said there should be no limits on speech.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I suppose it will shortly be a crime to openly call OBUMA a Scumbag Liar, and when that happens, this Olddog is out-ta here. I am sick and tired of how my fellow American’s are bending over and allowing the powers that be to have their pleasure. I guarantee the reader that I will never submit to any restrictions on my freedom to say what I think, and anyone who tries to stop me will have their ears burned off by the most vindictive expletives imaginable. This travesty of our freedom of speech is only one of several freedoms we have lost in America, and by God it is time for us to stand up like a man and refuse to comply.

10 13 11 flagbar


This Is The Real Reason For The War On Cash

02/20/2016

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/end-economic-liberty-war-cash-wont-end-well

Submitted by Tyler Durden
Originally posted Op-Ed via The Wall Street Journal,

These are strange monetary times, with negative interest rates and central bankers deemed to be masters of the universe. So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that politicians and central bankers are now waging a war on cash. That’s right, policy makers in Europe and the U.S. want to make it harder for the hoi polloi to hold actual currency.

Mario Draghi fired the latest salvo on Monday when he said the European Central Bank would like to ban €500 notes. A day later Harvard economist and Democratic Party favorite Larry Summers declared that it’s time to kill the $100 bill, which would mean goodbye to Ben Franklin. Alexander Hamilton may soon—and shamefully—be replaced on the $10 bill, but at least the 10-spots would exist for a while longer. Ol’ Ben would be banished from the currency the way dead white males like him are banned from the history books.

Limits on cash transactions have been spreading in Europe since the 2008 financial panic, ostensibly to crack down on crime and tax avoidance. Italy has made it illegal to pay cash for anything worth more than €1,000 ($1,116), while France cut its limit to €1,000 from €3,000 last year. British merchants accepting more than €15,000 in cash per transaction must first register with the tax authorities. Fines for violators can run into the thousands of euros.

Germany’s Deputy Finance Minister Michael Meister recently proposed a €5,000 cap on cash transactions. Deutsche Bank CEO John Cryan predicted last month that cash won’t survive another decade.

The enemies of cash claim that only crooks and cranks need large-denomination bills. They want large transactions to be made electronically so government can follow them. Yet these are some of the same European politicians who blew a gasket when they learned that U.S. counter-terrorist officials were monitoring money through the Swift global system. Criminals will find a way, large bills or not.

The real reason the war on cash is gearing up now is political: Politicians and central bankers fear that holders of currency could undermine their brave new monetary world of negative interest rates. Japan and Europe are already deep into negative territory, and U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said last week the U.S. should be prepared for the possibility.

Translation: That’s where the Fed is going in the next recession.

Negative rates are a tax on deposits with banks, with the goal of prodding depositors to remove their cash and spend it to increase economic demand. But that goal will be undermined if citizens hoard cash. And hoarding cash is easier if you can take your deposits out in large-denomination bills you can stick in a safe. It’s harder to keep cash if you can only hold small bills.

So, presto, ban cash. This theme has been pushed by the likes of Bank of England chief economist Andrew Haldane and Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff, who wrote in the Financial Times that eliminating paper currency would be “by far the simplest” way to “get around” the zero interest-rate bound “that has handcuffed central banks since the financial crisis.” If the benighted peasants won’t spend on their own, well, make it that much harder for them to save money even in their own mattresses.

All of which ignores the virtues of cash for law-abiding citizens. Cash allows legitimate transactions to be executed quickly, without either party paying fees to a bank or credit-card processor. Cash also lets millions of low-income people participate in the economy without maintaining a bank account, the costs of which are mounting as post-2008 regulations drop the ax on fee-free retail banking. While there’s always a risk of being mugged on the way to the store, digital transactions are subject to hacking and computer theft.

Cash is also the currency of gray markets—amounting to 20% or more of gross domestic product in some European countries—that governments would love to tax. But the reason gray markets exist is because high taxes and regulatory costs drive otherwise honest businesses off the books. Politicians may want to think twice about cracking down on the cash economy in a way that might destroy businesses and add millions to the jobless rolls. The Italian economy might shut down without cash.

By all means people should be able to go cashless if they like. But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the politicians want to bar cash as one more infringement on economic liberty. They may go after the big bills now, but does anyone think they’d stop there? Why wouldn’t they eventually ban all cash transactions much as they banned gold and silver as mediums of exchange?

Beware politicians trying to limit the ways you can conduct private economic business. It never turns out well.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

It has always been the Bankers aim to hold all people by the short hairs, and they will not stop until they CONTROL EVERYTHING. May our military grow some balls and send them to hell!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Investigation Finds Obama Financing Mosques Worldwide With US Taxpayer Dollars

02/19/2016

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.212/investigation-finds-obama-financing-mosques-worldwide-with-u-s-taxpayer-dollars.html

2-19-2016 10-51-10 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that the State Department is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas. This investment has received criticism as the United States makes an effort to slash nearly $4 trillion in government spending.Plenty of outrage following the announcement made Thursday afternoon by a government commission that suggested huge cuts to the budget, including eliminating the interest education for home mortgage. This juxtaposed with the United States investing millions to refurbish mosques as a good-will effort in Muslim countries has upset many taxpayer groups.

“We are spending money we don’t have. This is all on a gigantic credit card right now,” said Jared Thomas, a taxpayer advocate.

Millions more dollars have been sent to places like Cyprus. The State Department displays before and after pictures of mosques refurbished with U.S. tax dollars.
“I think it is very hard to explain to the American taxpayer right now whose having an extraordinary time paying bills and making ends meet that this is why we took this out of your paycheck, so we can fund this,” said Thomas.

The State Department declined a Channel 2 Action News request for an interview. We wanted to ask why are we using tax dollars to refurbish religious buildings overseas. The State Department did send Channel Two Action News an e-mail saying that they are fighting Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders.
Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish told Channel 2 Action News anchor Justin Farmer that trying to buy respect in the Middle East only shows our weakness.

“This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is not showing its power, it’s showing its appeasement. They are laughing all the way to the bank,” said Darwish.

Darwish was born in Egypt and is now a former Muslim. Darwish told Farmer that she moved to America and has written several books critical of radical Islam. Darwish said that most of the mosques in Egypt are run by extremists who have ordered former Muslims like herself to be killed.

“We are rebuilding mosques to support the radicals, not to support the moderates. We are building mosques to issue fatwas of death against people like me,” said Darwish.

Your tax dollars also fund computers and mosques in places like Tajikistan and Mali. At an ancient mud brick mosque in Mali, the State Department has provided Internet service and computer equipment to local imams.

Taxpayer watchdogs wonder how the State Department can explain paying for Internet service while Americans struggle through the worst recession in decades.
“To the average person who has probably seen their paycheck shrink and not grow, this could be an insult to them,” said Pete Sepp, President of the National Taxpayers Association.

With radical websites inciting violence and extremism worldwide, there are concerns that the taxpayer-funded Internet service could be misused.

“That is not the job of the U.S. because giving them Internet access to imams and Muslim preachers who hate America,” said Darwish.

Critics say that it is time to review funding for all federal programs that do not directly benefit taxpayers.

“We are spending money we don’t have and certainly we can cut items like this,” said Thomas.

The Deficit Commission announced it would look at slowing the growth of foreign aid. Channel 2 Action News is not aware if there will be cuts in this particular U.S Aid program.

OBUMA!

Heads Up.doc

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


The People vs. the Police State: The Struggle for Justice in the Supreme Court

02/18/2016

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_people_vs._the_police_state_the_struggle_for_justice_in_the_suprem

By John Whitehead
“We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
The untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has predictably created a political firestorm.

Republicans and Democrats, eager to take advantage of an opening on the Supreme Court, have been quick to advance their ideas about Scalia’s replacement. This is just the beginning of the furor over who gets to appoint the next U.S. Supreme Court justice (President Obama or his successor), when (as soon as Obama chooses or as long as Congress can delay), how (whether by way of a recess appointment or while Congress is in session), and where any judicial nominee will stand on the hot-button political issues of our day (same-sex marriage, Obamacare, immigration, the environment, and abortion).

This is yet another spectacle, not unlike the carnival-like antics of the presidential candidates, to create division, dissension and discord and distract the populace from the nation’s steady march towards totalitarianism.

Not to worry. This is a done deal. There are no surprises awaiting us.
We may not know the gender, the orientation, the politics, or the ethnicity of Justice Scalia’s replacement, but those things are relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

The powers-that-be have already rigged the system. They—the corporations, the military industrial complex, the surveillance state, the monied elite, etc.—will not allow anyone to be appointed to the Supreme Court who will dial back the police state. They will not tolerate anyone who will undermine their policies, threaten their profit margins, or overturn their apple cart.

Scalia’s replacement will be safe (i.e., palatable enough to withstand Congress’ partisan wrangling), reliable and most important of all, an extension of the American police state.

With the old order dying off or advancing into old age rapidly, we’ve arrived at a pivotal point in the makeup of the Supreme Court. With every vacant seat on the Court and in key judgeships around the country, we are witnessing a transformation of the courts into pallid, legalistic bureaucracies governed by a new breed of judges who have been careful to refrain from saying, doing or writing anything that might compromise their future ambitions.

Today, the judges most likely to get appointed today are well-heeled, well-educated (all of them attended either Yale or Harvard law schools) blank slates who have traveled a well-worn path from an elite law school to a prestigious judicial clerkship and then a pivotal federal judgeship. Long gone are the days when lawyers without judicial experience such as Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis could be appointed to the Supreme Court.

As Supreme Court correspondent Dahlia Lithwick points out, “a selection process that discourages political or advocacy experience and reduces the path to the Supreme Court to a funnel” results in “perfect judicial thoroughbreds who have spent their entire adulthoods on the same lofty, narrow trajectory.”

