“You can’t fix STUPID”…


5-30-2016 11-50-07 AM


 Comedian Ron White was so right.

5-31-2016 11-22-00 AM

By Barbara McCutchen

Arkansas Freedom.com

As a nation we have witnessed Collectivism (Socialism, Communism, Fascism) murder, maim, ruin, and annihilate millions upon millions of innocent human beings. Collectivism produces nothing for the people but poverty, misery, tyranny, mayhem, fear, envy, injustice, cruelty, torture, terror, pain, chaos…nothing good ever comes from it yet we witness known Collectivists (Hillary + Bernie=Communism and Cruz + Kasich = Fascism) actually running for and getting large support for the U.S. Presidency.

We lost our last chance to elect a Constitutionalist with Ron Paul, due to Stupidity & fraud, but now Trump is the only candidate actually proposing to bring back jobs, seal the borders, stop Common Core, repeal Obamacare, reform foreign policy and restore the middleclass with some sanity to domestic policies. Which is of course reviled by the anti-individual/pro big government public, as well as warmongering Establishments of both Parties, but Trump is cheered by the Individual Freedom-loving, big government hating, anti-Establishment folks who appear to be waking up.

How is it possible for so many to embrace tyrannical U.S. policies, especially after this country has engaged in numerous wars, including world wars, which we were told was “to save the people/world” from various forms of Collectivist tyrannies? Yet this country has fallen prey to the same hideous anti-individual philosophies. What hypocrisy, what cruelty, what idiocy, what stupidity, all cunningly exploited by evil, demented, power/money hungry predators. Due to the ill-informed & STUPID masses complicity & merrily sopping up welfare goodies & the atrocious, ridiculous mendacities of the media/political/industrial/military complex, their goals are being achieved. “They” have been so successful in brainwashing citizens with pseudo-patriotism we see countless “Support the Troops” celebrations at most sports events. The public blindly follows programmed emotional responses since they’ve been conditioned to do so & never taught logic, reason, true history, or other academic disciplines—they prefer pabulum to the rigors of critical thinking, i.e. truth seeking.

Between the arcane, subversive philosophy of Political Correctness and the mass invasions of legal & illegal 3rd worlders, our nation is becoming unhinged, uncivilized and downright frightening and dangerous. Throw in the deliberate dumbing down & indoctrination by education systems and the crassness, immorality, propagandizing, vicious, degrading ugliness, & trash foisted, indeed exalted by media & entertainment and we now have an enormous amount of useless idiots (except to our enemies) in our masses. Dignity out, Vulgarity in.

The acceptance of the insane concept that “Diversity is our strength” is straight out of Orwell and the Multicultural Marxist Political Correctness Tool Kit. Diversity is simply a noun which means “a range of things” and can be applied to numerous categories such as styles in reporting or range of subjects. To make Diversity a moral imperative is deception at its highest level & destroys cognitive abilities.

Now in this upside down deranged world, words once vaunted are reviled, e.g. Discrimination once meant to be careful & judicious in your judgments; Gay once merely meant to be happy, good manners & etiquette were extolled, as was pride in one’s appearance, dress & education, Ladies were to be treated with respect, as were the elderly. People of high principles were admired & imitated. Alas, now all passé.

As the rational, moral, philosophy of individualism—rights, freedom, responsibility, morality, sovereignty descend into the darkness of savagery & tyranny we view news videos of browns, blacks, & assorted whites giving us the finger, mooning us, burning flags, grabbing their crotches and screaming F’you! We see looting, burning, smashing, destroying with little consequence, which of course only emboldens the savages to engage freely in uncivilized, unlawful activities at will……..as long as whites can be blamed in some convoluted way, e.g. “white privilege.” . The vile, corrupt, dysfunctional government looks the other way, indeed aids & abets, leaving lawful citizens at the mercy of mindless, ruthless barbarians.

Denial is rampant in the public, especially the whites…which is their worst failing because the Trojan Horse of PC, i.e. Diversity, Egalitarianism, Sexism, Feminism, Affirmative Action, seeking the lowest common denominator education dumb-down, ad infinitum represents a giant quick-sand sink hole into which Western Civilization is quickly being drowned/suffocated/rubbed-out.

In deference to really well-meaning proud patriotic citizens, if anything is going to change for the better you must stop allowing yourselves to be used, abused, and exploited by the myth that our government hasn’t been totally corrupted & politicized—including the military. Our Founders were vehemently against standing armies; they knew that those always lead to tyranny, misuse, & empire building. The U.S. now has military presence in 130 countries (why?)—that alone should tell you it is out of control, without reason, sanity, or good intentions but occupations which increase power, money & intimidation/control of other sovereign nations which is contrary to and horribly detrimental to our financial state, our freedoms & respect in the world.

If you persist in believing it is the proper role of our military to police the world you are part of the problem. Your trusting belief is their cover—just because you refuse to believe something does not make it untrue. That is a secret to their bloody success. Regard & understanding of our Founding Principles is critical to our survival as a free country…recall “Friendly, but no foreign entanglements”? Our troops have no business in any foreign country which has not attacked us & upon whom the congress has NOT declared formal war. The high rate of suicides among returning troops should stir your insight. Wake up & stop being useful idiots, have the courage to face the truth. Other nations have no right to place military complexes in our country, why then does the U.S. assume that right elsewhere? The only proper place now for our troops is guarding our borders.

In defense of normal minds…in the long term, do they have a chance against those with DNA’s which operate on a different more cunning & ruthless plane and do not suffer from the normal’s predilection for naïve, trusting goodwill, & belief in fair play?

5-31-2016 11-22-25 AM

However, as all should know, ignoring the past dooms to repetition and just as civilization rose from a millennium of savagery, cruelty, tyranny…since it has forgotten its lessons…is doomed to return to the dark, uncivilized world where human life has little or no meaning. And “we” let it happen without firing a shot…destroyed by psychological warfare. You can call that genocide by suicide. Looks like Ron was right. That is as STUPID as anyone or society can get.

Barbara McCutchen

Written by and submitted to the Federal Observer for publication on May 6, 2016, by the author.

We invite you to visit Joe and Barb McCutchen’s web-site, Arkansas Freedom.com


Barbara has left one thing out that I want to mention, and that is the sheer stupidity of so many people who let their lifestyle become so all accompanying to leisure & pleasure that they feel justified in refusing to acknowledge and study America’s sociological decline, which can only be compared to lemmings jumping into the sea and drowning. If the reader is so hypnotized by the few remaining pleasures in life, that he/she cannot see/smell the death and destruction ahead, then I pity you. If this reprimand make’s sense to you then start here.


( Sharing Timely Information Not Generally Available In The MSM  —- If you don’t have time to read them all,  read those on the topics that interest you. You will benefit by reading many as you can.   Note: Despite the phony prompt when clicking on News With Views articles, there is no malware that will harm your computer, Google is just anti-Trump! — See NWV Forwarded Blog at End: )


       (Same Topics, Different Articles)








By G. Edward Griffin

“Sailors say that, when all the seagulls head to shore at once, it’s time to do the same.  It’s a sign that a storm is on its way.  The first two stories in this week’s news make it clear that some of the world’s biggest players in the financial markets are seeking secure ground as fast as they can.  They are the ‘insiders’ who, not only have a clear view of what is happening in the economy, but some of them are the people who make it happen.  If you think you know what lies ahead better than these people, then these articles will waste your time.  But if you think they may have a seagull-like instinct for coming financial storms, then pour yourself a cup of coffee and read these stories very, very carefully. “


Also:    http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/23222-does-massive-treasuries-sell-off-point-to-coming-global-recession





http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/my_country_was_of_thee.html   Also:   http://fredoneverything.org/america-goes-away-fred-left-behind-in-mexico/

Also:    http://www.infowars.com/12-signs-that-a-cloud-of-insanity-has-descended-on-the-land/      Also:    http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra280.htm


http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/05/23/americans-a-conquered-people-the-new-serfs-paul-craig-roberts/       Also: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/america_the_founders_dream_and_the_nightmare_of_decline.html

Also:     http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron253.htm

Also:    http://www.newswithviews.com/Schoen/karen118.htm

Also:    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/05/27/washington-uses-us-troops-as-lab-rats/

            Also:    https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/secret-g-20-meeting-in-ireland-this-summer-to-manage-the-collapse-of-america/

Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/Chumley/cheryl145.htm







Also:  http://sfppr.org/2016/05/republican-primary-lesson-its-not-about-you/

Also:   http://buchanan.org/blog/whos-conservative-heretic-125260







[ Book: ]    “Whatever Happened To America?”




Also:   https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/fred-reed/phylum-fluidity/

       Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/Whitney/david186.htm

Also:   http://fredoneverything.org/squids-and-the-inner-light-of-being/

Also:  http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3466/Has-America-Lost-The-Will-To-Survive.aspx

Also:    http://farmwars.info/?p=14874

“The FBI is Enrolling Church & Community Leaders To Spy On You”  http://www.blacklistednews.com/FBI_is_Enrolling_Church_Leaders%2c_Social_Workers_and_Community_Leaders_to_Spy_on_You/51188/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Patriot Humor:


Also:    http://patriotpost.us/humor/42583

“If the welfarist-socialist-inflationist- trend of recent years continues in this country, the outlook is dark.  It is a prospect of mounting taxation, snowballing expenditures, chronic deficits, a budget out of control, an accelerating rate of inflation of the kind endemic in Latin America (at least for the last generation), a collapse of the dollar, increasing world currency chaos, and more and more ruthless price, wage, and exchange controls, leading toward a regimented economy and dictatorship.  And if this trend is interrupted temporarily, it may be by riots, assassinations, and a breakdown of law and order.

                 —– Henry Hazlitt

“What a glorious morning for America!”

– Samuel Adams, upon hearing the gunfire at Lexington [April 19, 1775]


“An array of moves toward world government in the name of fraudulent environmentalism continues.  In Paris last December, representatives of 196 nations participated in the Conference of the Parties 21 (COP21), the annual gathering convened by the United Nations for the past 21 years. The delegates expressed unanimous agreement about the need for a comprehensive accord to deal with their highly questionable claims about rapidly rising temperatures threatening the Earth and all of mankind.  Four months later, leaders of 175 countries met at UN headquarters in New York, where they signed the accord reached in Paris. Secretary of State John Kerry participated and signed the agreement on behalf of the United States.  Even though this agreement is actually a treaty that should be submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification, the UN negotiators, knowing full well the political reality that the Senate as presently constituted would not ratify, maintain that it is “binding,” while not subject to Senate ratification.  Therefore, President Obama will have to implement the Paris agreement via executive orders and EPA regulations.

The delegates at this UN meeting committed their countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a minimum of approximately 25 percent from 2005 levels, and to accomplish such a goal by the year 2025. One profoundly important fact never addressed is that their targeted enemy, carbon dioxide, is correctly known to be the “gas of life.” Plants ingest carbon dioxide, and without this gaseous substance, plants would not even exist.  In the face of all the condemnations of carbon dioxide, there are numerous highly placed and credible individuals who openly claim that the real goal of this decades-long campaign has far less to do with environmentalism and much more to do with gaining control of mankind through a UN super government.” 







Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/Roth/laurie506.htm

            Also:   http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262911/john-kerry-enthusiastic-proponent-borderless-world-michael-cutler

Also:    https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/un-seeks-unprecedented-amount-of-data-to-impose-agenda-2030/





“EGYPT AIR FLIGHT MS804 NO RANDOM TARGET”      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/egyptair_flight_ms804_no_random_target.html      Also:   http://freedomoutpost.com/muslim-pilot-of-flight-804-converted-the-plane-into-a-portable-mosque-and-said-farewell-before-he-crashed-the-plane-and-slaughtered-everyone/



Also:    http://www.newswithviews.com/RonEdwards/ron177.htm


By Robert Ringer

“Since watching Donald Trump’s speech to the NRA, I have concluded that he might beat Hillary the Horrible much worse than I originally predicted.  I have long believed that Trump would win about 55-45, but I now think the margin of victory will be much greater than that (assuming she is his opponent).  Not only is Trump creating more excitement than any presidential candidate in my lifetime (far more than John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan), Hillary is on the wrong side of virtually every issue.  I would say she’s a masochist, but the reality is that Obama probably has her by her transgender gonads.  Friday, her anti-gun record was highlighted by the response of the overflow crowd to Trump’s pro-Second Amendment remarks.  But it’s not just gun control.  It’s illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, throwing open the prison doors and setting violent criminals free, transgender bathrooms, the refusal to identify the psychopaths who are murdering innocent men, women, and children worldwide, ever tougher EPA regulations that are making it impossible for industries such as coal mining to survive … the list goes on and on.  I am increasingly convinced that the only voters Hillary can hope to attract are those in the hard-core radical-left camp and those whose information base hovers near zero.  Women? Don’t worry about it.  When all is said and done, Trump will get at least 50 percent of the female vote, possibly more.  And he’ll increase his standing with Hispanics and blacks more than enough to coast to victory.  We’re talking about a world-class winner facing off against a world-class feminist putz who is already gasping for air.  So just how big could Trump’s margin of victory be? Perhaps as much as 60-40.” 


    Also:    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-reaches-magic-number-delegates-clinch-nomination-141243483–election.html?ref=gs




Comment:   As an act of self-preservation as well as platform integrity, Trump needs to choose a very conservative VP who would be even less acceptable to the Globalist Elite than he is such as Sen. Jeff Sessions.  A choice such as NeoCon Newt Gingrich  (who is now being promoted by the Establishment) would offend and lose many of Trump’s supporters and invite a similar JFK/Dallas scenario.

   See:   http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issues-priorities



       Also:    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/but_is_trump_nasty_emenoughem.html      Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin286.htm

Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh311.htm

Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin285.htm

Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest313.htm

Also:    http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh308.htm

Also:         http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/trump_to_the_gop_lead_follow_or_get_out_of_the_way.html



Also:   http://buchanan.org/blog/mitt-suicide-mission-125247

         Also:  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/the_conservative_case_for_trump.html


    http://www.vdare.com/posts/rioters-prove-mexicans-not-criminals-by-committing-criminal-acts-prove-their-loyalty-to-the-u-s-by-brandishing-the-mexican-flag-brilliant-strategy           Also: http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?CID=34844336093&ch=572D53A62BFEFA436320B1205D017D47&h=2b6919d2d9674256d9cda15bb11c8e62&ei=WBgu-yYtN&schema=echo3

Guest Comment:

Take a GOOD LOOK at those *protesters* and what it is they are clamoring for.  It is NOT for a Constitutional REPUBLIC with CONTROLLED BORDERS.  It is for a THIRD WORLD junkyard but one with the Commode Commander to hand them everything they want so they don’t have to dig thru the piles of rotting food and garbage to find something to eat.  They want to turn America into the very things they claim to be fleeing from….  including the rape, abuse, and poverty.  If these so called *refugees* and ILLEGALS really wanted the DREAM they would come here as our ancestors did by applying – waiting to be invited to enter and then do so according to our LAWS.  They would go thru the background checks – the health checks – be able to speak at least third grade level ENGLISH – and once here would not become a burden on the taxpayers.  Next would be the undertaking to study and become a U.S. Citizen.   these robbers come lately do NOT want to do anything the right or legal way – they simply WANT WHAT WE HAVE without any effort on their part.  America is just a short time from looking like the bombed out areas in the Mid East or the slums of Mexico, Central America, and South America.  All those politicians who are advocating for these should be arrested, incarcerated, charged and convicted, of aiding and abetting the enemies of America because that is EXACTLY what they are doing.   It is all part and parcel of the push to the NWO/OWO – or in terms of scripture, The Tribulation and the Anti-Christ.

Jackie Juntti

WGEN  idzrus@earthlink.net



      Also:    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23201-newt-gingrich-would-bring-a-big-china-problem-to-the-trump-campaign

Also:   http://www.jbs.org/mobile/jbs-news/featured-news/item/18245-is-newt-gingrich-vp-material

Also:   http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23192-newt-gingrich-globalist-conservative-as-trump-vp

The NRA Endorses Trump:




Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive130.htm

Also:  http://constitution.com/clintons-received-100-million-persian-gulf-leaders/

Also: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/hillary_clinton__career_criminal.html          Also:   http://patriotpost.us/articles/42715

“Let’s Rebuild The Nation Together”



“Every day on the news there are stories of well-organized protests.  I report from the California State Capitol which almost daily is ground zero for some group protesting a grievance.  As a political journalist, I am skeptical of most protests.  It does not matter if the protestors are wearing hard hats and orange vests and stand all day in front of an office building under construction, or a prominent restaurant feigning outrage showcasing a giant inflatable rat to passersby.  The recipe is always the same whether it’s a faculty walkout, a nurses walkout, minimum wage protests, Wall Street protesters, union members, or recently, students protesting University of California, Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi.  While every citizen is entitled to his or her own voice for a cause, the professional paid protesters who appear at protests all across the state and even across national borders are mercenaries.  The average employed American does not have the time to protest, yet we often see the same people at different protests around the state. Where does the funding for these rent-a-mobs come from?   Recently, at anti-Trump protests, protesters admitted they answered ads on Craigslist and were getting paid to protest Trump.  Orchestrated by supporters of Hillary Clinton, the protests are largely paid for by George Soros, MoveOn.org, reclusive billionaire Jonathan Lewis, and pushed by David Brock at Media Matters for America, the Daily Caller reported.

We also see protests coordinated by a few wealthy foundations bent on changing public policy.  Even more disturbing is the foundation grants aren’t disclosed publicly the same way campaign contributions are reported. Foundation nonprofit tax filings often do not become public until two years after money is spent.”







Also:    https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/state-sponsors-of-terrorism-us-planned-and-carried-out-911-attacks/

Also:   http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/05/27/911-disinformation-saudi-arabia-attacked-america-paul-craig-roberts/



Also:    http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-palestine-hoax?f=must_reads

“New York Times Lies About Trump and Women”



“Chicago journalist Dave Gorak said, ‘Americans don’t deserve the country they inherited’.   

With 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants flooding into America annually, you can bet the competition for jobs, water, resources and turf expects to accelerate. Again, America faces an added 100,000,000 (million) more immigrants within 30 years.  

Once that immigrant juggernaut lands, everybody becomes a victim.  

As you can see, this ‘immigration thing’ will become really ugly.  

Any culture that will not defend itself against displacement through mass immigration faces extinction.  That includes both time-tested and successful cultures.  Embracing diversity results in cultural suicide.   America’s multicultural path guarantees its destruction via cultural clashes and conflict with Islam, Mexican and African cultures that diametrically oppose American culture.  The more diverse a country, the more destructive and broken-down its future.  The more people, the more it destroys its quality of life and standard of living.  The more it adds immigrants, the more destruction to its environment. The more it imports refugees, the faster America, Canada, Europe and Australia lose their own ability to function and worse, their identities.  Exponential growth of any civilization leads to ultimate collapse.  You see it in Africa, India and China today.  You will see it in Europe, Canada, Australia and America in the coming years, IF Western countries don’t stop all forms of immigration.” 


            Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty1149.htm

Also:   http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty1150.htm


“SANCTUARY NATION”  –The Social Contract, Spring 2016


Also:   http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/artman2/search.cgi?action=search&keywordSearchFields=author&keyword=Michael%20W.%20Cutler&template=searchEngine/authorSearchResults.html





Also:   http://cis.org/Mortensen-Publications




 Celebrating The MEMORIAL DAY Sale:


Also:   http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/remember?f=must_reads

[ Video ]     http://lp.hillsdale.edu/memorial-day/?utm_source=housefile&utm_medium=email&utm_content=memorial_day&utm_campaign=memorial_day_2016&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8PBMw8F68JXcrrlYWUUWEngwSEl0w-44B3_7rm4r_FYCftUMhVEnjdEEAuNnW_qvWY_FXg8J1uAfaBC_l_-7LGA-A0-w&_hsmi=30039141

Also:    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/happy-memorial-day/?utm_source=campaigner&utm_campaign=5-27-16_Weekly_Update&cmp=1&utm_medium=email

Paul McGuire Ministries:


Jim Condit, Jr. Website:


Brothers On The Wall Website:


Gary North Website:


SHTF Blog:  http://us3.campaignarchive1.com/u=a6edb87a10f99f60acd7f8c96&id=81ebbece7f&e=6292c8a6ea

Forwarded Blog From American Border Patrol:

Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 09:53:27 -0700

Subject: INS: The Killing of California – ABP”


The Killing of California
A History Lesson

5-31-2016 11-23-03 AM

Glenn Spencer — American Border Patrol — May 12, 2016
I was there
    Alan C. Nelson, President Reagan’s head of Immigration and Naturalization Service, saw the serious error made by the US Supreme Court when it ruled that US Schools had to open their doors to anyone who wanted an education. The ruling was Plyler v Doe, and it started a flood of illegal immigration.
Nelson wanted the Supreme Court to revisit this mistake, so he helped create Proposition 187.
Proposition 187 passed overwhelmingly and it was on is way to the Supreme Court, but it was stopped by the very attorney who won the Plyler vs. Doe decision — Peter Schey.
But Schey didn’t do it all by himself, he had plenty of help from the Republican Establishment.
David Frum: Paul Ryan As Speaker Will ‘Carry The Day For Obama Immigration Plans’
As Bloomberg’s John Heilemann reported in 1996, “[Ryan’s] ties to the pro-immigration mafia ran deep. A protégé of [Cesar] Conda and an ally of [Rick] Swartz [founder of the pro-amnesty National Immigration Forum], Ryan was the staffer who had aided Jack Kemp and William Bennett in their crusade against [California’s] Proposition 187.”
I was a leader in the effort to pass Proposition 187.
Had Proposition 187 reached the Supreme Court chances are very good that it would have been found constitutional and illegal immigration would have all but ended in California.
Instead, 187 was killed — illegally — and the flood of illegal immigration increased. As a result, California is now a Hispanic State.
I have since learned that Paul Ryan played a key role in the Republican establishment’s effort to kill Proposition 187. In killing 187, Ryan killed California.
I know because — I was there.

Past Features

May 12, 2016

Newt Gingrich — The Establishment’s Conservative
The New American

NAFTA and GATT — In 1993, Gingrich proved himself invaluable to Clinton and the Democrats in Congress when he garnered enough Republican support to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the precursor for development of an eventual North American Union, following the same trajectory that has occurred in Europe with the emergence of the EU. (See the October 15, 2007 “North American Union” issue of The New American, especially “NAFTA: It’s Not Just About Trade” by Gary Benoit.) The next year he followed suit by supporting the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). As Minority Whip, he could have postponed the lame-duck vote on GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) that subjected Americans to the WTO. — Gingrich’s Benedict Arnold act helped to hand over the power to regulate foreign commerce, a power reserved in the Constitution to Congress alone, to an internationally controlled body, making America’s economic interests entirely at the mercy of the WTO.

May 11, 2016

Brandon Darby Urges Leaders to Visit Border ‘Breitbart Style,’ Experience What Agents See and Feel
The importance of political leaders traveling to the border to take the “Breitbart Border Tour,” was the topic Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon Darby discussed when joining Stephen K. Bannon and Alex Marlow on Breitbart News Daily. He said the unannounced, no law enforcement, dangerous tour in the darkness, no physical barrier to the “fricken beheading ISIS-like” Los Zetas Cartel, is designed to let politicians see and feel what Border Patrol agents feel. Darby said the tour was no “Potemkin Village.”…..

NC Senate bill would cut off funds to immigration ‘sanctuary cities’
Last year, the legislature voted to ban local governments from having “sanctuary city” policies that limit enforcement of immigration laws. — Now Republican senators want to cut off state funding to cities, towns and counties that don’t comply. — Since the sanctuary city bill passed last fall, local governments have been banned from preventing their law enforcement officers from asking about a suspect’s immigration status……

A Survey
Immigration Letters From Around the Country
For years Republican voters have been sold on the idea that “overwhelming military superiority” keeps America the “greatest country” in the world. — Donald Trump comes along and tells Republicans we are not a great country anymore because we allow illegal immigrants to take our jobs, and because companies move manufacturing overseas. Our government leaders fail to win trade agreements and wars in the Middle East, Trump says, and they fail to keep jobs in America……..