In other words, it really doesn’t matter whether a Republican or Democratic president appoints the next Supreme Court justice, because they will all look alike (in terms of their educational and professional background) and sound alike (they are primarily advocates for the government).

Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.
Unfortunately, as I document in Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we have been saddled with instead are government courts dominated by technicians and statists who march in lockstep with the American police state.
This is true at all levels of the judiciary.

Thus, while what the nation needs is a constitutionalist, what we will get is a technician.
It’s an important distinction.

A legal constitutionalist believes that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law (the Constitution) and strives to hold the government accountable to abiding by the Constitution. A judge of this order will uphold the rights of the citizenry in the face of government abuses.

Justice William O. Douglas, who served on the Supreme Court for 36 years, was such a constitutionalist. He believed that the “Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.” Considered the most “committed civil libertarian ever to sit on the court,” Douglas was frequently controversial and far from perfect (he was part of a 6-3 majority in Korematsu vs. United States that supported the government’s internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II). Even so, his warnings against a domineering, suspicious, totalitarian, police-driven surveillance state resonate still today.

A legal technician, on the other hand, is an arbitrator of the government’s plethora of laws whose priority is maintaining order and preserving government power. As such, these judicial technicians are deferential to authority, whether government or business, and focused on reconciling the massive number of laws handed down by the government.

John Roberts who joined the Supreme Court in 2005 as Chief Justice is a prime example of a legal technician. His view that the “role of the judge is limited…to decide the cases before them” speaks to a mindset that places the judge in the position of a referee. As USA Today observes, “Roberts’ tenure has been marked by an incremental approach to decision-making — issuing narrow rather than bold rulings that have the inevitable effect of bringing the same issues back to the high court again and again.”

Roberts’ approach to matters of law and justice can best be understood by a case dating back to his years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case involved a 12-year-old black girl who was handcuffed, searched and arrested by police—all for eating a single French fry in violation of a ban on food in the D.C. metro station. Despite Roberts’ ability to recognize the harshness of the treatment meted out to Ansche Hedgepeth for such a minor violation—the little girl was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained for three hours, and was “frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal”—Roberts ruled that the girl’s constitutional rights had not been violated in any way.

This is not justice meted out by a constitutionalist.

This is how a technician rules, according to the inflexible letter of the law.
Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan of the DC Court of Appeals, who is rumored to be a favorite pick for Scalia’s spot on the court, is another such technician. When asked to strike down a 60-year-old ban on expressive activities in front of the Supreme Court Plaza, Srinivasan turned a blind eye to the First Amendment. (Ironically, the Supreme Court must now decide whether to declare its own free speech ban unconstitutional.)

By ruling in favor of the ban, Srinivasan also affirmed that police were correct to arrest an African-American protester who was standing silently in front of the Supreme Court wearing a sign protesting the police state on a snowy day when no one was on the plaza except him.
Srinivasan’s rationale? “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the opposite impression: that of a Court engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public.”

This view of the Supreme Court as an entity that must be sheltered from select outside influences—for example, the views of the citizenry—is shared by the members of the Court itself to a certain extent. As Lithwick points out:
“The Court has become worryingly cloistered, even for a famously cloistered institution… today’s justices filter out anything that might challenge their perspectives. Antonin Scalia won’t read newspapers that conflict with his views and claims to often get very little from amicus briefs. John Roberts has said that he doesn’t believe that most law-review articles—where legal scholars advance new thinking on contemporary problems—are relevant to the justices’ work.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia’s opera-going buddy, increasingly seems to revel in, rather than downplay, her status as a liberal icon. Kennedy spends recesses guest-teaching law school courses in Salzburg.”

Are you getting the picture yet?

The members of the Supreme Court are part of a ruling aristocracy composed of men and women who primarily come from privileged backgrounds and who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

These justices, all of whom are millionaires in their own rights, circulate among an elite, privileged class of individuals, attending exclusive events at private resorts orchestrated by billionaire oil barons, traveling on the private jets of billionaires, and delivering paid speeches in far-flung locales such as Berlin, London and Zurich.

When you’re cocooned within the rarefied, elitist circles in which most of the judiciary operate, it can be difficult to see the humanity behind the facts of a case, let alone identify with the terror and uncertainty that most people feel when heavily armed government agents invade their homes, or subject them to a virtual strip search, or taser them into submission.

If you’ve never had to worry about police erroneously crashing through your door in the dead of night, then it might not be a hardship to rule as the Court did in Kentucky v. King that police should have greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant.

If you have no fear of ever being strip searched yourself, it would be easy to suggest as the Court did in Florence v. Burlington that it’s more important to make life easier for overworked jail officials than protect Americans from debasing strip searches.

And if you have never had to submit to anyone else’s authority—especially a militarized police officer with no knowledge of the Constitution’s prohibitions against excessive force, warrantless searches and illegal seizures, then you would understandably give police the benefit of the doubt as the Court did in Brooks v. City of Seattle, when they let stand a ruling that police officers who had clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution.

Likewise, if you’re not able to understand what it’s like to be one of the “little guys,” afraid to lose your home because some local government wants to commandeer it and sell it to a larger developer for profit, it would be relatively easy to rule, as the Supreme Court did in Kelo v. New London, that the government is within its right to do so.

Now do you understand why the Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years, which have run the gamut from suppressing free speech activities and justifying suspicion-less strip searches to warrantless home invasions and conferring constitutional rights on corporations, while denying them to citizens, have been characterized most often by an abject deference to government authority, military and corporate interests?

They no longer work for us. They no longer represent us. They can no longer relate to our suffering.

In the same way that the Legislative Branch, having been co-opted by lobbyists, special interests, and the corporate elite, has ceased to function as a vital check on abuses by the other two branches of government, the Judicial Branch has also become part of the same self-serving bureaucracy.

Sound judgment, compassion and justice have taken a back seat to Legalism, Statism and Elitism.

Preserving the rights of the people has been de-prioritized and made to play second fiddle to both governmental and corporate interests.

In the case of the People vs. the Police State, the ruling is 9-0 against us.
So where does that leave us?

The Supreme Court of old is gone, if not for good then at least for now.
It will be a long time before we have another court such as the Warren Court (1953-1969), when Earl Warren served alongside such luminaries as William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter and Thurgood Marshall.

The Warren Court handed down rulings that were instrumental in shoring up critical legal safeguards against government abuse and discrimination. Without the Warren Court, there would be no Miranda warnings, no desegregation of the schools and no civil rights protections for indigents.

Yet more than any single ruling, what Warren and his colleagues did best was embody what the Supreme Court should always be—an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. That is no longer the case.

We can no longer depend on the federal courts to protect us against the government. They are the government.

Yet as is the case with most things, the solution is far simpler and at the same time more complicated than space allows, but it starts with local action—local change—and local justice. If you want a revolution, start small, in your own backyard, and the impact will trickle up.

If you don’t like the way justice is being meted out in America, then start demanding justice in your own hometown, before your local judges. Serve on juries, nullify laws that are egregious, picket in front of the courthouse, vote out judges (and prosecutors) who aren’t practicing what the Constitution preaches, encourage your local newspapers to report on cases happening in your town, educate yourself about your rights, and make sure your local judges understand that they work for you and are not to be extensions of the police, prosecutors and politicians.
This is the only way we will ever have any hope of pushing back against the police state.

10 13 11 flagbar


The Mystery of the One Bank: its Owners?

02/17/2016

https://www.sprottmoney.com/blog/the-mystery-of-the-one-bank-its-owners-jeff-nielson.html

2-16-2016 3-14-54 PM

By Jeff Nielson

Jeff Nielson is co-founder and managing partner of Bullion Bulls Canada; a website which provides precious metals commentary, economic analysis, and mining information to readers/investors. Jeff originally came to the precious metals sector as an investor around the middle of last decade, but soon decided this was where he wanted to make the focus of his career. His website is http://www.bullionbullscanada.com.

Roughly 2 ½ years ago ; readers were introduced to a paradigm of crime, corruption, and control which they now know as “the One Bank”. First they were presented with a definition and description of this crime syndicate.

That definition came via a massive computer model constructed by a trio of Swiss academics, and cited with favor by Forbes magazine . The computer model was based upon data involving more than 10 million “economic actors”, both individuals and corporations, and the conclusions which that model produced were nothing less than shocking.

The One Bank is “a super-entity” comprised of 144 corporate fronts, with approximately ¾ of these corporate fronts being financial intermediaries (i.e. “banks”). According to the Swiss computer model; via these 144 corporate tentacles, the One Bank controls approximately 40% of the global economy . The only thing more appalling than the massive size of this crime syndicate is its massive illegality.

Some of the strongest laws in the Western world were created precisely to prevent such corporate concentration from ever coming into existence, and thus the crime, corruption, and conspiracy which automatically accompanies it. These are our “anti-trust laws”, laws which our puppet governments have long since ceased to enforce. The evidence of this crime/corruption/conspiracy is all around us.

On a near weekly basis; the Big Banks of the West are caught-and-convicted (but never punished ), perpetrating criminal conspiracies literally thousands of times larger than any other financial crimes in human history. The U.S. government has now publicly proclaimed that its Big Banks have a license to steal .

All of these Big Banks are tentacles of the One Bank, and the list of names here (as identified by the Swiss researchers) is almost as infamous as the mega-crimes which they commit: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Credit Suisse, and UBS – for starters. But for many readers, this is now old news.

We observe the crimes of these corporate fronts, every day of our lives. We feel the impact of their crimes (on our standard of living) every day of our lives. However, these “banks” are ultimately merely the inanimate tools of crime. What many readers are now intent upon knowing goes beyond these tools, or even the mega-crimes which they are used to commit.

What people want to know is more basic. Who are the Criminals – the real Criminals? In this respect; we are not talking about the mere bankers, themselves. From the lowliest market-manipulating thugs to the upper stratosphere of CEO’s and central bankers, these are all merely foot soldiers, the psychopathic employees of the real Criminals.

The information wanted by readers is not the names of these employees. They are all nothing more than easily replaceable parts. The information of real value can be encapsulated in one, simple question: who owns the One Bank?

At first glance; the question appears elementary. The One Bank is a financial crime syndicate which controls 40% of the global economy – a global economy with annual GDP of roughly $70 trillion. Clearly the owners of the One Bank would have to be “the world’s richest people” (richest men?).

Here the Corporate media is only too happy to be of service to us. Once a year; we are presented with a “world’s richest list”, which is then parroted by all of the other outlets of the Big Media oligopoly, ad nauseum. Thus, we simply peruse this list for the names at the top, and we have our “owners” of the One Bank. Et voila!

Not so fast. As most regular readers are already well aware; the mainstream media oligopoly is nothing but more of the One Bank’s tentacles. Perhaps we should look a little more closely, before we simply pluck the names from the top of the list, and hail them as the One Bank’s owner-criminals?

In fact, such skepticism is well-justified. These supposed “world’s richest” lists, produced by the propaganda arm of the One Bank, are not worth the virtual paper on which they are written. Exposing the absurdity of such lists requires nothing more than accumulating some aggregate financial data, and then pulling out a calculator.

Fortunately, all of that work has already been done in a previous piece . Skipping to the bottom line; if we take the “world’s richest list” data, along with aggregate data on global wealth (all supplied by the Corporate media), we are presented with a world where total global wealth is supposedly a number in the low $10’s of trillions.

Meanwhile, if we look no further than the oceans of paper “wealth” fabricated by the financial sector (and the One Bank crime syndicate), already we approach a quantum somewhere around ½ quadrillion dollars, i.e. $500 trillion, and this completely excludes all real wealth in the world, in the form of hard assets.

The conclusion is obvious: more than 90% of the actual wealth in the world today (real and paper) is hidden from us , in terms of any data made readily available to the general public. This unimaginable hoard of wealth is certainly not being hidden by the vast majority of people at the bottom of the wealth totem-pole, therefore it can only be hidden at the top.

Equally clear; 90+% of all humanity’s wealth won’t be found by simply closer scrutiny of the supposed “world’s richest” people. If all of their fortunes were more than ten times larger than what is currently being reported, even the mathematically-challenged dolts of the mainstream media would quickly figure out that there was something amiss.

Instead, the only rational answer is that there is another, entire tier of the “world’s richest”, an echelon above all the B-List Billionaires on the official lists. The real “world’s richest” are, in fact, not billionaires at all, but rather trillionaires: the Oligarch Trillionaires who own (among other things) the One Bank.

How wealthy are these Oligarchs? Not only are these Oligarchs wealthy enough to be able to hide their names (and fortunes) from all public scrutiny, these trillionaires wield enough power to even prevent the word “trillionaire” from being recognized as an official word in our dictionaries. This absurdity was also noted in that prior commentary.

Consider this. We live in a world of banker-created, fraudulent, paper currencies, where the amount of paper instruments merely sloshing around in the world’s markets is in the thousands of trillions, yet, officially we have no word for “trillionaire”. This is like imagining a world where large numbers of (fat) sheep, cows, and pigs roamed the plains, but there was no word for “carnivore”. If you have one, you must have the other.

The Oligarch Trillionaires may be able to hide in the shadows, even in a world where every inch of the planet is regularly scanned by spy satellites, because they control (most of) the governments who own/operate these satellites. They may be able to cover up most traces of their obscene hoards of wealth, and even prevent us from learning the precise quantum of those hoards.

However, this doesn’t mean that the Oligarch Trillionaires have managed to erase all knowledge of their existence. For those looking for names which are at least probable candidates for the (real) “world’s richest” list, there is no better place to start than Charles Savoie’s historical chronology, The Silver Stealers.

In that compendium; Savoie has traced the deeds of many of these Oligarch families over the past 100+ years. He also identifies many of the (heavily overlapping) “organizations” which they have created, as vehicles for the administration/control of their Empire. For those who are skeptical that such a conspiracy-of-the-wealthy could trace back so far, we also have historical references.

In 1907, U.S. Congressman (and career prosecutor) Charles Lindbergh Sr. presented “The Bankers Manifesto of 1892” to the U.S. Congress. This grandiose declaration of the oligarchs of the 19 th century, antecedents of the Oligarch Trillionaires of today, is as prophetic as it is despicable.

In part, it reads:

When through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

Look around us. The numbers of Homeless people in North America today already total in the millions, ignored by puppet governments which serve the Trillionaires, ignored by a mainstream media controlled by the Trillionaires.

Meanwhile, a “central power of imperial wealth” rampages across the globe: the United States. Equally, there can be absolutely no doubt that it is “under the control of the leading financiers”, the Trillionaires.

Beyond the cast of suspects presented by Charles Savoie as the owning families behind the One Bank, one name (and clan) stands out above all others: the Rothschilds. We reach this conclusion via two, entirely separate lines of reasoning.

The One Bank is a crime syndicate which ultimately derives virtually all of its wealth/control via the power of the printing press, in the form of all of the West’s (and the world’s) private central banks, and primarily the Federal Reserve. When we search for some criminal clan most likely to base its empire of crime on the money-printing might (and corruption) of a central bank, we don’t have to look very far.

Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes its laws.

– Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812)

Alternately, we reach this same conclusion via simple logic. We live in a world being (deliberately) drowned in debt . This is a process which, again, traces back roughly a century and more. In a world of debt, whoever starts with the largest fortune collects the most interest. In a world with total GDP of $70 trillion but total, outstanding debt in excess of $200 trillion, whoever collects the most interest will be the richest person on the planet.
Therefore, whoever was the richest person yesterday will be the richest person today. Whoever was the richest person a hundred years ago would almost certainly be the richest person today. In the 19 th century; the Rothschild clan was universally regarded as the wealthiest “house” on the planet. Then any/all precise records of their wealth simply disappeared – not the wealth itself.

The One Bank is a crime syndicate which is literally a blight against all humanity. Its owners are guilty of the worst crimes-against-humanity. And, ultimately, as the One Bank strips humanity bare of all its wealth, these Owners make it harder and harder for themselves to continue to hide.


 

The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author as of the publication date, are subject to change and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sprott Money Ltd. Sprott Money does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness and reliability of the information or any results from its use.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Day Of Reckoning: The Collapse Of The Too Big To Fail Banks In Europe Is Here

02/15/2016

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/day-of-reckoning-the-collapse-of-the-too-big-to-fail-banks-in-europe-is-here

2-15-2016 10-16-10 AM

By Michael Snyder

There is so much chaos going on that I don’t even know where to start. For a very long time I have been warning my readers that a major banking collapse was coming to Europe, and now it is finally unfolding. Let’s start with Deutsche Bank. The stock of the most important bank in the “strongest economy in Europe” plunged another 8 percent on Monday, and it is now hovering just above the all-time record low that was set during the last financial crisis. Overall, the stock price is now down a staggering 36 percent since 2016 began, and Deutsche Bank credit default swaps are going parabolic. Of course my readers were alerted to major problems at Deutsche Bank all the way back in September, and now the endgame is playing out.

In addition to Deutsche Bank, the list of other “too big to fail” banks in Europe that appear to be in very serious trouble includes Commerzbank, Credit Suisse, HSBC and BNP Paribas. Just about every major bank in Italy could fall on that list as well, and Greek bank stocks lost close to a quarter of their value on Monday alone. Financial Armageddon has come to Europe, and the entire planet is going to feel the pain.

The collapse of the banks in Europe is dragging down stock prices all over the continent. At this point, more than one-fifth of all stock market wealth in Europe has already been wiped out since the middle of last year. That means that we only have four-fifths left. The following comes from USA Today…

The MSCI Europe index is now down 20.5% from its highest point over the past 12 months, says S&P Global Market Intelligence, placing it in the 20% decline that unofficially defines a bear market.

Europe’s stock implosion makes the U.S.’ sell-off look like child’s play. The U.S.-centric Standard & Poor’s 500 Monday fell another 1.4% – but it’s only down 13% from its high. Some individual European markets are getting hit even harder. The Milan MIB 30, Madrid Ibex 35 and MSCI United Kingdom indexes are off 29%, 23% and 20% from their 52-week highs, respectively as investors fear the worse could be headed for the Old World.

These declines are being primarily driven by the banks. According to MarketWatch, European banking stocks have fallen for six weeks in a row, and this is the longest streak that we have seen since the heart of the last financial crisis…

The region’s banking gauge, the Stoxx Europe 600 Banks Index FX7, -5.59% has logged six straight weeks of declines, its longest weekly losing stretch since 2008, when banks booked 10 weeks of losses, beginning in May, according to FactSet data.

“The current environment for European banks is very, very bad. Over a full business cycle, I think it’s very questionable whether banks on average are able to cover their cost of equity. And as a result that makes it an unattractive investment for long-term investors,” warned Peter Garnry, head of equity strategy at Saxo Bank.

Overall, Europe’s banking stocks are down 23 percent year to date and 39 percent since the peak of the market in the middle of last year.

The financial crisis that began during the second half of 2015 is picking up speed over in Europe, and it isn’t just Deutsche Bank that could implode at any moment. Credit Suisse is the most important bank in Switzerland, and they announced a fourth quarter loss of 5.8 billion dollars. The stock price has fallen 34 percent year to date, and many are now raising questions about the continued viability of the bank.

Similar scenes are being repeated all over the continent. On Monday we learned that Russia had just shut down two more major banks, and the collapse of Greek banks has pushed Greek stock prices to a 25 year low…

Greek stocks tumbled on Monday to close nearly eight percent lower, with bank shares losing almost a quarter of their market value amid concerns over the future of government reforms.