Trump: I’m considering Giuliani to head commission on immigration
Donald Trump is considering naming former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head a commission on immigration, he said Wednesday. — Asked about his proposed temporary ban on Muslims during a telephone interview with Fox News, Trump said under his administration the U.S. would look at immigration and study the problem. The real estate mogul added that “very bad things” are going on because the country doesn’t know who’s flowing into its borders……

Right Wing Watch
Dan Stein: Immigration Advocates Want To ‘Radically Alter’ The ‘Ethnic Base’ Of America
Dennis Michael Lynch devoted his entire Newsmax TV program on Friday night to discussing “Islam in America” with an entirely Muslim-free panel that included the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s Dan Stein and Act! for America’s Brigitte Gabriel. — Lynch, who began the segment by playing an excerpt of his recent anti-immigration film “They Come to America 3,” asked Stein why anybody who complains about immigration is labeled “a hater.”….

Phyllis Schlafly — GOPUSA.com
Immigration is behind the push for a third party candidate
Every four years, there is political chatter about trying to run a third-party candidate who will supposedly be more conservative than the Republican nominee. The lesson is the same every time this is tried: third-party candidates do not win because the United States is a two-party country. — The grumblings we hear about Donald Trump are mostly because of his strong stand against illegal immigration……

Hot Air
Illegal alien arrested again in Delaware after four deportations
Today we find yet another heartwarming story on the immigration front, this time from the northeast. You may recall that we recently discussed the story of a Mexican “undocumented immigrant” in Utah who was arrested after having been previously deported three time. That one sounded like it might set some sort of record, but if so it wasn’t one which stood for long. Richard Diaz-Garcia of the Dominican Republic puts that guy to shame. He was just arrested in Delaware after having been deported four times since 2000……

May 10, 2016

Huffington Post Posts Vicente Fox Giving Donald Trump the Finger
The Huffington Post has published a photograph (above) of former Mexican president Vicente Fox giving Donald Trump the finger, taken a day before Fox apologized to Trump in an interview with Breitbart News. — The photograph was originally shared on social media by Ben Mathis, host of the KickAss Politics podcast, which interviewed Fox last Tuesday……

The World Weekly
Panama becomes third Central American country to close borders to Cuban migrants
Panama has become the third Central American state, following Nicaragua and Costa Rica, to close key border crossings in recent months to Cuban nationals. — Migrant numbers have spiked as thousands of Cubans have flown to countries in Latin America from which they hope to travel to the US by land in recent months……

Buchanan: Who Promoted Private Ryan? ‘Losers Don’t Make Demands, They Make Pleas’
Forty-eight hours after Donald Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination with a smashing victory in the Indiana primary, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that he could not yet support Trump. — In millennial teen-talk, Ryan told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now.” — “[T]he bulk of the burden of unifying the party” falls on Trump, added Ryan. Trump must unify “all wings of the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.” Trump must run a campaign that we can “be proud to support and proud to be a part of.”…..

Paul Ryan Says U.S. Must Admit Muslim Migrants, Sends Kids to Private School that Screens Them Out
After the Paris terrorist attack, House Speaker Paul Ryan declared that the United States cannot turn away the hundreds of thousands of Islamist migrants now being approved for visas to enter the United States. Ryan declared that it is not “appropriate” to consider the religious attitudes of would-be migrants seeking admission……

Brawl Involving Dozens of Students Caught on Video at Sylmar High School
A caught-on-video lunchtime brawl involving dozens of students erupted Monday on the campus of Sylmar High School. According to a statement from the school principal, “disciplinary actions have been taken, their parents have been contacted and the investigation continues.” Steve Kuzj reports from Sylmar for the KTLA 5 News at 10 on Monday, May 9, 2016……

May 9, 2016

American Thinker
Overstayed your visa? No problem in Obama’s America
Of the more than half a million foreign nationals who overstayed their visitor visas, less than one percent ended up being deported, according to figures from the Department of Homeland Security. — Since 2009, the number of visa overstays who were deported has decreased every year…..

The Hill
Vicente Fox: Trump ‘lying’ to Latinos
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox says Donald Trump’s outreach to Latinos is a lie. — “His egocentric position has not changed,” Fox told Univision on Friday. — “Sitting down on Cinco de Mayo, eating an American taco, not a Mexican taco, and saying ‘I love you Hispanics?’ That’s lying again. That’s looking for TV. That’s not real.”…..

Ryan Challenger Nehlen at Border: ‘There’s No Security at All’
Businessman Paul Nehlen, who is challenging Speaker Paul Ryan in a primary to represent Wisconsin’s 1st District, joined Breitbart News Sunday on SiriusXM hosts Alex Marlow and Stephen K. Bannon to discuss his trip to the southern border with Breitbart Texas editor Brandon Darby. — “You come down here and there’s no security at all. There’s none. It’s shocking,” said Nehlen…..

Sheriff Joe: Republican Party ‘Playing Games’ to Stop Trump… They’ll Try Everything
Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos sat down with “America’s Toughest Sheriff” Joe Arpaio last week to discuss pink underwear, sanctuary cities, and the size of Donald Trump’s heart. — Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona discussed the intersection of his career in law enforcement with his career in politics……

Vicente Fox: Donald Trump Must Not Become ‘That Hated Gringo’
Former Mexican president Vicente Fox warned Wednesday that Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump could revive anti-Americanism around the world, causing the U.S. to be viewed as “that hated gringo.” — “This nation needs to keep leading the world, needs to keep showing the way like it has always done,” he added. “Nobody wants back the ‘ugly American.’”…..

Immigrants Use 41% More Welfare Benefits Than Native-Born
Immigrant-headed households use 41 percent more federal welfare benefits than their native-born counterparts, according to a new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. — The average household headed by an immigrant (both legal and illegal) in 2012 consumed $6,234 federal in welfare benefits, while the average native-headed households consumed $4,431 in benefits, says the CIS report, which is based on data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation……

Now email this gentleman and thank his for his hard work


5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Criminal Bankers Threaten Entire World Economy Helen Chaitman Greg Hunter Video



By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com

5-30-2016 10-33-42 AM

5-30-2016 10-34-12 AM

Helen Davis Chaitman was the lead attorney representing the victims of the $65 billion Bernie Madoff scam. Madoff had help form JP Morgan Chase Bank, and what she found out was stunning.  Chaitman explains, “JP Morgan Chase was the subject of a criminal complaint . . . it was charged with a criminal violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, which is a felony violation.  JP Morgan Chase disgorged a small percentage of the profits it made on the Madoff relationship, and the government called it quits.  Nobody was fired.  Nobody disgorged bonuses, they just went on doing other crimes.”

Chaitman, who wrote a book called “JP Madoff,” documented that JP Morgan Chase paid nearly $36 billion in fines for various crimes just in the last four years. Chaitman says all the big banks are basically criminal organizations, and “all of them regularly engage in fraud.” Chaitman also says, “I could have written this book about HSBC, Bank of America or Citi Group.  All the banks, and the government encourages them to do this, all of the banks have been operating like criminal enterprises. . . . The bankers have become such criminals it threatens the entire world economy.”

A key component in the Madoff fraud was Madoff never bought securities for his victims even though he claimed he did. The client statements were bogus, and Chaitman says JP Morgan Chase knew about the fraud for years.  Chaitman contends, “Madoff had a group of people, a small group of people, who were grossly over compensated, who would just make up the statements after the fact.  They had no securities.  They had no stocks.  They just had pieces of paper saying they had stocks. . . . Madoff never bought the stocks.  He just kept all the money, and in fact, that’s why JP Morgan liked him as a customer. He kept on deposit billions of dollars, and JP Morgan Chase was free to use that money for its own purposes.”

Why no jail time for the management at JP Morgan Chase for a slam dunk criminal fraud? Chaitman says, “We have a President who doesn’t believe criminal bankers belong in jail, and he appointed an attorney general, Eric Holder, who had this nonsensical rationalization that the banks were too big to put in jail.  In other words, JP Morgan Chase, America’s biggest bank, who does business with 50% of American households, and 80% of fortune 500 companies, should keep all the criminal bankers because we would not be able to operate without them.”

Chaitman says JP Morgan Chase alone has paid fines for multiple crimes and frauds. Chaitman explains, “They have admitted to violating the foreign exchange rules.  They pled guilty to a felony with respect to that. . . . They have defrauded veterans.  They have defrauded credit card holders.  They have defrauded homeowners.  There is no group of customers they won’t defraud if they can enhance their profits.  Yes, in the last four years alone, they have disgorged $36 billion as settlements of charges brought with respect to all these violations.”

Chaitman says the $36 billion in fines is just a fraction of the profit JP Morgan Chase is making by committing various frauds. Chaitman says, “If you look at their financial statements, they are generating huge profits.  That’s why everyone loves Jamie Dimon, but a lot of people loved Carlo Gambino too.  (Dimon reportedly has a net worth of $1 billion.)

Chaitman contends the big banks are like mobsters. Chaitman says, “There is no question about it.  They operate illegally because they can generate huge profits by doing so.  They go from one crime to another, and when they get caught committing one crime, nobody gets fired.  Nobody disgorges bonuses.  They just take those people and put them in a new area where they haven’t yet been prosecuted.”

What will happen to the customers of the big banks in the next financial meltdown? Chaitman warns, “The customers will be destroyed, and if the banks still have enough money to buy Washington, the government will protect them just like it has since 2008.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Helen Chaitman, author of the new book “JP Madoff.”

(There is much more in the video interview.)


After the Interview:

Chaitman is appealing two rulings in Florida and New York for victims of the Madoff fraud. She continues to try to get money back for victims from JP Morgan Chase.  You can keep up with Helen and the Madoff scandal by going to JPMadoff.com. There is also a book buying link on the home page.

Related Posts:


Related Articles


UN Seeks “Unprecedented” Amount of Data to Impose Agenda 2030


5-28-2016 9-09-39 AM


5-28-2016 9-11-14 AM

Written by  Alex Newman

The United Nations wants governments to provide more data — about everything. Apologists for tyranny and the widespread death it produces have long claimed that, if central planners only had more and better data with which to make decisions about your life, central planning might be less disastrous. Under the guidance of a senior Chinese Communist operative at the UN, humanity may be about to find out if that dubious claim is true — at least if there is not concerted action to stop the establishment’s UN Agenda 2030 to “transform” the world.

In its ongoing crusade to shackle the planet under the draconian UN vision, essentially an undisguised recipe for global socialism/fascism under the guise of “sustainable development,” the UN is demanding an “unprecedented” amount of data from every corner of the planet. Everything from the prevalence of UN indoctrination in schools to the subservience of national governments to the UN’s immigration demands will be tracked, measured, and analyzed as part of the “indicators” used to more effectively impose the UN’s sought-after transformation.

However, despite calling the data-gathering and -mining component the “final piece of the architecture for implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” the Communist Chinese agent leading the relevant UN bureaucracy that oversees it all said much work still remained. “Completing the indicator framework is of course not the end of the story — on the contrary, it is the beginning,” said UN Under-Secretary-General for the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Wu Hongbo (shown), a key player in the emerging global system being imposed under UN Agenda 2030.

“The SDG [Sustainable Development Goals] indicators will require an unprecedented amount of data to be produced and analyzed,” continued Wu, a high-level Communist Chinese operative who served as the brutal regime’s “assistant foreign minister” prior to taking over the powerful post at the UN from another anti-American Chinese Communist named Sha Zakung. “And it is evident that this will pose a significant challenge for national statistical systems, in developing as well as developed countries.” Not to worry, though, the UN and its wealthier member governments have already promised to help those regimes ruling “developing” country to build up the necessary data-gathering tools.