The general index on the Athens stock exchange closed down 7.9 percent at 464.23 points — a 25-year-low — while banks suffered a 24.3-percent average drop.
This is what a financial crisis looks like.

Fortunately things are not this bad here in the U.S. quite yet, but we are on the exact same path that they are.

One of the big things that is fueling the banking crisis in Europe is the fact that the too big to fail banks over there have more than 100 billion dollars of exposure to energy sector loans. This makes European banks even more sensitive to the price of oil than U.S. banks. The following comes from CNBC…

The four U.S. banks with the highest dollar amount of exposure to energy loans have a capital position 60 percent greater than European banks Deutsche Bank, UBS, Credit Suisse and HSBC, according to CLSA research using a measure called tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio. Or, as Mayo put it, “U.S. banks have more quality capital.”
Analysts at JPMorgan saw the energy loan crisis coming for Europe, and highlighted in early January where investors might get hit.

“[Standard Chartered] and [Deutsche Bank] would be the most sensitive banks to higher default rates in oil and gas,” the analysts wrote in their January report.
There is Deutsche Bank again.

It is funny how they keep coming up.

In the U.S., the collapse of the price of oil is pushing energy company after energy company into bankruptcy. This has happened 42 times in North America since the beginning of last year so far, and rumors that Chesapeake Energy is heading that direction caused their stock price to plummet a staggering 33 percent on Monday…

Energy stocks continue to tank, with Transocean (RIG) dropping 7% and Baker Hughes (BHI) down nearly 5%. But those losses pale in comparison with Chesapeake Energy (CHK), the energy giant that plummeted as much as 51% amid bankruptcy fears. Chesapeake denied it’s currently planning to file for bankruptcy, but its stock still closed down 33% on the day.

And let’s not forget about the ongoing bursting of the tech bubble that I wrote about yesterday.
On Monday the carnage continued, and this pushed the Nasdaq down to its lowest level in almost 18 months…

Technology shares with lofty valuations, including those of midcap data analytics company Tableau Software Inc and Internet giant Facebook Inc, extended their losses on Monday following a gutting selloff in the previous session.

Shares of cloud services companies such as Splunk Inc and Salesforce.com Inc had also declined sharply on Friday. They fell again on Monday, dragging down the Nasdaq Composite index 2.4 percent to its lowest in nearly 1-1/2 years.

Those that read my articles regularly know that I have been warning this would happen.
All over the world we are witnessing a financial implosion. As I write this article, the Japanese market has only been open less than an hour and it is already down 747 points.

The next great financial crisis is already here, and right now we are only in the early chapters.
Ultimately what we are facing is going to be far worse than the financial crisis of 2008/2009, and as a result of this great shaking the entire world is going to fundamentally change.
2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Bring On the Cashless Future

02/13/2016

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-31/bring-on-the-cashless-future

By Editorial Board

Cash had a pretty good run for 4,000 years or so. These days, though, notes and coins increasingly seem declasse: They’re dirty and dangerous, unwieldy and expensive, antiquated and so very analog.

Sensing this dissatisfaction, entrepreneurs have introduced hundreds of digital currencies in the past few years, of which bitcoin is only the most famous. Now governments want in: The People’s Bank of China says it intends to issue a digital currency of its own. Central banks in Ecuador, the Philippines, the U.K. and Canada are mulling similar ideas. At least one company has sprung up to help them along.

Much depends on the details, of course. But this is a welcome trend. In theory, digital legal tender could combine the inventiveness of private virtual currencies with the stability of a government mint.

Most obviously, such a system would make moving money easier. Properly designed, a digital fiat currency could move seamlessly across otherwise incompatible payment networks, making transactions faster and cheaper. It would be of particular use to the poor, who could pay bills or accept payments online without need of a bank account, or make remittances without getting gouged.

For governments and their taxpayers, potential advantages abound. Issuing digital currency would be cheaper than printing bills and minting coins. It could improve statistical indicators, such as inflation and gross domestic product. Traceable transactions could help inhibit terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.

The most far-reaching effect might be on monetary policy. For much of the past decade, central banks in the rich world have been hampered by what economists call the zero lower bound, or the inability to impose significantly negative interest rates. Persistent low demand and high unemployment may sometimes require interest rates to be pushed below zero — but why keep money in a deposit whose value keeps shrinking when you can hold cash instead? With rates near zero, that conundrum has led policy makers to novel and unpredictable methods of stimulating the economy, such as large-scale bond-buying.

A digital legal tender could resolve this problem. Suppose the central bank charged the banks that deal with it a fee for accepting paper currency. In that way, it could set an exchange rate between electronic and paper money — and by raising the fee, it would cause paper money to depreciate against the electronic standard. This would eliminate the incentive to hold cash rather than digital money, allowing the central bank to push the interest rate below zero and thereby boost consumption and investment. It would be a big step toward doing without cash altogether.

Digital legal tender isn’t without risk. A policy that drives down the value of paper money would meet political resistance and — to put it mildly — would require some explaining. It could hold back private innovation in digital currencies. Security will be an abiding concern. Non-cash payments also tend to exacerbate the human propensity to overspend. And you don’t have to be paranoid to worry about Big Brother tracking your financial life.

Governments must be alert to these problems — because the key to getting people to adopt such a system is trust. A rule that a person’s transaction history could be accessed only with a court order, for instance, might alleviate privacy concerns. Harmonizing international regulations could encourage companies to keep experimenting. And an effective campaign to explain the new tender would be indispensable.

If policy makers are wise and attend to all that, they just might convince the public of a surprising truth about cash: They’re better off without it.
To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

David and the Editorial Board are a bunch of pencil dick liars, hell bent on promoting the dumbest damn ideology since democracy. The real goal is to be able at the push of a button; to steel our money. Money is the possession of some tangible object that may be used to trade for other desired objects or services, not some damn digits in a computer. If your intellect has fallen to the level of believing these jerks, God help you!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


The World can not Afford another Financial Crash, it could Destroy Capitalism as we know it And Bring In Technocracy

02/12/2016

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/02/11/another-financial-crash-could-destroy-capitalism-as-we-know-it-and-bring-in-technocracy/

2-12-2016 8-49-40 AM

TN Note: The goal of historic Technocracy of the 1930s was to completely replace Capitalism. The goal is the same today. Technocracy and global elite futurist Jeremy Rifkin wrote about it 2006 in Radical New Economic System Will Emerge From Collapse Of Capitalism. Christiana Figueres, head of Climate Change at the United Nations, spoke about it last year:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” So, what more do we need to know about those who are actually cheering for the demise of Capitalism and the rise of Technocracy? If you don’t immediately get the picture of what is happening here, please buy and read Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.


By Allister Heath
A new economic crisis would trigger a political backlash in Britain, Europe and the United States which could drag us all down into poverty

They bounce back after terrorist attacks, pick themselves up after earthquakes and cope with pandemics such as Zika. They can even handle years of economic uncertainty, stagnant wages and sky-high unemployment. But no developed nation today could possibly tolerate another wholesale banking crisis and proper, blood and guts recession.

We are too fragile, fiscally as well as psychologically. Our economies, cultures and polities are still paying a heavy price for the Great Recession; another collapse, especially were it to be accompanied by a fresh banking bailout by the taxpayer, would trigger a cataclysmic, uncontrollable backlash.

2-12-2016 8-45-09 AM

The public, whose faith in elites and the private sector was rattled after 2007-09, would simply not wear it. Its anger would be so explosive, so-all encompassing that it would threaten the very survival of free trade, of globalisation and of the market-based economy. There would be calls for wage and price controls, punitive, ultra-progressive taxes, a war on the City and arbitrary jail sentences.

2-12-2016 8-44-21 AM

Two men walk along the road to Los Angeles in 1937, during the Great Depression

For fear of allowing extremist or populist parties through the door, mainstream politicians would end up adopting much of this agenda, with devastating implications for our long-term prosperity. Central banks, in desperation, would embrace the purest form of money-printing: they would start giving consumers actual cash to spend, temporarily turbo-charging demand while destroying any remaining respect for the idea that money needs to be earned.
History never repeats itself exactly, but the last time a recession was met by pure, unadulterated populism was in the Thirties, when the Americans turned a stock market crash and a series of monetary policy blunders into a depression. President Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, dreamt up by two economically illiterate Republican senators, slapping massive taxes on the imports of 20,000 goods and triggering a global trade war. It was perhaps the most economically destructive piece of legislation ever devised, and it took until the Nineties before the damage was finally erased.
“Last year was the worst for global growth since the crash and this year opens with a dangerous cocktail of new threats from around the world. For Britain, the only antidote to that is confronting complacency and delivering the plan we’ve set out.”
George Osborne

That is why we must all hope that the turmoil of recent days in the financial markets, and the increasingly worrying economic news, will turn out to be a false alarm. It would certainly be ridiculously premature, at this stage, to call a recession, let alone a financial crisis. But at the very least we are seeing a major dose of the “dangerous cocktail of new threats” rightly identified at the turn of the year by George Osborne, a development which will have political repercussions even if the economy eventually muddles through.
• Four reasons why stock markets have been getting whacked
Investors in equities, including millions of people with private pensions and Isas, have already lost a fortune; they won’t be too happy when they begin to realise the extent of the damage. Growth is slowing everywhere, and the monetary pump-priming of the past few years is looking increasingly ineffective. Traders believe that interest rates won’t go up in Britain until 2019, and there is increasing talk that negative interest rates could become necessary across the developed world, further crippling savers.

2-12-2016 8-43-51 AMNo positive spin can be put on any of the latest developments. Banking shares have taken a beating; China’s slowdown continues; Maersk, the shipping giant, believes that conditions for world trade are worse than in 2008-09; industrial production slumped in December, not just in Britain but more so in France and Germany; energy prices are devastating Middle Eastern and Russian economies; and sterling has tumbled.

It is always a sure sign that panic has broken out when financial markets respond badly to all possible scenarios. The prospect of higher interest rates? Sell, sell, sell. A chance of lower rates? Sell, sell and sell again. A rise in the price of oil is met with as much angst as a decline. The financial markets remain addicted to help from central banks: they are desperate for yet more interventions, regardless of the consequences on the pricing of risk, the allocation of resources or the creation of unsustainable bubbles that only enrich the owners of assets.

This is exactly the tonic that the populists have been waiting for. Despite their dramatic emergence, they have so far failed to make a real breakthrough. The SNP was unable to win the Scottish referendum and the National Front didn’t gain a single region in France. Mariano Rajoy remains Spain’s prime minister, and anti-establishment parties have been thwarted in Germany. Even lighter forms of populism, such as Ed Miliband’s, were rejected. Syriza’s victory in Greece was one of the few genuine populist triumphs; but it was soon crushed by the combined might of Brussels and Frankfurt.

2-12-2016 8-42-54 AM

The Republican presidential nominee often proclaims that his presidency will make America a “great” country again

This could be about to change. The fact that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both won their respective New Hampshire primaries is certainly one remarkable indication of the state of mind of many US political activists. Any economic relapse would help Marine Le Pen’s chances in next year’s French presidential election, and further undermine Angela Merkel’s sinking popularity in Germany.

But it is in Britain that the immediate impact could be the greatest. The Brexit debate is already being overshadowed by the migration crisis, undermining the Government’s attempts at portraying a Remain vote as a safe, low-risk option; a sustained bout of economic volatility would further ruin the pro-EU case, especially given that the eurozone, rather than the City, is likely to emerge as one of the epicentres of any fresh crisis. It would be hard for bosses of large financial giants to credibly tell the electorate to vote Remain when their own businesses are in crisis.

Britain will noticeably outperform the EU this year: our labour market remains strong and our banks far better capitalised than many of their eurozone competitors, too many of which are still sitting on massive amounts of bad debt. The Chinese slowdown is worse for Germany than for us. But while the Eurosceptic cause to which some of us are partial is likely to benefit from the turmoil, it would be madness for anybody who cares about this country’s future to feel anything but dread towards the economic threats facing the world. The sorry truth is that there is very little that governments can do at this stage, apart from battening down the hatches and hoping that central banks succeed in kicking our problems even further down the road.

2-12-2016 8-41-55 AM

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I personally believe that America and most of the other Nations are going to be devastated by the Global Banking Cartel as they use our misery to gain total compliance with a single world government, and implemented by a global police force. Dissidents will be murdered by the millions, and starvation will be a weapon of mass destruction. Therefore I am accumulating, tools, parts, seeds, and ammunition for survival, and personal protection among sundry other useful items like gasoline for a generator and to barter with, as any association with their new currency will automatically put one under their total control. I do not recommend this action to anyone not willing to die for their personal property, and freedom. With any luck a reclusive lifestyle will keep us out of sight and out of mind. All of you wannabee hero’s will be butchered alive if you start fighting a global multinational police force. It’s better to hunker-down and waite it out.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


IT’S NOT THE PEOPLE, IT’S THE MACHINE

02/11/2016

11-5-2015 1-16-42 PM

By Michael Gaddy

(*Author’s note: we have moved into what is often referred to as the election cycle. Billions of dollars will be spent with the majority going into the coffers of the media which works diligently to influence the results of elections. That which they cannot influence is left to the electronic voting machines and crooked caucuses such as the one in Iowa. Regardless of who is elected, just as Professor Carroll Quigley stated in his seminal work Tragedy and Hope, we can throw the rascals out as frequently as we wish, but it will not lead to any “profound or extensive shift in policy.”

Mark Twain said “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it” and H.L. Mencken said “Every election is sort of advance auction on stolen goods.” Both were absolutely correct, but Americans consistently prove Einstein was correct when he defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.”

Bottom line is this: Our country is led and dominated by a criminal cabal which moves everyday to destroy individual freedom and liberty, to which an insane populace elects new members on a regular basis.)

IT’S NOT THE PEOPLE, IT’S THE MACHINE

“Government is an agency of force which can and must be employed against every deviationist. And this is only to say again that the government must oppose the individual. Therefore the “good” man in government is like a priest with a machine gun. The mechanism does the harm. The man who operates it merely pulls the trigger.” ~Robert Lefevre

Every two years in this country there exists a mania we call elections where those involved in the electoral process work endless hours and spends billions of dollars in an effort to put “good” men/women into elected offices. This, each person believes, will improve/change the government apparatus and everyone will be better served. This is analogous to believing that if one could place the right person on my Harley it would perform the tasks of a dump truck. The machine (government) can only accomplish that which it was designed to do: all governments, in their evolutionary process, eventually turn on their progenitors; the machine eventually rules the individual, no matter what “safeguards” have been put in place.

Nowhere is that more evident than where we are today in this country. No matter who is elected to operate the machine, the machine continues in its quest to destroy all it considers adversarial to the goal of total control and domination.

The writings of LeFevre tell us that man has long been fascinated by the phenomenon of the government apparatus and seeks to rationalize the continued corruption with one of two explanations. Either the people elected to run the machine were/are evil, or if the proper “safeguards” had been installed, “they would have escaped the evil their government was busily engaged in inflicting upon them.” I believe this perfectly describes our present dilemma, for those who voted for Obama wonder at how the campaign promises he made have been forgotten or the changes made were not what they expected. The opposition believes Obama to be an evil person.

No matter how evil a person might be, as an individual they are unable to visit such tremendous evil on the world without the power government provides. In turn, electing “good” people to run a gangster device will never deliver the hoped for product. LeFevre asks the question: “…then how does it happen that so many administrations of good men have been able to do so many evil and harmful things to their subjects?” As a country, we widely differ on exactly what administration has been good or bad. There are millions who believed George W. Bush to have been a “good” president, while millions believe Obama to be accomplishing “good” things, yet both have visited tremendous evil on the world, including their own supporters.

Individuals in this country have less freedom, are more and more controlled and coerced by government and continue to be robbed of the fruits of their labor, yet all this has occurred under the administrations of the “best” our country has to offer each election cycle, from both sides of the political spectrum.

Isabel Patterson in her book, The God of the Machine, provides what she believes to be the answer. “…What good does it do to have a saint of every conceivable virtue operating a guillotine? Personally, the man may be above reproach. He may have the highest of morals and ethics. He may be imbued with a passion for doing good. But the mechanism he is hired to operate cuts off heads. He may dislike to cut off heads. He may weep with true sorrow whenever a head falls into the basket. But he was hired to pull the rope that lets the knife drop. And when it comes down, off comes the head. That is the way the tool works.”

This methodology is, in part, accomplished with government’s admonishment there is a higher purpose in life than being an individual. Ironically, this rebuke always comes around to serving the machine. John F. Kennedy said to “ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” It was not the country we were being asked to put foremost in our lives, but the machine. The government and its willing shills in the media and academia have been able to cloud the difference between the country and the government so that in the minds of many, they are inseparable. That is why, in today’s world, all who oppose the machine have been deemed “domestic terrorists.” The spirit of individuality, or just wanting to be left alone, cannot be allowed to flourish, but must always be seen as the enemy and therefore destroyed.

People create government to control that which they fear. The machine enjoys its continued growth and strength to the spirit of fear among the people. Different people fear different things; in a great number of instances that fear is of people who think or act differently or ideas with which they disagree. The machine therefore evolves into a mechanism that seeks control over everyone and everything. Limited government is an illusion. Safeguards put in place to limit the scope and range of government are gradually eliminated as more fearful entities appear, or are created, requiring continued growth of the machine. Franklin was correct; trading freedom for security leaves the people with neither. The constant meddling in the affairs of other countries produces enemies of the machine and are converted into objects of fear for the people. Here we have the vicious cycle; more enemies require a larger and more powerful machine, which produces more and more enemies to fear.

Individualism and the wish to just be left alone by those who do not wish to control others is the mortal enemy of the machine. If the individual can exist without this desire to control others or seek power over them, the need for the machine no longer exists. The government machine’s survival depends on convincing the people that the anointed among them, selected during the electoral process, can indeed take the government back to a less intrusive and more friendly status. Throughout our history, this has never happened.

People decide to become involved in government for basically two reasons. They either want the power and control over others and the wealth that brings, or they believe by becoming involved in government they can limit the power of the machine. These folks, no matter how well intentioned, become the “priest with a machine gun.” The machine continues to control and destroy the lives of others, while the “good” person in government pulls the trigger.

The machine will continue to create items of fear for the people. The fear of an economy going bad brings on illegal bailouts and controls of the economy that have the opposite effect intended and provide untold riches to supporters of the machine. This creates more fear among the people and enlarges the machine. The fear of being unable to pay for needed medical care creates fear that could give the government vast control over the people and their remaining money. The fear of the dreaded Communist, Muslim or person of different skin pigmentation, creates fear in the people and grows the machine’s arm of oppression: the military, law enforcement and the new scourge of private contractors. The fear of a pandemic in the form of some new exotic disease (created in a laboratory) brings the ability to control the masses with unneeded and potentially harmful forced vaccinations. When the machine seeks unparalleled growth, it creates false flag events to terrorize the population, bringing on new and more terrible laws and regulations, again to eliminate its greatest threat, the individual.

The machine has legions of faithful followers who willingly steal, intimidate and even kill for their paychecks, monies stolen by the machine from the production of their victims through intimidation and threat.

These people are nothing but whores who care not for any oath they might have taken, but instead enjoy their unlimited, unrestrained power over their fellow citizens.