The data schemes are a critical component of the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals,” or SDGs, the series of radical demands that make up the UN Agenda 2030. These include everything from global wealth redistribution under the guise of reducing “inequality,” to globally standardizing indoctrination at schools worldwide under the guise of “education.” Agenda 2030’s 17 so-called SDGs and 169 “targets,” which the UN says will “transform the world,” were agreed to by governments and dictatorships around the world last year at a summit in New York City. Without serious resistance, the UN’s socialist agenda is set to be in place within 15 years.

To accomplish this top-down transformation of the planet and humanity, though, requires “global indicators” so that the establishment and its minions on the ground can be sure that, as Agenda 2030 promises, “no one will be left behind.” The UN said as much in its Agenda 2030 document, in point 48. “Indicators are being developed to assist this work,” the SDGs agreement explains. “Quality, accessible, timely and reliable disaggregated data will be needed to help with the measurement of progress and to ensure that no one is left behind.”

By disaggregated, the UN means broken down by “income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographical location, or other characteristics.” In short, the UN hopes to exploit a longtime strategy used by totalitarians everywhere: divide victims against each other using various characteristics to advance tyranny and keep everyone’s eyes off the “man behind the curtain.” In the United States, these establishment tactics have involved fomenting division between blacks and whites, men and women, middle class, working class, and upper class, and more.

The data that must be collected includes practically everything that would be needed to help impose a totalitarian global system on humanity and monitor its effectiveness in subjugating the population. For instance, in a document released last month, the UN Statistical Commission called for governments to track the “extent to which global citizenship education and education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in national education politics, curricula, teacher education and student assessment.” In other words, the UN wants to know how effectively its propaganda for global government and socialism is being disseminated in schools.

The radical UN document also demands that national governments track the “proportion of the population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed within the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law.” Stated another way, dictatorships will be able to make themselves out to be utopias, while freer countries that respect actual rights such as the United States will be painted as backwards and in need of UN intervention to remedy alleged violations of what the UN likes to call “international law.” And that is just the start of it.

More than 230 other “global indicators” will track everything from government spending on women’s programs and (national and international) welfare schemes, to how quickly governments are adopting the UN’s demanded policies on abortion, migration, environmentalism, state control over increasingly wide swaths of the economy, and more. That way, freer countries where government does not run individuals’ lives and treat them as cattle will rank lower on the Agenda 2030 “indicators,” facilitating intervention so that not a single person on the planet gets “left behind” by the UN’s radical agenda. The UN is also demanding biometric national identification cards for every person on the planet.

All of that data, the UN pseudo-treaty explains, is “key to decision-making,” and there will be a lot of decision-making made for you by the UN and its member regimes under Agenda 2030. And the data must come from every country in the world. When possible, the UN and its members — primarily undemocratic governments and dictatorships — will gather data and information from existing sources and mechanisms. But for all those countries without would-be omniscient governments vacuuming up data on everyone and everything, the UN will “intensify” its efforts to build and strengthen their data-gathering operations. The data collection should also be standardized, worldwide, the UN said.

“Our Governments have the primary responsibility for follow-up and review, at the national, regional and global levels, in relation to the progress made in implementing the Goals and targets over the coming fifteen years,” states the UN Agenda 2030 agreement. “The High Level Political Forum under the auspices of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council will have the central role in overseeing follow-up and review at the global level.” That’s the UN council led by the Chinese Communist, of course, whose regime boasted publicly of its “crucial role” in developing Agenda 2030 — or the Next “Great Leap Forward,” as former NATO boss Javier Solana, a socialist, described the UN plan.

Governments and dictators will hardly be the only sources of data for the increasingly power-hungry UN. In fact, the “private” sector, in conjunction with governments, will also play a key role. “We will promote transparent and accountable scaling-up of appropriate public-private cooperation to exploit the contribution to be made by a wide range of data, including earth observation and geo-spatial information, while ensuring national ownership in supporting and tracking progress,” the Agenda 2030 agreement explains. Search engine giants Google, Bing, and Yahoo have all indicated their fervent support for the UN’s scheming.

Beyond trying to gather all that data, the UN also hopes to re-frame the entire discussion and mindset surrounding the economy. Today, Gross Domestic Product is often used as an (admittedly imperfect) indicator of prosperity in a nation by, for example, dividing GDP by population. Under the UN agenda for so-called “sustainable development,” though, people will generally be much poorer, as the UN has itself acknowledged on multiple occasions. To conceal that fact, new indicators focusing on fraudulent and subjective things — Gross Domestic “Happiness,” for example — will at first “complement” GDP, and eventually replace it.

“By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries,” the agreement demands. “We are committed to developing broader measures of progress to complement gross domestic product (GDP).”

Technocracy News, which documents the global push toward global totalitarian-technocratic governance, highlighted the importance of the new UN push for data in a recent post. “Demonstrating the Technocratic mindset of the United Nations, we now see requirements being imposed for mountains of data that it seeks to collect from governments of the entire world,” it said. “This will not stop and the bar will be continually raised as the data collection progresses. Technocracy is just that close now.”

Fox News editor George Russell also explained the significance of the development. “The so-called ‘draft global indicators framework’ likely will add huge new volumes of information that governments collect as they measure progress toward what amounts to a global socialist or progressive agenda,” he explained, putting it mildly. “To the extent that the indicators are adopted or incorporated by national governments, such as that of the U.S., they will also provide a powerful reorientation of public debate as they filter into academic and policy discussions.”

In short, as The New American has documented extensively, the UN is waging a full-blown war on national sovereignty, self-government, and liberty through Agenda 2030. Essential to that war will be the ability to gather gargantuan amounts of data from around the world to ensure that the UN’s totalitarian SDGs are being imposed on every person on the planet. “As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind,” reads the UN manifesto, formally entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

There is nothing wrong with data, of course, and in some cases it can even be helpful to have. In this case, though, the data is being collected with one overarching goal in mind — the subjugation of mankind — and so, it should be opposed. Fortunately for the American people, the Obama administration knows the scheme would not be ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the U.S. Constitution, and so, will not submit it. Because of that, the UN agenda, along with the UN “climate” regime adopted in similar fashion, cannot be considered binding on the United States under any stretch of the legal imagination.

Still, the most effective way for Americans to quash the UN’s extremist agenda is to demand a complete U.S. withdrawal from the scandal-plagued “dictators club,” and an end to all American funding for it. Legislation to do that, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, is already sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee awaiting action. With enough pressure, the American people can still put a stop to the whole dangerous agenda. And that would be great news not just for the United States, but for all of humanity.

Photo: UN Under-Secretary-General for the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Wu Hongbo

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com“>.

Related articles:

UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism

At UN Summit, World Rulers Adopt Agenda for Global Socialism

Globalists and UN Push Mandatory Biometric ID for All

UN “Peacekeeping” Military Using Drones, With Obama’s Support

UN Aims to Trace the Transfer of All Guns and Ammo

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

China: Staking Claim in the New World Order

“Smart Cities” to Spy on You in Ways Orwell Never Imagined

Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your Kids

UN Plots Future of Education: Creating Green “Global Citizens”

Schooling for World Government: UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education Forum

UN Plotting to “Dramatically Alter” Your Views and Behavior

UN Goals for Humanity Target Children as “Agents of Change”

United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

State Sponsors of Terrorism: US Planned and Carried out 9/11 Attacks


but Blames Other Countries for them


MEMRI – Middle East Media Research Institute


On the eve of President Obama’s April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission’s conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]

The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayatpublished an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11, while placing the blame on a shifting series of others – first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia. He wrote that American threats to reveal documents that supposedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11 are part of standard U.S. policy of exposing archival documents to use as leverage against various countries – which he calls “victory by means of archives.”

Following are excerpts from Al-Shammari’s article:[3]

”Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country. Anyone revisiting… [statements by] George H.W. Bush regarding Operation Desert Storm might find that he acknowledged that the U.S. Army could have invaded Iraq in the 1990s, but that [the Americans] had preferred to keep Saddam Hussein around as a bargaining chip for [use against] other Gulf states. However, once the Shi’ite wave began to advance, the Americans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.

“September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings… Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed ‘victory by means of archives.’

“On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:

“1.   The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.

“2.   Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic…

“3.   The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country’s budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.

“Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.

“The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans’] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

“So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives.”


[1] Nytimes.com, April 15, 2016.

[2] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6397, Against Backdrop Of Obama’s Visit To Riyadh: Saudi, Gulf Press Furious At Allegations Of Saudi Involvement In September 11 Attacks, April 21, 2016.

[3] Al-Hayat (London), April 28, 2016.

Saudi Press Just Accused US Govt of Blowing Up World Trade Centers as Pretext to Perpetual War

Jay SyrmopoulosSaudi Arabia

5-27-2016 9-05-13 AM

By Jay Syrmopoulos

In response to the U.S. Senate’s unanimous vote to allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue Saudi Arabia in federal court, a report published in the London-based Al-Hayat daily, by Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari, claims that the U.S. masterminded the terror attacks as a means of creating a nebulous “enemy” in order garner public support for a global war on terror.

The report by al-Shammari, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), claims that long-standing American policy is “built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities,” which the U.S. has now turned toward the Saudi regime after being successfully employed against first the Taliban and al-Qaeda, then Saddam Hussein and his secular Baathist controlled Iraq.

Al-Shammari claims the recent U.S. threats to “expose” documents implicating the Saudi government are simply the continuation of a U.S. policy, which he refers to as “victory by means of archive.” He highlights that during the initial invasion of Iraq, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was left alive and in power to be used as “a bargaining chip,” but upon deciding that he was “no longer an ace up their sleeve” Washington moved to topple his government and install a U.S.-backed ruling party.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are now the “ace up the sleeve” of the U.S. government, according to al-Shammari.

“September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings… Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed ‘victory by means of archives.”

The impetus behind the attacks, writes al-Shammari, was to create “an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes” and that would provide justification for any “dirty operation” in any nation.

According to al-Shammari’s report in Al-Hayat:

“On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:

  1. The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.
  2. Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic…
  3. The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country’s budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.”

The Saudi press has been in a frenzy since the unanimous Senate vote to allow for the House of Saud to be held liable in U.S. federal court for the 9/11 attacks, with the U.S. being accused of being in alliance with Iran – to press warnings that passage of the “Satanic” bill would “open the gates of hell,” as reported by Breitbart.

Al-Shammari makes extremely clear that he views the problem as the U.S. imperial machine itself, stating, “the nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy.”

The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans’] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

While it seems fighting Islamic terrorism is great for increasing fear and State propaganda meant to elicit compliant civilian populations that passively accept loss of liberty for promises of greater security, the military-industrial complex needs a bigger enemy to justify their $600 billion dollar-a-year budgets, thus beginning the transition to labeling Russia/China as “aggressive Russia/China,” in an effort to begin to pivot away from one bogeyman to other, more profitable, ones.

Jay Syrmopoulos writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.


9/11 Disinformation: Saudi Arabia Attacked America


Paul Craig Roberts

The forever changing 9/11 story is entering a new phase. Blame is being transferred from Osama bin Laden to the Saudi Arabian government.

There are 28 pages classified secret of a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that allegedly found Saudi financial support for the alleged 9/11 hijackers. Neither the George W. Bush nor the Obama regimes would release the classified pages. Only a few members of Congress have been permitted to read it, and they are not permitted to speak about it. Nevertheless, Congress now has before it the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act which, if passed, permits families of victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue the Saudi Arabian government for damages. In other words, although Congress has no information except rumor with which to support the bill, Congress is going ahead. Obama says if Congress passes the bill, he will veto it.

The refusal to declassify the evidence against the Saudis and the veto threat have put many commentators in high dudgeon.

What is going on here?

One possible answer is that the public’s confidence in the 9/11 story is eroding as a result of growing expert opinion that challenges the official line. In order to redirect the public’s skepticism, a red herring is being pulled across the trail. The Saudi angle satisfies the belief that some sort of government cover-up is involved but redirects the suspicion from Washington to the Saudis. The Saudi angle also fits the neoconservatives’ original plan for overthrowing the Saudi government along with the governments of Iraq, Syria, and Iran. If the American people can be worked up against the Saudis, the neo-cons can get their wish for “regime change” in Saudi Arabia.