These people will come after your guns, violate your rights, force you to be inoculated with harmful vaccines, steal your money and private property and place you in a detention facility if you dare resist, or shoot you and be proud of the accomplishment.

These people are not elected, but will always remain the real force of the government machine. Those elected to public office become the easily replaceable figurehead. It is accomplished every election cycle.

History teaches the machine always collapses under its own weight and corruption. Its loyal supporters are rewarded for their service with executions. The question is: how many freedom loving, liberty-seeking individuals must give up their freedom and/or their lives before this happens?

In Rightful Rebel Liberty

Michael Gaddy

(This article was originally written and published in 2009)

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

No Nation can survive with an ignorant, uninterested, self-centered people.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Dangerous Speech Would the Founders Be Considered Domestic Extremists Today?

02/09/2016

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/dangerous_speech_would_the_founders_be_considered_domestic_extremists_

By John W. Whitehead

“If you can’t say ‘Fuck’ you can’t say, ‘Fuck the government.’” ― Lenny Bruce
Not only has free speech become a four-letter word—profane, obscene, uncouth, not to be uttered in so-called public places—but in more and more cases, the government deems free speech to be downright dangerous and in some instances illegal.

The U.S. government has become particularly intolerant of speech that challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, extremist speech, etc.

Yet by allowing the government to whittle away at cherished First Amendment freedoms—which form the backbone of the Bill of Rights—we have evolved into a society that would not only be abhorrent to the founders of this country but would be hostile to the words they used to birth this nation.

Don’t believe me?

Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself.

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God as a Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine. “When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.” Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.” And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Then again, perhaps you don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself. One such test is playing out before our very eyes in Portland, Oregon, where radio “shock jock” Pete Santilli, a new media journalist who broadcasts his news reports over YouTube and streaming internet radio, is sitting in jail.

Santilli, notorious for his controversial topics, vocal outrage over government abuses, and inflammatory rhetoric, is not what anyone would consider an objective reporter. His radio show, aptly titled “Telling You the Truth…Whether You Like It or Not,” makes it clear that Santilli has a viewpoint (namely, that the government has overstepped its bounds), and he has no qualms about sharing it with his listeners.

It was that viewpoint that landed Santilli in jail.
In early January 2016, a group of armed activists, reportedly protesting the federal government’s management of federal lands and its prosecution of two local ranchers convicted of arson, staged an act of civil disobedience by occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Santilli, who has covered such protests in the past, including the April 2014 standoff in Nevada between the Bundy ranching family and the federal government over grazing rights, reported on the occupation in Burns as an embedded journalist, albeit one who was sympathetic to the complaints (although not the tactics) of the occupiers.

When asked to clarify his role in relation to the occupation, Santilli declared, “My role is the same here that it was at the Bundy ranch. To talk about the constitutional implications of what is going on here. The Constitution cannot be negotiated.”
Well, it turns out that the Constitution can be negotiated, at least when the government gets involved.

Long a thorn in the side of the FBI, Santilli was arrested by the FBI following its ambush and arrest of key leaders of the movement. He was charged, along with the armed resistors, with conspiracy to impede federal officers from discharging their duties by use of force, intimidation, or threats—the same charge being levied against those who occupied the refuge—which carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

Notably, Santilli is the only journalist among those covering the occupation to be charged with conspiracy, despite the fact that he did not participate in the takeover of the refuge, nor did he ever spend a night on the grounds of the refuge, nor did he ever represent himself as anything but a journalist covering the occupation.
Of course, the government doesn’t actually believe that 50-year-old Santilli is an accomplice to any criminal activity.

Read between the lines and you’ll find that what the government is really accusing Santilli of is employing dangerous speech. As court documents indicate, the government is prosecuting Santilli solely as a reporter of information. In other words, they’re making an example of him, which is consistent with the government’s ongoing efforts to intimidate members of the media who portray the government in a less than favorable light.

This is not a new tactic.
During the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, numerous journalists were arrested while covering the regions’ civil unrest and the conditions that spawned that unrest. These attempts to muzzle the press were clearly concerted, top-down efforts to restrict the fundamental First Amendment rights of the public and the press.

As The Huffington Post reports:

The Obama administration’s treatment of reporters has caused controversy before. In 2009, the Department of Justice targeted a Fox News reporter in an investigation. Three years later, DOJ seized Associated Press reporters’ phone records. After that, former Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a review of the Justice Department’s news media policies. DOJ employees must consult with a unit within the Criminal Division before they arrest someone when there is a “question regarding whether an individual or entity is a ‘member of the news media,’” according to a January 2015 memo from Holder to DOJ employees.”
That the government is choosing to target Santilli for prosecution, despite the fact that they do not recognize new media journalists as members of the mainstream media, signals a broadening of the government’s efforts to suppress what it considers dangerous speech and stamp out negative coverage.

The message is clear: whether a journalist is acting alone or is affiliated with an established news source, the government has no qualms about subjecting them to harassment, arrest, jail time and trumped up charges if doing so will discourage others from openly opposing or exposing the government.

You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
Where the government has gone wrong is in hinging its case against Santilli based solely on his incendiary rhetoric, which is protected by the First Amendment and which bears a striking resemblance to disgruntled patriots throughout American history.

Here’s what Santilli said: “What we need, most importantly, is one hundred thousand unarmed men and women to stand together. It is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal.”

Now compare that with the call to action from Joseph Warren, a leader of the Sons of Liberty and a principal figure within the American Revolution: “Stain not the glory of your worthy ancestors, but like them resolve never to part with your birthright; be wise in your deliberations, and determined in your exertions for the preservation of your liberties. Follow not the dictates of passion, but enlist yourselves under the sacred banner of reason; use every method in your power to secure your rights.”

Indeed, Santilli comes across as relatively docile compared to some of our nation’s more outspoken firebrands.

Santilli: “I’m not armed. I am armed with my mouth. I’m armed with my live stream. I’m armed with a coalition of like-minded individuals who sit at home and on YouTube watch this.”
Now compare that to what George Washington had to say: “Unhappy it is, though, to reflect that a brother’s sword has been sheathed in a brother’s breast and that the once-happy plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?”

And then there was Andrew Jackson, a hothead if ever there was one. He came of age in the early days of the republic, served as the seventh president of the United States, and was not opposed to shedding blood when necessary: “Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms.”

This is how freedom rises or falls.

There have always been those willing to speak their minds despite the consequences. Where freedom hangs in the balance is when “we the people” are called on to stand with or against individuals who actually exercise their rights and, in the process, push the envelope far enough to get called out on the carpet for it.

Do we negotiate the Constitution, or do we embrace it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, no matter how hateful or ugly it gets, and no matter how much we may dislike its flag-bearers?

Comedian Lenny Bruce laid the groundwork for the George Carlins that would follow in his wake: foul-mouthed, insightful, irreverent, incredibly funny, and one of the First Amendment’s greatest champions who dared to “speak the unspeakable” about race, religion, sexuality and politics. As Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff attests, Bruce was “not only a paladin of free speech but also a still-penetrating, woundingly hilarious speaker of truth to the powerful and the complacent.”

Bruce died in 1966, but not before being convicted of alleged obscenity for challenging his audience’s covert prejudices by brandishing unmentionable words that, if uttered today, would not only get you ostracized but could get you arrested and charged with a hate crime. Hentoff, who testified in Bruce’s defense at his trial, recounts that Lenny used to say, “What I wanted people to dig is the lie. Certain words were suppressed to keep the lie going. But if you do them, you should be able to say the words.”

Not much has changed in the 50 years since Bruce died. In fact, it’s gotten worse.
What we’re dealing with today is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we are witnessing is a nation undergoing a nervous breakdown over this growing tension between our increasingly untenable reality and the lies being perpetrated by a government that has grown too power-hungry, egotistical, militaristic and disconnected from its revolutionary birthright.

The only therapy is the truth and nothing but the truth.

Otherwise, there will be no more First Amendment. There will be no more Bill of Rights. And there will be no more freedom in America as we have known it.

As the insightful and brash comedian George Carlin observed:

“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a fuck about them! The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you! It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.”

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Olddog is going to have surgery this morning

02/09/2016

Olddog is going to have surgery this morning on his right index finger (Trigger Finger). And being a competitive Steel Challenge Pistol Shooter, this is a great concern for him. Wish Him Luck! He may not be on line for a while as His left hand is only usable for giving politicians the, you know what!

Mrs. Olddog


Why is the SPLC So Terrified of “Sovereign Citizens”? (Part One)

02/08/2016

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/191097-2016-02-07-why-is-the-splc-so-terrified-of-sovereign-citizens-part.htm?From=News

By Vince Edwards

Here it is! The straight up skinny! I’m not sure anyone has broached this topic, and thus no one to my knowledge has put their finger on the exactly the catalyst which creates the desire to dehumanize people who identify themselves as “sovereign citizens,” and instead makes them another terrorist group that the world needs to destroy.

To begin with, I am not claiming to be a “sovereign citizen,” because that would be an ignorant claim. It would be based on something I heard from someone else, who heard it from a TV somewhere. What I am is simply: “one of the people.” When I say this in a court, I’m legally stating that I am a sovereign being. There are multiple US Supreme Court, as well as state supreme court rulings which support this legal conclusion. I would be more than overjoyed if ANYONE out there would like to debate me on any open forum if they disagree. Instead of course… I’m just another “domestic terrorist” you need to FEAR and DESTROY because God forbid, I might keep talking, posting stuff on my blog and making videos.

The only solution to ME is VIOLENCE (if you’re the bad guys). This is the purpose for the tragedy you just saw in Oregon. You can’t beat me in a court. You can’t legally go through the motions and prove your case! If you let me stay free, eventually you’re going to have to find a different, more productive occupation, because fewer and fewer people will be knocking on your places of business! If I survive, your very professions become OBSOLETE! The time for fear is over for us. I saw a nation wake up at the cost of one man’s life.

How many have sacrificed their lives for just the perception of freedom? Would you sacrifice yours knowing we are at the precipice of a Golden Age of Freedom? I will gladly pay that price if I know my human family will be okay, thanks in very small part to my sacrifice.

You CAN’T kill me though can you? If I sit here minding my own business, remaining peaceful, actually PREACHING peace and non-violence at EVERY opportunity, I’m UNTOUCHABLE am I not? Have we forgotten the lessons of Ghandi and Dr. King? The only way you could take my new HERO down was to turn off all the audio, and shoot him in the hip so he’d look like he was going for his (now proven) STOLEN gun! I’m confident that’s going to come out in the wash wait and see, but he’s not dead is he? He’s become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

(Still speaking to the bad guys) Your only option, other than killing me is to surrender. The end game on either option is quite clear. The solutions in my opinion: are clear. They exist in a world without YOU. I’m not saying we need to destroy you. We need to change you. You’ll be required to change. If you don’t change: you won’t survive, REGARDLESS of who wins! None of this needs to be scary however. There is some ABUNDANTLY good news (in part two)!

…and now back to my “author” type “person.”

What makes “sovereigns” like myself a real, legitimate threat to the SPLC (it’s not people, can’t harm it, it’s just a piece a paper) is that we no longer require the services of it’s agents. We comprehend AND understand the law. We know how to exercise our rights in the most critical place we need to exercise them: In a court. Let’s bear in mind that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a corporation made up of BAR member attorneys. The BAR is a group of private corporations. Now let’s follow the money as we’ve been taught to do in this “truth” voyage: People who know the law that are willing to educate others are a threat to the entire legal monopoly that the BAR corporations are currently BASKING in.

In the constitution, you are guaranteed the right to “counsel.” It says nothing about hiring the services of an “attorney.” Nowhere in our founding documents does it imply that a group of subsidiary corporations were granted monopoly powers over “counsel” for any one of the people. Let’s discuss this in real terms: You’re an innocent man or woman who has been charged with murder. Who would you rather speak on your behalf, some stranger who has been completely desensitized by hundreds, thousands of cases which profoundly affect peoples’ lives, or your father, mother or best friend who is well versed in the law?

The answer is clear. Your brother or sister would be much more emotional (appeals to a jury) and spend far more time (only one case) in your defense than an attorney who has 100 clients on his retainer list. Yes, yes I know the “attorney” is experienced in the “law.” No I’m sorry you’ve been misled there as well, nothing an attorney does has anything to do with the law. Attorneys will flat-out tell you this! What they do is not about right or wrong. It’s about winners and losers. One thing should become crystal clear to you in this post:
If you hire an attorney: You’re a loser!

There are two different types of people in this society from all of my knowledge: parasites and producers. The parasites are folks who produce nothing, or not enough on their own and need to somehow get that from a producer in order to survive. The entire legal profession and everyone employed in it is comprised of parasites. Every politician is a parasite. Can you eat a “law?” Want to grab some salad dressing and munch down the Patriot Act written by some attorney? If politicians and attorneys did not exist would you be able to survive? You’d probably be not just okay, but a heck of a lot happier to boot!

The vice-versa is obviously not true. Without people to grow the food and deliver it to their store, parasites could not offer a proportionally insignificant amount of labor energy for those goods. At the end of the day it’s not about money, it’s about LABOR. People do not get this. What’s valuable is the labor energy of the people. Your time is such a precious commodity isn’t it? I literally cringe at the thought of people working 50+ hours per week in order to improve the quality of their lives, by roughly ZERO. It doesn’t just sound like it: That’s slavery!

There are so many things that the individual can do to divorce themselves from the problem (being a parasite) and become a part of the solution. I’m talking about the solution that eliminates the money system and evokes an age of honor where the good do not die young and society really works for the betterment of everyone in it. I’ve cried over John F. Kennedy who I never got to know in my lifetime. I recently have shed a few tears over this Oregon situation and quite possibly one of the bravest patriots of our time: Lavoy Finnicum. I don’t know how many people were possibly roused from their slumber by this great man, but I think there’s a mass of people who are ready for the awakening. Well I’m here to pull the covers off your head and tell you to WAKE UP!

KISS stands for “keep it simple stupid (or more politely Susan or Sam)” and if it’s “not simple, it’s not a solution” as my friend and fellow freedom educator Dean Clifford likes to say. Essentially what the Bundys, Lavoy and others were doing in Oregon was to inform people that they were not required to abide by commercial codes (which includes BLM “laws”), they had in fact been TRICKED into private contracts, because they thought they needed these agreements in order to exercise their guaranteed rights! In these agreements they waived those rights in return for certain “benefits” as well as a few duties and obligations, such as following commercial codes. Keep in mind while researching this issue: nowhere in the “violations” against the Bundys and others will you find the word “law.”

Lavoy and the Bundys were encouraging people to revoke these contracts based on a clearly held maxim of law: One must have full knowledge of a contract in order to be legally bound by it. It does not matter what’s in the fine print, or that you didn’t comprehend the legal-ease. There must be a “meeting of the minds” to have a valid contract. If the INTENT of all parties is not CLEAR, it is a voidable contract. Until you void it however, you are presumed to have a full understanding. How else can someone know you didn’t know if you don’t tell them?

I should probably here clarify what a “right” is. Most people in the truth movement don’t seem to know. This is the core fundamental problem we face in the so-called “truth movement.” When one discovers some deep truth about how our society works they usually stop there. For example “The Federal Reserve System is not federal” or “politicians supply absolutely NO benefits to the people.” Everyone wants to think they’ve FINALLY arrived at the answer! What I’m stunned to realize about these very same people is they can believe the US government was complicit in 9/11, that a group of private bankers was granted carte blanch over the nations money supply in 1913 (during Christmas break when most of congress was home), but for some reason, most I’ve spoken to cannot believe they were actually tricked into operating a for-profit legal construct (a corporation) all their lives, FOR FREE.

A right is something you possess, which you can exercise at your “inclination,” that means “if you feel like it!” You do not need permission. You do not need to pay for that right (in the case of a license). It cannot be taken from you, except in the remote case that 12 of your peers unanimously disagree with you. It does not matter what their codes are. If one being on that jury believes your declared right is just, it is protected! Most people are not even aware that they get to pick their own jury! Yes that’s right, you can ask prospective jurors questions. You can quiz them. If they can’t tell you which amendment has the word “militia” in it (for those who have actually read 2A) they are not your peer! A peer is someone who is relatively equal in knowledge, societal status and so fourth. It would not be a very impartial jury if 12 winos or bag ladies sat in judgment of a billionaire (unless of course they were “conservatives”), nor should a bunch of politicians ever sit in judgment of you!

Secure in the knowledge of our rights, able to “leap tall buildings in a single bound” and “of the brave,” can you perceive the threat we “represent” as individuals, each ONE of us, to the STATE and all the parasites who are dependent upon it? I know the word sounds like a swear or insult. It is not. It is a noun describing something which is dependent on something else to survive. It’s a fact. It’s indisputable. It’s also equally indisputable in our society, and EVERY society in history that the PARASITES were and are now the problem! Once one accepts those facts as truth (if one is even willing to hear that truth) there is only one question left to answer as one looks in the mirror:

Am I a producer, or a parasite?

To be continued. I’m about to make a few more enemies. I apologize in advance for any offense.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


The Government is Weaning Us Off of Cash

02/06/2016

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/02/the-government-is-weaning-us-off-of-cash.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=d4a0d92e1f-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-d4a0d92e1f-387807993

2-6-2016 9-26-31 AM

By James Corbett Kerry Lutz of FinancialSurvivalNetwork.com joins James Corbett today to discuss the war on cash. How long has it being going on?

If you do not mind talk shows this is well worth less than eleven minutes of your time, but I have a few comments that was not covered, or covered enough.

What is this really all about?
It is about total control of every person who survives, and the incalculable amount of our wealth they will steal.
How did they do it?

February 4, 2016 ~TPATH~ We have been saying from the moment Obama made his hatred for this country evident, that there could only be two reasons that any American, regardless of political party, could support him. One evident reason would be lack of paying attention. The other, akin to the Usurper, abhorrence for America.

It had been difficult for patriots to believe, up until just these last few years, there were more than just a few nutcases who despised this great country. Those few who, in the past, reared their malfunctioning brains, quite honestly never seemed important enough to matter or for real Americans to be concerned with them.

While that naiveté was walking us through life, working, supporting and raising our families, we were buffered from the evil which was festering in a cauldron of political correctness and socialism, while nurturing the sins of envy and selfishness. The infection was being injected into school curriculums and every aspect of our children’s lives.

Many children survived this contagion as a result of values being consistently practiced and taught at home but a majority of them clearly have not and there appears to be no antidote, no cure and no reversal of their malfunctioned thought processes.

These last three half-generations have grown up in a world of forced and untested vaccines, brains and bodies immersed in pharmaceuticals, God removed from their moral compasses, drug use not only legalized but encouraged, laziness rewarded and the vacuous promise of social equality bequeathed on one and all. The obliteration of common sense and morality is just about complete.

Could there ever have been contrived, a more effective plan to wipe out the best and most powerful land of freedom and economic supremacy, than what we are now seeing? There are a few holdouts who have not had their brains turned into swamp sludge, who will fight this coming catastrophe, but there will be not enough of them to withstand the onslaught of the emerging New World Government.

While the second pincer, delegated to the task of and with the aid of the newly brainwashed masses, clearing a safe path for the new elites by the disarming of all the citizens, the third branch of this insurgency was well underway. That is the total collapse of America’s economy which will cascade across the planet.