We are probably experiencing a deep state disinformation play designed to protect the false 9/11 story. The public’s skepticism is now directed at Saudi Arabia, and the public’s outrage is directed at the US government for covering up for the Saudis. Possible reasons that the report can’t be released are (1) it is just disinformation created as a red herring and if made public knowledgeable experts would expose it and (2) it is disinformation fed to the inquiry by neoconservatives who seized the opportunity to set up Saudi Arabia for attack.

No explanation has been provided as to why Saudi Arabia, with its long and tight connection to Washington and to the Bush family, has any interest in enabling a terrorist attack on the US. The Saudis need American protection. They have no interest in making their protector look so weak as to be humiliated by a handful of young men armed only with box-cutters. Such a weak protector is no protection.

Moreover, the Saudis are fighting the war in Yemen for Washington. If the Saudis want to harm the US, why not leave the US to fight its own war in Yemen?

Here is a Saudi’s take on the alleged involvement of Saudi Arabia in 9/11: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/05/26/state-sponsors-terrorism-us-planned-and-carried-out-9-11-attacks-but-blames-other-countries-them-out.html

Katib Al-Shammari says that the US planned and carried out 9/11 in order to obtain hegemony over the Middle East and placed the blame for 9/11 on an ever changing list of culprits depending on Washington’s goal at the time. First, he says, it was Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Then Saddam Hussein and Iraq. A New York Court blamed Iran. Now Saudi Arabia is given the villain role. The Americans, he says, always come up with suspicious documents and claim to have evidence that they never show.

Americans would greatly benefit from reading the perspective of others. Do read the Saudi’s explanation of 9/11. It makes more sense than the official story.


This has more of (The Ring of Truth) than anything I have read on this subject. Anyone supporting the UNITED STATES Inc. government is lacking in facts and common sense. Your sense of loyalty to America is distorting your common sense. Compare your opinions to the Un-Constitutional actions of these bastards over the last hundred years.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM






© Copyright 1994 Sovereign Services ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

A Brief History of Common Law

Until the 12th century, law in the western world consisted of written laws, called Civil Laws, all traceable to Roman Law. This basic system still prevails in many countries as well as in the state of Louisiana.

However, after the Norman conquest of Britain in 1066, a legal tradition called the “common law,” different from that of civil law, began to develop in England. In the 1100s during the reign of the legal reformer, Henry II, court decisions were written down and catalogued according to the types of cases. When the courts were called on to decide similar issues later, they reviewed the earlier decisions and if one was found that covered the earlier decision, they applied the principle of the earlier decision. They called this doctrine, “stare decisis,” a Latin term meaning “to stand by the decision.”

Under this rule of stare decisis, once a legal issue has been resolved as it applied to a particular set of facts, a court did not reconsider that legal issue in a later case where the factual circumstances were substantially similar. But this did not mean that every decision stood forever. However, the principle of stare decisis was a strong one, and judges were reluctant to discard well-established rules, and took great pains to explain a significant departure from a precedent.

During America’s colonial period, most of the English common law tradition did not change, and the new country continued to follow English common law. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, the Constitution, based upon the common law inherited from England, became the new foundation on which the American legal system was built.

If you’re interested in learning more about the history of common law, I recommend Origins of The Common Law by Arthur R. Hogue (LibertyPress, 7440 N. Shadeland, Indianapolis, IN 46250; 1985).

The Two Basic Common Laws

According to Richard J. Maybury (Whatever Happened to Justice? – Bluestocking Press, PO Box 1014, Placerville, CA 95667; 1993 – highly recommended), there are two fundamental common laws:

1.Do all you have agreed to do; 2.Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

“Do all you have agreed to do” is the basis for contract law. “Do not encroach… ” is the basis for criminal law and tort law. A “tort” is harm done to someone.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines encroach as: “To enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to trespass or intrude. To gain or intrude unlawfully upon the lands, property, or authority of another.”

Now consider the people who masquerade as “government.” They agreed to follow their Constitution. To what extent do they do this? And to what extent do they respect other persons or their property? Could it be that so-called “government” is simply common law turned upside-down?

The Code of Terra Libra

(1) Free Sovereign Citizens own their own lives, minds, bodies, and labor, and may do with them anything that doesn’t violate the equal rights of others. This principle of individual sovereignty or self-ownership is the foundation for all legitimate property.

(2) Free Sovereign Citizens have the right to own property, which consists of all possessions acquired without coercing others. They respect the equal right of others to own property, which forms the basis for productive and cooperative human relationships.

(3) No individual, group, or majority has the right to initiate or threaten force, fraud, violence, or theft against Free Sovereign Citizens or their property.

(4) Free Sovereign Citizens have a right to choose whether to communicate or associate with others. These rights of speech and privacy follow directly from the principle of individual sovereignty or self-ownership.

(5) Free Sovereign Citizens have the right to associate with others and to enter into agreements and contracts. For a contract between Free Sovereign Citizens to be valid, it needs to be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

(6) Free Sovereign Citizens have the right to produce and exchange property, and to own the products of their labor and thought. No individual, group, or majority has a right to the labor, ideas, production, or property of a Free Sovereign Citizen, or any part thereof, without prior consent or agreement.

(7) Free Sovereign Citizens have the right to defend and protect themselves and their property against coercive aggression, and to contract with others to assist them. The authority of voluntarily-chosen agents to defend or protect Citizens and/or their property is strictly limited to that defense or protection.

(8) Free Sovereign Citizens consider a crime to occur only when there is a damaged person or property. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “victimless crime,” and no Free Sovereign Citizen can commit a crime simply by disobeying the arbitrary rules of tyrants or coercive organizations.

(9) To be legitimate, courts and trials must be based on voluntary association and agreement, rather than on coercion. However, anyone who infringes on the person or property of another may be subject to a requirement for restitution by the damaged person.

(10) Free Sovereign Citizens recognize that social order and cooperation develop spontaneously in the absence of coercion. They also recognize that leadership by example and productive effort is more beneficial than leadership by force, violence, compulsion, or fear.

(11) The principles stated in this Code apply to all Free Sovereign Citizens without regard to age, race, religion, philosophy, background, birthplace, geographic location, gender, or sexual preference.

(12) For a right to be valid its exercise may not impose a positive obligation on another; it only depends on others not taking coercive actions. Free Sovereign Citizens respect the equal rights of other Citizens, and therefore do not expect others to contribute to their interests, except through voluntary transactions or contributions.

Notice that the Terra Libra Code is an extension of the two basic common laws.

The Distinction Between Free and Unfree

[This section is extracted from an article by Alfred Adask in the Nov/Dec 1992 issue of AntiShyster.]

•” On page 1238 of Black’s Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edition) we find the entry: “OMNES HOMINES AUT LIBERI SUNT AUT SERVI. All men are freemen or slaves. Inst. 1, 3, pr.; Fleta, 1. 1, c. 1, Sect. 2.” •This Latin dictum declares you must be either a “freeman” or a “slave.” Mutually exclusive categories. No middle ground. If you’re not one, you must be the other. It’s an interesting notion, but does this obscure Latin phrase have any current relevance to you and me? •Inst. 1, 3, pr.” is a reference to Justinian’s Institutes, a treatise on Roman Law compiled under the direction of Emperor Justinian, and first published in AD 533. This tells us that the freeman/slave dichotomy dates back at least 1,400 years in Western civilization and legal tradition. •The second reference – “Fleta, 1. 1, c. 1, Sect. 2.” – refers to an ancient treatise on the laws of England, called Fleta and written during the reign of Edward I in the late 13th Century or early 14th century. So the 6th Century Roman dictum of “slave or freeman” was still honored 800 years later in Fleta and, presumably, in the law of 14th Century England. •Black’s defines “free” as: “Not subject to legal constraint of another. Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in this sense as opposed to ‘slave’… Enjoying full civic rights… ” •Black’s defines “freeman” as: “A person in the possession and enjoyment of all the civil and political rights according to the people under a free government. In Roman law, it denoted one who was either born free or emancipated, and was the opposite of ‘slave.’ In feudal law, it designated an allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudal tenant. (And so in Pennsylvania colonial law. Fry’s Election Case, 71 Pa. 308, 10 Am. Rep. 698.) In old English law, the word described a freeholder or tenant by free services; one who was not a villein [slave of a feudal lord]. In modern legal phraseology, it is the appellation of a member of a city or borough having the right of suffrage, or a member of any municipal corporation invested with full civic right.“[An allodial proprietor or freeholder has an inalienable right to property. Someone whose property is subject to property tax is a vassal or feudal tenant.] •”Full civic right” suggests a person who enjoys all political rights, including the right to hold all public offices. In America, today, only 0.3% of the population – lawyers – can hold office in the judicial branch of government and the other 99.7% of us are denied that civic right. Taken together, the definition of “freemen” and the Roman dictum of freeman/slave dichotomy suggests that the only legal “freemen” in America are licensed lawyers, and conversely, the other 99.7% of us are “slaves.” Not a cheery thought. But what do lawyers have that we don’t? Education. Knowledge. And what does the Bible say? “My people perish from lack of knowledge.” Better start studying, folks. •Interesting to see how the 6th Century Roman concept of freeman/slave moved right along through feudal times, to old English law, and on to colonial Pennsylvania. That means the Roman legal concept of “freeman” not only crossed Europe and eight centuries to reach 14th Century England. It later crossed the Atlantic and four more centuries to appear in Pennsylvania law somewhere around 1700. •Article I, Section 2 of the Bill of Rights of the 1869 Texas State Constitution says, “All freemen, when they form a compact [voluntary agreement or contract], have equal rights; and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments or privileges.” So the term “freeman” was still in use and clearly part of American Law, as far west as Texas and as recently as 1869 – just over a hundred years ago. •[Article I (Bill of Rights), Section 2 of the Texas Constitution also states: “All political power is inherent in the people, and free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith on the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”] •If the legal term “freeman” was sufficiently resilient to cross one ocean, two continents, and thirteen centuries, it doesn’t take a great deal of faith or imagination to suppose the Roman freeman/slave dictum might still carry some weight in today’s American legal system. Which means that ancient, obscure Roman dictum still has relevance to your life and mine. •Black’s defines “slave” as: “A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another… One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master… “”

[Reprinted (with minor changes) with permission from the AntiShyster, PO Box 540786. Dallas, TX 75354-0786 – (214) 559-7957 – annual subscription $25.]

According to Arthur M. Hogue, “Medieval English common law, like Roman law, recognized only two great classes of men – free and unfree.” Freemen and slaves. Hale v. Henkel makes a distinction between the individual and the corporation – the freeman and the slave?

“There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its charter.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Particularly note, that the rights of the individual (freeman), precede the organization of the state. The common-law rights of the individual are senior to any contrary statutes or regulations. The people who masquerade as so-called “government” have used various means (covered below) to trick their victims to unwittingly submit to statutory jurisdiction.

Common Law Jurisdiction vs. Statutory Jurisdiction

It is possible for an individual or company to operate according to the basic principles of freedom inherent in human nature. Most fundamentally, these are the rights to own property, to engage in voluntary exchange, and the sanctity of contract. These are also basic common law rights. These principles are in accordance with the U.S. Constitution as intended by the American Founding Fathers. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: “No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” The individual’s right to contract is unlimited and no State may interfere with that right.

Very few Americans know that they have a fundamental choice: To live their lives and conduct their businesses under common law jurisdiction or under statutory jurisdiction. Common law is the law of the land, the law of the Constitution. Statutory law is legislated law. Richard Maybury refers to the two kinds of law as scientific law and political law.

The IRS makes this distinction between the two kinds of law:

“1. Common law comprises the body of principles and rules of action relating to government and security of persons and property which derive their authority solely from usages and customs or from judgments and decrees of courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs.

2. Statutory law refers to laws enacted and established by a legislative body.” IRS Manual, page 5041.1 Section 222.1.

Much of the original U.S. common law has been codified in a single Federal statute, the Uniform Commercial Code.

“The Code is complementary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code.” UCC 1-103.6.

The UCC provides the mechanism for making the choice between common law jurisdiction and statutory jurisdiction. It also states that the failure to make the choice results in the loss of common law rights.

“When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date.” UCC 1-207.9.

“The Sufficiency of the Reservation – Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as “without prejudice.”” UCC 1-207.4.

The specific method for reserving your common law rights – for choosing to operate under common law jurisdiction – is to write below your signature “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.” You could use this phrase on your driver’s license, on bank signature cards, and on contracts.

However, the people who masquerade as “government” may claim that any of the following subjects you to statutory jurisdiction:

•The 14th Amendment made you a “U.S. citizen” – as opposed to an American Sovereign or a citizen of one of the 50 states. •Having a birth certificate •Using a social security number. •Registering as a voter. •Having filed a federal tax return. •Having a driver’s license. •Having a vehicle registration. •Having a government marriage certificate. •Having children in a government school. •Having registered as a voter. •Having received a professional license (attorney, doctor, architect, engineer, etc.) •Being a director of a corporation. •Etc.

The people who masquerade as “government” may claim that all the above are “government benefits” which subject you to their jurisdiction. Several organizations provide services involving the systematic revocation of all the above and declaring your sovereignty. We’ve developed an “Affidavit of Truth” (price $49) to achieve the same objective.

Once you’ve established your status as a sovereign or state citizen, you then operate under common law jurisdiction, and you’re no longer subject to statutory jurisdiction.

One of the reasons for creating a Pure Contract Trust is that it is a common law entity not subject to statutory jurisdiction. The Trust then can do or own all the things you don’t want to be subject to statutory jurisdiction. Many people simply don’t want to be bothered with all the hassle it takes to become a sovereign. Of course, even if you do become a sovereign, it’s usually worth it to also use a Pure Contract Trust to keep certain assets and activities legally separate from yourself. In fact, if you do become a sovereign, this may put you on some government black list, therefore it may be especially prudent to use a Trust.

Practical Considerations in the Application of Your Common Law Rights

There are different approaches to applying your individual rights under common law. Which combination of approaches you use depends on your particular situation and preferences.

For example, some people prefer to make very public their intentions, status, and actions rights from the start. Some people believe that as a matter of moral principle it’s important to fully disclose in advance to various bureaucrats exactly what they think and do. This is certainly an honorable viewpoint to hold, and many people who are quite freedom-oriented subscribe to this methodology. With respect to disclosure of facts, this method parallels that of many philosophies of civil disobedience – which often hold that assertion of whatever right you are claiming must be fully disclosed and public to be properly and morally claimed.

Another approach is to think and do as you wish – of course, morally and properly according to individual rights principles based in common law. When confronted by a bureaucrat who might want to infringe on your common law rights, you can then make a more open and public assertion of your rights.

If appropriate, you could choose some middle ground between “full public disclosure in advance” and “waiting to be confronted before asserting your rights.” This approach does not necessarily mean rights are forfeited because you didn’t give COMPLETELY LOUD disclosure in advance. How can this be done?

As a declaration of intentions you could, for example, use our “Affidavit of Truth” [price: $49.00] by filing it with the County Recorder. For many people, this may be a good summary of their state of mind with regard to retaining, reserving, and using (when desired) individual rights secured by common law.

The reason this represents a middle ground between full disclosure to bureaucrats and no disclosure at all is that the act of filing the document with the County Recorder makes this declaration of your state of mind a matter of public record.

Higher profile is to send such a document (or similar declarations) directly to various bureaucrats. This may suit you better if it is morally important to you to give full accounting and disclosure to your enemies, no matter how much they may harm you. Another circumstance in which you may consider direct confrontation is when you are being attacked anyway. In this case, they already are after you and you may get better results by showing the bureaucrats very clearly that you are not “easy pickings” and that coming after you will cost them dearly in terms of time, effort, and money.

No public disclosure at all to assert your individual rights under common law may work well for you sometimes. In this case, being discrete about your affairs may reduce the chances of attack against you to nearly zero.

Public recording of your state of mind with the County Recorder does increase chances of attack against you some, but in many cases probably not much. There are thousands of Counties in the United States. Consider using a County Recorder some distance from where you spend most of your time. If you do that, the chances of any bureaucrat who might infringe on your individual common law rights ever noticing that you are in fact asserting those rights may well be close to zero!

U.S. Court Decisions

Today, the court decisions that are published and available in the law libraries, and thus become a part of common law, are almost always appellate court decisions, not trial court decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state Supreme Courts are part of the U.S. appellate court system. The appellate court opinions that appear in published form in the law library follow a format as follows:

1.The Facts, which are taken from the lower court’s determination. 2.The Issues, which are presented by the appealing parties. 3.The Ruling or Holding, which is the answer to the issues. 4.The Reasoning or Rationale, which is the discussion.

Most judges try hard to be consistent with decisions that they or a higher court have made. This consistency is very important to the common law tradition. For this reason, if you can find a previous court decision that rules your way on facts similar to your situation, you have a good shot at persuading a judge to follow that case and decide in your favor.

There are two basic principles to understand when you want to persuade a judge to rule your way. One is called “precedent authority,” and the other is called “persuasive authority. ”

Under precedent authority, using the principle of stare decisis (to stand by the decision), means that the court is compelled to uphold the earlier decision if there is nothing that makes the earlier decision different from the one being decided. If the earlier decision was a U.S. Supreme Court case, that case is binding authority on all courts in this country.

As a general rule, persuasive authority means the higher the court, the more persuasive its opinion. However, in the absence of a precedent case, such as the Lee Marvin case, which was the first major case establishing the principle of “palimony,” the Marvin case was considered persuasive authority by many out-of-state courts, although that case was not binding outside of California.

What bearing does all this have on Hale v. Henkel? We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court. Since it was the U. S. Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another U.S. Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another U.S. Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is “No.” As a matter of fact, since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of 1,600 times! Remember that in nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on the precedential authority of the cited case.

How does that compare with other previously decided U.S. Supreme Court cases? Although a careful study has not been made, initial observations have shown that only one other case (the Dartmouth College case – see Report #PCT08: The Sanctity of Contract) have surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

On the persuasive side, in Hale v. Henkel, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that was speaking, the Law of the Land. How much more persuasive can a case be!

One of the most popular tools available in the law libraries is called Shepard’s Citations. Shepard’s Citations is a series of publications, encompassing volumes, which identify all federal and state appellate cases. Shepardizing a case is a part of legal research with which all lawyers and judges are familiar. It is a process by which the present status of a case is evaluated as to how it has been affected by later cases; and the process of locating cases that might otherwise have been overlooked. A citation is simply a reference to a legal authority. A published or reported case is identified: (1) by the publication in which it appears, (2) by the volume number of that publication, and (3) by the page on which the case begins. Thus, the citation of Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, identifies the case as being on page 43 of volume 201 of United States Reports, which means the cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, if you see a case listed in a Shepard’s book under page 43 of volume 201 United States Reports, and the listed case is 934 F. 2d 743, then the cited case is 201 U.S. 43, Hale v. Henkel, and the citing case is 934 F 2d 743, because this case is citing Hale v. Henkel in its reasoning and ruling.

Here are some examples of the types of letter abbreviations you will find next to a citing case. Again, remember that a citing case is the case that has cited the case in which you are interested.

cc (connected case) – Different case from case cited but arising out of same subject matter or intimately connected therewith.

r (reversed) – Same case reversed on appeal.

d (distinguished) – Case at bar different either in law, or fact from case cited for reasons given.

j (dissenting opinion) – Citation in dissenting opinion.

o (overruled) – Ruling in cited case expressly overruled.

p (parallel) – Citing case substantially alike in respect of facts, issues, ruling, and reasoning of cited case.

Therefore, by the use of the letter abbreviations, it is not difficult, and extremely time efficient, to run down the citing cases of Hale v. Henkel and determine how each citing case was treated in its reference to Hale v. Henkel.

If you’re interested in obtaining a complimentary copy of a Shepard’s guide to legal research, call (719) 488-3000, or write to Shepard’s, PO Box 35300, Colorado Springs, CO 80935-3530, requesting free copies of their publications, “How to Shepardize” and “Questions and Answers.”

Court Rulings Contrary to the U.S. Constitution

America is unique in the world in that it has a constitution which is the senior law of the land and severely limits what government may do. Also, all government officials are supposed to swear an oath to uphold their constitution. Furthermore, the constitution includes a procedure for amending it. No court – including the U.S. Supreme Court – has the legal power to amend the constitution. This means that, applying a strict legal and logical test, only those court decisions that conform with the constitution are valid.

The practice, however, is very different. Generally, judges seem to operate on the basis that they’ll do whatever they can get away with.

As indicated in The Economic Rape of America: What You Can Do About It, most lawyers are of questionable character – to put it mildly! Most judges are lawyers wearing black robes. Furthermore, most of them are also political appointees. In my opinion, a case can be made that American judges are the worst criminals in the world. If you’d like some evidence to back up my opinion, I suggest you read With Justice for None by Gerry Spence.


Ideally, you need to conduct your affairs in such a way that you don’t have to go to court. It’s the enemy’s territitory – not a good place to fight! First, you attempt to organize matters so the enemy isn’t aware of you as a threat or potential target. Second, you take measures that, should you become visible to the enemy as a potential target, will induce the enemy to decide that you’ll be a very tough nut to crack, and there are much easier pickings elsewhere.

The Pure Contract Trust and the Affidavit of Truth are tools to assist you to achieve the above two objectives.

The enemy wants to rob you. That’s how he gets his income and makes a living. Ultimately, it’s your own determination, ingenuity, and resourcefulness that will deflect the enemy to seek out an easier mark.

Fortunately, if you’re well prepared, it’s relatively easy to win!


Other reports in this series:

#PCT01 – #PCT01A – #PCT02 – #PCT03 – #PCT04 – #PCT05 – #PCT06 – #PCT07 – #PCT07A – #PCT08 – #PCT09

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

What It Takes to Be President of the American Police State:


Anti-Big Money, Anti-War, Pro Constitution, Freedom-Loving Candidates, Need Not Apply


By John W. Whitehead
May 23, 2016

“The qualifications for president seem to be that one is willing to commit mass murder one minute and hand presidential medals of freedom to other war criminals in the next. One need only apply if one has very loose, flexible, or non-existent morality.”—Author and activist Cindy Sheehan

Long gone are the days when the path to the White House was open to anyone who met the Constitution’s bare minimum requirements of being a natural born citizen, a resident of the United States for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

Today’s presidential hopefuls must jump through a series of hoops aimed at selecting the candidates best suited to serve the interests of the American police state. Candidates who are anti-war, anti-militarization, anti-Big Money, pro-Constitution, pro-individual freedom and unabashed advocates for the citizenry need not apply.

The carefully crafted spectacle of the presidential election with its nail-biting primaries, mud-slinging debates, caucuses, super-delegates, popular votes and electoral colleges has become a fool-proof exercise in how to persuade a gullible citizenry into believing that their votes matter.

Yet no matter how many Americans go to the polls on November 8, “we the people” will not be selecting the nation’s next president.

While voters might care about where a candidate stands on healthcare, Social Security, abortion and immigration—hot-button issues that are guaranteed to stir up the masses, secure campaign contributions and turn any election into a circus free-for-all—those aren’t the issues that will decide the outcome of this presidential election.

What decides elections are money and power.

We’ve been hoodwinked into believing that our votes count, that we live in a democracy, that elections make a difference, that it matters whether we vote Republican or Democrat, and that our elected officials are looking out for our best interests. Truth be told, we live in an oligarchy, and politicians represent only the profit motives of the corporate state, whose leaders know all too well that there is no discernible difference between red and blue politics, because there is only one color that matters in politics—green.

As much as the Republicans and Democrats like to act as if there’s a huge difference between them and their policies, they are part of the same big, brawling, noisy, semi-incestuous clan. Watch them interact at social events—hugging and kissing and nudging and joking and hobnobbing with each other—and it quickly becomes clear that they are not sworn enemies but partners in crime, united in a common goal, which is to maintain the status quo.

The powers-that-be will not allow anyone to be elected to the White House who does not answer to them.

Who are the powers-that-be, you might ask?

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the powers-that-be are the individuals and corporations who profit from America’s endless wars abroad and make their fortunes many times over by turning America’s homeland into a war zone. They are the agents and employees of the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex, and the surveillance-industrial complex. They are the fat cats on Wall Street who view the American citizenry as economic units to be bought, sold and traded on a moment’s notice. They are the monied elite from the defense and technology sectors, Hollywood, and Corporate America who believe their money makes them better suited to decide the nation’s future. They are the foreign nationals to whom America is trillions of dollars in debt. The International Central Banking Cartel!

One thing is for certain: the powers-that-be are not you and me.

In this way, the presidential race is just an exaggerated farce of political theater intended to dazzle, distract and divide us, all the while the police state marches steadily forward.

It’s a straight-forward equation: the candidate who wins the White House will be the one who can do the best job of ensuring that the powers-that-be keep raking in the money and acquiring ever greater powers. In other words, for any viable presidential candidate to get elected today that person must be willing to kill, lie, cheat, steal, be bought and sold and made to dance to the tune of his or her corporate overlords.

The following are just some of the necessary qualifications for anyone hoping to be appointed president of the American police state. Candidates must:

Help grow the military-industrial complex: Fifty-five years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the growth of the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell address, the partnership between the government, the military and private corporations has resulted in the permanent militarization of America. From militarized police and the explosive growth of SWAT teams to endless wars abroad, the expansion of private sector contractors, and never-ending blowback from our foreign occupations, we have become a nation permanently at war. As the New York Times pointed out, “the military is the true ‘third rail’ of American politics.” The military-industrial complex understands the value of buying the presidency, and has profited from the incessant warmongering of Obama and his predecessors. If money is any indicator of who the defense industry expects to win this November, thus far, Hillary Clinton is winning the money race, having collected more campaign contributions from employees with the 50 largest military contractors.

Police the rest of the world using U.S. troops: The U.S. military empire’s determination to police the rest of the world has resulted in more than 1.3 million U.S. troops being stationed at roughly 1000 military bases in over 150 countries around the world, including 48,000 in Japan, 37,000 in Germany, 27,000 in South Korea and 9800 in Afghanistan. That doesn’t include the number of private contractors pulling in hefty salaries at taxpayer expense. In Afghanistan, for example, private contractors outnumber U.S. troops three to one. Now comes the news that the U.S. is preparing to send troops to Libya on a long-term mission to fight ISIS.

Sow seeds of discord and foment wars among other nations under the guise of democracy: It’s not enough for the commander-in-chief to lead the United States into endless wars abroad. Any successful presidential candidate also needs to be adept at stirring up strife within other nations under the guise of spreading democracy. The real motive, of course, is creating new markets for the nation’s #1 export: weapons. In this way, the U.S. is constantly arming so-called “allies” with deadly weapons, only to later wage war against these same nations for possessing weapons of mass destruction. It happened in Iraq when the U.S. sold Saddam Hussein weapons to build his war machine. It happened in Syria when the U.S. provided rebel fighters with military equipment and munitions, only to have them seized by ISIS and used against us. Now comes the news that President Obama has agreed to sell weapons to Vietnam, lifting a decades-long embargo against the nation whose civil war claimed the lives of more than 90,000 Americans.

Speak of peace while slaughtering innocent civilians: Barack Obama’s campaign and subsequent presidency illustrates this principle perfectly. The first black American to become president, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize long before he had done anything to truly deserve it. He has rewarded the Nobel committee’s faith in him by becoming one of the most hawkish war presidents to lead the nation, overseeing a targeted-killing drone campaign that has resulted in thousands of civilian casualties and deaths. Ironically, while Obama has made no significant effort to de-escalate government-inflicted violence or de-weaponize militarized police, he has gone to great lengths to denounce and derail private gun ownership by American citizens.

Prioritize surveillance in the name of security over privacy: Since 9/11, the Surveillance State has undergone a dramatic boom, thanks largely to the passage of the USA Patriot Act and so-called “secret” interpretations of the mammoth law allowing the NSA and other government agencies to spy on Americans’ electronic communications. What began as a government-driven program under George W. Bush has grown under Obama into a mass surveillance private sector that makes its money by spying on American citizens. As Fortune reports, “In response to security concerns after 9/11, Americans witnessed the growth of a massive domestic security apparatus, fueled by federal largesse.” That profit-incentive has opened up a multi-billion dollar video surveillance industry that is blanketing the country with surveillance cameras—both governmental and private—which can be accessed by law enforcement at a moment’s notice.

Promote the interests of Corporate America and Big Money over the rights of the citizenry: Almost every major government program hailed as benefiting Americans—affordable healthcare, the war on terror, airport security, police-worn body cameras—has proven to be a Trojan Horse aimed at enriching Corporate America while leaving Americans poorer, less secure and less free. For instance, the so-called “affordable” health care mandated by Congress has become yet another costly line item in already strained household budgets for millions of Americans.

Expand the powers of the imperial president while repeatedly undermining the rule of law: George W. Bush assumed near-absolute power soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Unfettered by Congress or the Constitution, Bush led the “war on terror” abroad and championed both the USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security Department domestically. This, of course, led to the Bush Administration’s demand that presidential wartime powers permit the President to assume complete control over any and all aspects of an international war on terrorism. Such control included establishing military tribunals and eliminating basic rights long recognized under American law.

When Barack Obama ascended to the presidency in 2008, there was a sense, at least among those who voted for him, that the country might change for the better. Those who watched in awe as President Bush chipped away at our civil liberties over the course of his two terms as president thought that perhaps the young, charismatic Senator from Illinois would reverse course and put an end to some of the Bush administration’s worst transgressions—the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, the torture, the black site prisons, and the never-ending wars that have drained our resources, to name just a few. As we near the end of Obama’s two terms in office, that fantasy has proven to be just that: a fantasy. Indeed, President Obama has not only carried on the Bush legacy, but has taken it to its logical conclusion. Obama has gone beyond Guantanamo Bay, gone beyond spying on Americans’ emails and phone calls, and gone beyond bombing countries without Congressional authorization. As journalist Amy Goodman warned, “the recent excesses of U.S. presidential power are not transient aberrations, but the creation of a frightening new normal, where drone strikes, warrantless surveillance, assassination and indefinite detention are conducted with arrogance and impunity, shielded by secrecy and beyond the reach of law.”

Act as if the work of the presidency is a hardship while enjoying all the perks: The race for the White House is an expensive, grueling horse race: candidates must have at a minimum $200 or $300 million or more just to get to the starting line. The total cost for this year’s election is estimated to exceed $5 billion and could go as high as $10 billion. However, for the winner, life in the White House is an endless series of star-studded dinner parties, lavish vacations and perks the likes of which the average American will never enjoy. The grand prize winner will rake in a $400,000 annual salary (not including $100,000 a year for travel expenses, $19,000 for entertaining, $50,000 for “general” expenses and last but not least, $1,000,000 for “unanticipated” expenses), live rent-free in a deluxe, 6-storey, 55,000 square foot mansion that comes complete with its own movie theater and bowling alley, round-the-clock staff, florists, valets and butlers. Upon leaving the White House, presidents are gifted with hefty pensions, paid staff and office space, travel allowances and lifetime medical care. Ex-presidents can also expand upon their largesse by writing books and giving speeches (Bill Clinton was given a $15 million advance for his memoir and routinely makes upwards of $100,000 per speech).

Clearly, it doesn’t matter where a candidate claims to stand on an issue as long as he or she is prepared to obey the dictates of the architects, movers and shakers, and shareholders of the police state once in office.

So here we are once again, preparing to embark upon yet another delusional, reassurance ritual of voting in order to sustain the illusion that we have a democratic republic when, in fact, what we have is a dictatorship without tears. Once again, we are left feeling helpless in the face of a well-funded, heavily armed propaganda machine that is busily spinning political webs with which the candidates can lure voters. And once again we are being urged to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Railing against a political choice that offers no real choice, gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson snarled, “How many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?”

Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM





By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
May 24, 2016


Under these circumstances, no common ground can be found, no dialogue conducted, no compromise reached between “the good People” and their candidate for “the Office of President”, on the one side, and the Establishment and its candidate, on the other—any more than common ground, dialogue, and compromise are possible between justice and injustice, “the general Welfare” and the avarice of special interests, or what the Second Amendment calls “the security of a free State” as opposed to the oppression of a police state. One side or the other must prevail. In this struggle, as General MacArthur said: “There is no substitute for victory.”

  1. Mr. Trump (or any authentic political “outsider”) can depend only on “the good People”; and “the good People” can depend only on him. But to gain their confidence, Mr. Trump must take “the good People” into his confidence, with confidence that, knowing what he intends to do and why and how he intends to do it, they will rally to him through every vicissitude which awaits them.
  2. He must convince “the good People” that he is committed to fighting the battle, both before and especially after his election, on their, not their enemies’, terms. At the minimum, that requires bringing into his campaign, and eventually into his Administration, a set of advisors not drawn from the ranks of the professional political courtiers who have carried water for prior Administrations. The sorry records of those Administrations provide conclusive evidence that these individuals’ misguided conceptions of “public service” have been the primary causes of, and therefore will never provide the solutions for, America’s woes.
  3. Mr. Trump must emphasize that no one can “make America great again” unless and until “the good People” steel themselves to yank this country by its bootstraps out of the very deep hole into which past generations of incompetent and disloyal politicians have cast it. In line with the old adage that “a pessimist is an optimist who knows the facts”, he must warn “the good People” that a great deal of economic pain and social unrest will be unavoidable in the short term—and that stern measures must be implemented, prodigious efforts expended and costs incurred, and agonizing sacrifices endured in the near term—if the necessary reforms are to be achieved in the long run. That he is the one Presidential candidate ready and willing to take charge and shoulder responsibility is not enough. For he can succeed only if “the good People” are prepared to do their part to the utmost of their abilities. He can be no more than the obstetrician for America’s renaissance; “the good People” must give birth to it.
  4. Glittering generalities, “sound bites”, and slogans will not suffice. Rather, Mr. Trump must set out with specificity the nonnegotiable reforms his Administration will implement. Here, I can touch on only a few of these, and only in a limited fashion:

(a) In furtherance of the President’s oath of office—that he “will to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”—Mr. Trump must promise to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Without that as the guiding principle and constant practice of his Administration, nothing of permanent value will be achieved.

(b) In fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence, he must assure “the good People” that he will bend his every effort to preserve this country’s national sovereignty, integrity, and identity—not only by securing its borders against invasions of illegal aliens, but also by rooting out those internal subversives who are employing “multiculturalism” as a battering-ram to break down America’s political and social cohesion, preliminary to the submergence of “the good People” in a supra-national “new world order” which will eradicate “the separate and equal station” “among the powers of the earth * * * to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”.

That “the political class” and its mouthpieces in “the mainstream media” have attacked Mr. Trump with the ferocity of mad dogs because of his rather mild pronouncements to date on the issue of illegal immigration demonstrates how critical the elimination of America’s national independence and integrity is to the Establishment’s achievement of its long-range goals—and therefore how vital the preservation of that independence and integrity is to “the good People’s” permanent interests. I characterize Mr. Trump’s pronouncements as “rather mild”, because he has yet to point out that, perforce of both general constitutional principles and specific statutes, a patriotic President is entitled to, and can, stop alien invasions in their tracks. See my NewsWithViews commentaries “How the President Can Secure the Borders” (18 August 2015) and “A Trumped-Up Controversy” (20 February 2016).

(c) Because “representative government” cannot function if Americans do not know what their ostensible “representatives” are actually doing, and why they are doing it, Mr. Trump must promise “the good People” that he will STOP the present-day fetish of governmental secrecy and lies (which depend upon secrecy for their efficacy). His Administration must open the public records to public inspection to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional definition of “national security”—that is, the security of the nation, not the security of “the political class” and its string-pullers in the Establishment.

For a prime example, Americans must be afforded access to all of the public (and, to the extent possible, private) records concerning the 9/11 event; and those records must be subjected to the most wide-ranging critical analyses, letting the chips fall where they may. In addition to that, novel methods for elucidation of the truth must be employed. Being something of a scientist myself, I favor actual experiments. Every theory which can be disproved through experiment must be discarded. So, as a scientific first step in testing prior Administrations’ theories of what happened on 9/11, Mr. Trump should promise that his Administration will build an exact replica of World Trade Center Building 7 as it existed on that fateful day—set it on fire—and see whether or not it collapses into its own footprint at near free-fall speed, as did the original. If it does not, certain conclusions can be drawn, on the basis of which further actions can be taken. In light of the serious consequences which this country has already suffered, and will continue to endure, because of the Establishment’s theories of 9/11, whatever such an experiment may cost will hardly be excessive.

(d) Mr. Trump should explain to “the good People” that, by setting aside all constitutionally unwarranted governmental secrecy, his Administration will be able to enforce the Bill of Rights and other constitutional and statutory guarantees of Americans’ freedoms in a rigorous fashion against rogue public officials and their co-conspirators in the private sector. The Constitution’s goal to “establish Justice” can never be fulfilled except perforce of the principle that no one is “too big to jail”. For far too long “the political class” has been able to sweep its serial malfeasances under the rug, either through the wrongdoers’ suppression of the evidence of their wrongdoing, or by grants of “immunity” to one set of wrongdoers by another set of wrongdoers when wrongdoing slips into the light of day. The time has come to employ a firmer broom in more trustworthy hands. For, as the old saying has it, “a new broom sweeps clean”—and an iron broom sweeps cleaner yet. Such a thoroughgoing housecleaning is especially needed with respect to those rogue officials whose “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object” has “evince[d] a design to reduce [Americans] under absolute Despotism”. As the apt slogan of the Navy’s “Silent Service” had it in World War II, “find them, chase them, sink them”.

(e) Of all possible wrongdoing by rogue public officials, nothing could be worse than fomenting international warfare. Not only because modern warfare is hideously homicidal and egregiously expensive, but especially because the prosecution of wars abroad inevitably encourages the imposition of despotism at home. “[T]he common defence” is the constitutional standard. Therefore, Mr. Trump must assure Americans that he will end America’s involvement in aggressive military adventures overseas. Moreover, he must guarantee that he will see all of those rogue public officials who and the private special interests which have fomented or otherwise been responsible for or otherwise complicitous in such adventures brought to justice, through execution of those “Laws of the Union” which enforce the principles of the Nuremberg tribunal. See Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1946), Volume I, arts. 6(a), 7, 8, and 9, at 5-6. See also my NewsWithViews commentary “A New Nuremberg Moment” (6 September 2013). After all, these crimes—steeped in conspiracy and aggression—have resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of needless deaths and injuries; destruction of the political integrity, social stability, and economic viability of whole countries; and huge wastage of resources by “military-industrial complexes” in both the United States and the other nations which have foolishly participated in these operations. And they continue even today, unabated in their savagery. See, e.g., Felicity Arbuthnot, “US Apocalypse in Mosul in the Guise of Bombing ISIS”. For such wrongdoing there can be neither excuse, nor exoneration, nor expunction from the pages of history.

Mr. Trump recently announced his “foreign policy” with a rousing speech. Yet it lacked the clarity and wisdom of George Washington’s Farewell Address with respect to foreign affairs, alliances, and the like. (Indeed, Mr. Trump could not go wrong by adopting as his guiding principles all of the tenets of that document.) Much of his speech was, as the wag once said, “déjà vue all over again”. To be sure, Mr. Trump’s reliance on the principle of, shall we say, “strength at home, businesslike diplomacy abroad” is a workmanlike approach, along the lines of Theodore Roosevelt’s precept, “speak softly and carry a big stick”. Nonetheless, I wonder how anyone can imagine, on the one hand, that this country cannot control its own borders to the extent of repelling an invasion of illegal aliens from a nation as militarily impotent as Mexico, but, on the other hand, that it can deploy to the very frontiers of Russia and China sufficient forces to awe those powerful nations into sheepish compliance with policies dictated from the District of Columbia at odds with their own compelling national interests. Indeed, one need look only to the débâcles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to understand the limits the real world imposes on the hubris and fantasies of American military interventionists. (The only saving grace here is that Mr. Trump evidently desires to avoid a major war, whereas Hillary Clinton would likely prove a worse warmonger, and more feckless a war-fighter, than even George W. Bush.)

Finally, Mr. Trump’s promise to crush ISIS militarily rests on the naïve premiss that ISIS is some truly “foreign” force. He would do better first to investigate whether ISIS is in large measure the product of the devious intentions or simple-minded incompetence of the CIA and the Pentagon—and that therefore the initial step in the process of eradicating ISIS must be a thoroughgoing housecleaning of those agencies. (A parallel investigation should be conducted to determine the extent to which certain of America’s ostensible “allies” are at fault in this matter, too.) Mr. Trump might also want to inquire, for example, why the NSA, the DIA, the CIA, the FBI, FINCEN, the IRS-CID, and other intelligence and law-enforcement agencies at home and abroad have not been able (or willing) to employ their extensive networks of surveillance to ferret out the sources of and routes for ISIS’s funding. After all, although logistics is not everything, everything depends on logistics. How does ISIS raise its revenue and pay its bills? Who are ISIS’s bankers, money-launderers, and so on? And why have they not been exposed, and steps taken to eradicate their operations? Inquiring minds surely want to know.

(f) As far as “domestic policy” is concerned , it will be essential for a Trump Administration to restore the two great powers of government—the Power of the Sword and the Power of the Purse—to “the good People’s” own hands. For no one else is sufficiently trustworthy to exercise them.

(i) Restoration of the Power of the Sword will require revitalization of the Militia, about which I have written extensively elsewhere. Only by “call[ing] forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union” will “the good People” finally be able to deal with those combinations too powerful to be suppressed by ordinary means, the continued toleration of which threatens to destroy this country within the lifetimes of most of the readers of this commentary. In particular, see my NewsWithViews commentary “Donald Trump and the Militia” (20 February 2016).

Revitalization of the Militia will also be necessary to enable “the good People” to deal in a constitutional fashion with the social unrest which will arise out of the economic dislocations and hard times this country will have to endure as part of the price of rebuilding the national economy. See, e.g., my book By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”.

(ii) Restoration of the Power of the Purse will require bridling the banks—first and foremost, by compelling them to provide Americans with a constitutional and economically sound monetary unit to compete with, and eventually supplant, the Federal Reserve Note as this nation’s primary currency. See, e.g., my NewsWithViews commentaries “A Cross of Gold” (10 May 2011) and “Presidential Questions” (9 May 2015). It will also necessitate coming to grips with the problem of the unpayable national debt—not by imposing “austerity” on “the good People”, but by recognizing that much of this debt has been incurred unconstitutionally (in terms of international law, is so-called “odious debt”), and is therefore unenforceable. See, e.g., my NewsWithViews commentary “A Cross of Debt” (10 February 2012). As a successful entrepreneur, Mr. Trump surely understands that long-term business-relations, whether of a corporation or an entire country, cannot be conducted on the basis of the uncertain value of an unstable “rubber” currency, and that sometimes a declaration of bankruptcy and concomitant cancellation of some and restructuring of other debts is unavoidable.

(g) In even the short run, little will be accomplished unless and until a Trump Administration breaks the electoral stranglehold of the “two” major political parties and the string-pullers behind them. This will require radically diminishing, if not eliminating altogether, the ability of organized wealth to maintain the oligopoly of those parties, to suppress or capture legitimate political movements, and thereby perpetually to misdirect the course of elections. That a handful of multi-billionaires, primarily through the mega-corporations they own and the myriad special-interest groups they spawn and finance, are suffered to dominate political affairs in this country, setting “the good People” at defiance in election after election, directly contradicts any rational conception of “representative government” and “the general Welfare”. Not only is that state of affairs unsound in principle, but also it has turned out disastrously in practice. For all too long, these individuals and institutions have controlled the composition of Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary, as well as much of State and Local government—the consequence being the mess in which this country now finds itself at every level of the federal system. The simplistic theory that “corporate money” can be equated with “free speech” in the political realm has been tested by experiment, and found woefully wanting. (To be sure, it might be argued that the corruption and degeneration of American politics have been the products, not of the injection of wealth per se into politics, but only of the faulty ideas that such injection has promoted, and that if the wealthy were to marshal their resources on behalf of good ideas this country would benefit. Yet there is no denying that, only as a consequence of the massive amounts of irresponsible wealth behind them could the bad ideas prevalent today have become dominant in the political arena. And in politics one must be extremely risk-averse, because the risks of error are too great to be accepted.)

The exclusion of “corporate money” from politics may appear to be a problematic goal, because of the false notion promulgated by the Supreme Court that corporations are “persons” with constitutional rights equivalent to those of real flesh-and-blood individuals. The “personhood” of corporations, however, is merely a sorry legal fiction. Actually, it is a piece of pseudo-legalistic balderdash, coming as it does from a Court with the effrontery to claim that actual human beings who happen to be unborn are not constitutional “persons”. In any event, no need exists for a constitutional amendment to recognize the self-evident truth that corporations have no inherent rights, but rather are merely the creatures of statutes, with only such legal relations (rights, powers, privileges, immunities, and so on) as those statutes grant, and which other statutes can deny, to them. Whatever it may have opined on this subject in the past, the Supreme Court has a long history of changing its mind on constitutional questions. See, e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828-830 & note 1 (1991). So it is not too much to expect that the Court can be persuaded to reverse itself on this issue, too. And if the Justices refuse to come to their constitutional senses, they can be shown the door; for their tenure is solely “during good Behaviour”, which subversion of the political process in favor of faux “persons” can never be.

Admittedly, the foregoing may constitute no more than a “wish list” for a true Presidential “outsider” who has yet to appear. For only the future will tell whether Mr. Trump is such a man. Yet one must always live in hope. If an obscure commentator such as this author, living in the remote “Canoe Capital of Virginia”, can figure out some of what needs to be done, then so can an eminent real-estate shark from the Big Apple.


Ultimately, though, the critical question is not “Can Trump do it?” or even “Will Trump do it?”, but instead “If Trump tries to do it, will ‘the good People’ do their part?” Will they demand his nomination, secure his election, and then stand behind his Administration?

As it always does, time will tell. Some Americans may yet imagine that this country can still play for time. But, as the old saying has it, time brings all things, bad as well as good. And anyone who can tell time knows that “the good People” are running out of time. It really may be “now or never”. If “the good People” do not triumph by electing a true “outsider” to “the Office of President” this November, America’s fate may be sealed, once and for all, in the worst tragedy of modern times.

© 2016 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-Mail: Not available

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM







Thoughts and Comments of a Rebel nature maddening to the status quo.

The Rebel Madman

(Authors note: Several readers have asked about the importance of covering the fact Madison, Hamilton, and others were pushing a nationalist form of government. This information is critical because the nationalist/monarchical form of government that was introduced and supported by Madison, Hamilton and others was repeatedly defeated, both in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the subsequent state ratifying conventions. Unfortunately, what our founders intended, a Republic, has long since been abandoned for the nationalist form of government the majority opposed. In fact, our government has morphed into a National Socialist form of government not ideologically different than the National Socialist government of Germany in the 30’s and 40’s.)

Regardless of how many times you read it, or how many revisionist court historians write it, there is absolutely no evidence available which indicates there was a groundswell of support among the people for abandoning the Articles of Confederation.

Where might one go to discover the truth of my allegation? Why not to the words of the man who most wanted to change the limitations of the Articles to a form of government much more to his liking; a monarchy, and failing that, a strong centralized national government: Alexander Hamilton. Here it is in his words.

Men of intelligence, discovered the feebleness of the structure, [Articles of Confederation] but the great body of the people, too much engrossed with their distresses to contemplate