The plan here is to use created and borrowed money as the ammunition to finance the operation which will ultimately demolish capitalism as well as liberty. This malevolent endeavor has provided America’s internal enemies with limitless resources. That is, the more debt they create the more “ammunition” they have to pay for the propaganda they need and at the same time, the closer this country moves towards the avalanche of collapsing economies.

The bigger the debt, the weaker the capitalist structure. This structure needs to be buckled if America is to be devoured by this new world order. This explains why they have spent years destroying morality and fogging the brains of the next generations. The dumb and the disarmed put up very little resistance

So how does creating debt that can never be repaid help this diabolical plan? The goal is, and you had better believe it, the default of the US Government. To create such debt that it overwhelms any ability to ever repay it. A debt default would destroy the last remaining obstacles, the middle class and foreign investors. World governments which hold notes from the US Treasury will not be paid and many will, as a result, suffer their own economic collapse. The result will be a financial global reset controlled and directed by the New World Order.

How close to fruition is this scenario? Much closer than anyone could imagine who does not understand the extent and the depth to which the US has become indebted. To understand this, one needs to comprehend the magnitude of the number “trillion”.

To enlighten the remaining few who may still not be able to conceive of the enormousness of our National Debt, TPATH has done some research, math and created some mentally visual comparisons. These next few facts we will present are so astounding many will fail to believe them.
It is really quite a testament to the American people that as of this date, the financial system has not already collapsed under its own weight. But the black hole of annihilation cannot be far off.

Starting with the National Debt which this week has now blown past the $19 Trillion mark, it might be advantageous for you to see what that number looks like written out as a whole number. $19,000,000,000,000.00 Ugly, isn’t it? More than you know.

Here are some statements which will give you some insight as to the massiveness of this number.
If the US government was to declare and end to deficits and an end to additional debt and not considering or adding to the existing debt with interest owed and they passed a law that would reduce the $19 Trillion debt by the amount of $1,000,000 each day. (That’s one million dollars) How many years would it take to pay it off?
ANSWER: 52,054 years. If that same amount was applied with the accrued interest, how long would it take?

ANSWER: Never, as in forever.
If you line up, end to end, $100 bills and started the route of money on the shoreline of New Jersey and extended it in a westerly direction until it valued $19 Trillion, where would that line end?

ANSWER: Back on the New Jersey shoreline after making 3,070 round trips.
Mount Everest is the highest mountain in the world with an elevation of 29,029 feet from sea level to its peak. If you were to stack $100.00 bills at the base of Mount Everest how high would it rise when the stack equaled $19 Trillion?

ANSWER: The stack of $100 bills would be 2,345 times higher than Mount Everest. In other words it would be the same as stacking Mount Everest on itself 2,345 times.
The surface of the earth to the surface of the moon is 225,623 miles. If you could string a line of $100 Bills, end to end, starting on the earth’s surface and extended it to the surface of the moon, would the value of $19 Trillion reach the moon’s surface?

ANSWER: Yes! In fact it would get there and back (round trip) 409 times.
When Obama leaves office later this year (if he does) the National Debt will have increased during his term $9,400,000,000,000.00. During those 8 years, what was the National Debt increase per minute?

ANSWER: For every minute since that fateful day of his first swearing in as President the National Debt has increased $2,235,540.00. That’s $2.2 Million, every minute of every day for 8 years.
You have now been given a visualization of where this country stands relating to the “ammunition” which has been expended in the three-pronged attack. And not just on America, but the entire world. Yes, Obama is truly evil my friends but he is just the latest “fool-tool” who believes he is in charge.

He is not and neither are we!

Research and calculations are available HERE, for those who might want to check these statements out.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


22 Signs That The Global Economic Turmoil We Have Seen So Far In 2016 Is Just The Beginning

02/05/2016

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/02/22-signs-that-the-global-economic-turmoil-we-have-seen-so-far-in-2016-is-just-the-beginning.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ef9075f049-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-ef9075f049-387807993

2-5-2016 12-25-51 PM

By Michael Snyder

As bad as the month of January was for the global economy, the truth is that the rest of 2016 promises to be much worse. Layoffs are increasing at a pace that we haven’t seen since the last recession, major retailers are shutting down hundreds of locations, corporate profit margins are plunging, global trade is slowing down dramatically, and several major European banks are in the process of completely imploding.

I am about to share some numbers with you that are truly eye-popping. Each one by itself would be reason for concern, but when you put all of the pieces together it creates a picture that is hard to deny. The global economy is in crisis, and this is going to have very serious implications for the financial markets moving forward. U.S. stocks just had their worst January in seven years, and if I am right much worse is still yet to come this year.

The following are 22 signs that the global economic turmoil that we have seen so far in 2016 is just the beginning…

1. The number of job cuts in the United States skyrocketed 218 percent during the month of January according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

2. The Baltic Dry Index just hit yet another brand new all-time record low. As I write this article, it is sitting at 303.

3. U.S. factory orders have now dropped for 14 months in a row.

4. In the U.S., the Restaurant Performance Index just fell to the lowest level that we have seen since 2008.

5. In January, orders for class 8 trucks (the big trucks that you see shipping stuff around the country on our highways) declined a whopping 48 percent from a year ago.

6. Rail traffic is also slowing down substantially. In Colorado, there are hundreds of train engines that are just sitting on the tracks with nothing to do.

7. Corporate profit margins peaked during the third quarter of 2014 and have been declining steadily since then. This usually happens when we are heading into a recession.

8. A series of extremely disappointing corporate quarterly reports is sending stock after stock plummeting. Here is a summary from Zero Hedge of a few examples that we have just witnessed…
• SHARES OF LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT FALL 5 PCT IN EXTENDED TRADE AFTER QUARTERLY RESULTS – RTRS
• TABLEAU SOFTWARE SHARES TUMBLE 40 PCT IN AFTER HOURS TRADING – RTRS
• YRC WORLDWIDE SHARES DOWN 16.4 PCT AFTER THE BALL FOLLOWING RESULTS – RTRS
• SPLUNK INC SHARES DOWN 7.6 PCT IN AFTER HOURS TRADING – RTRS
• LINKEDIN SHARES EXTEND DECLINE, DOWN 24 PCT AFTER RESULTS, GUIDANCE – RTRS
• HANESBRANDS SHARES FURTHER ADD TO LOSSES IN EXTENDED TRADE, LAST DOWN 14.9 PCT – RTRS
• OUTERWALL SHARES FALL 11 PCT IN EXTENDED TRADING AFTER QUARTERLY RESULTS – RTRS
• GENWORTH SHARES DOWN 16.5 PCT AFTER THE BELL FOLLOWING RESULTS, RESTRUCTURING PLAN

9. Junk bonds continue to crash on Wall Street. On Monday, JNK was down to 32.60 and HYG was down to 77.99.

10. On Thursday, a major British news source publicly named five large European banks that are considered to be in very serious danger…
Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Santander, Barclays and RBS are among the stocks that are falling sharply sending shockwaves through the financial world, according to former hedge fund manager and ex Goldman Sachs employee Raoul Pal.

11. Deutsche Bank is the biggest bank in Germany and it has more exposure to derivatives than any other bank in the world. Unfortunately, Deutsche Bank credit default swaps are now telling us that there is deep turmoil at the bank and that a complete implosion may be imminent.

12. Last week, we learned that Deutsche Bank had lost a staggering 6.8 billion euros in 2015. If you will recall, I warned about massive problems at Deutsche Bank all the way back in September. The most important bank in Germany is exceedingly troubled, and it could end up being for the EU what Lehman Brothers was for the United States.

13. Credit Suisse just announced that it will be eliminating 4,000 jobs.

14. Royal Dutch Shell has announced that it is going to be eliminating 10,000 jobs.

15. Caterpillar has announced that it will be closing 5 plants and getting rid of 670 workers.

16. Yahoo has announced that it is going to be getting rid of 15 percent of its total workforce.

17. Johnson & Johnson has announced that it is slashing its workforce by 3,000 jobs.

18. Sprint just laid off 8 percent of its workforce and GoPro is letting go 7 percent of its workers.

19. All over America, retail stores are shutting down at a staggering pace. The following list comes from one of my previous articles…
• Wal-Mart is closing 269 stores, including 154 inside the United States.
• K-Mart is closing down more than two dozen stores over the next several months.
• J.C. Penney will be permanently shutting down 47 more stores after closing a total of 40 stores in 2015.
• Macy’s has decided that it needs to shutter 36 stores and lay off approximately 2,500 employees.
• The Gap is in the process of closing 175 stores in North America.
• Aeropostale is in the process of closing 84 stores all across America.
• Finish Line has announced that 150 stores will be shutting down over the next few years.
• Sears has shut down about 600 stores over the past year or so, but sales at the stores that remain open continue to fall precipitously.

20. According to The New York Times, the Chinese economy is facing a mountain of bad loans that “could exceed $5 trillion.”

21. Japan has implemented a negative interest rate program in a desperate attempt to try to get banks to make more loans.

22. The global economy desperately needs the price of oil to go back up, but Morgan Stanley says that we will not see $80 oil again until 2018.
It is not difficult to see where the numbers are trending.
Last week, I told my wife that I thought that Marco Rubio was going to do better than expected in Iowa.

How did I come to that conclusion?
It was simply based on how his poll numbers were trending.
And when you look at where global economic numbers are trending, they tell us that 2016 is going to be a year that is going to get progressively worse as it goes along.
So many of the exact same things that we saw happen in 2008 are happening again right now, and you would have to be blind not to see it.

Hopefully I am wrong about what is coming in our immediate future, because millions upon millions of Americans are not prepared for what is ahead, and most of them are going to get absolutely blindsided by the coming crisis.
Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog.

The Truth Behind Federal Land Grabs

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/190921-2016-02-03-the-truth-behind-federal-land-grabs.htm?From=News
OR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qzF2quqCJc

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM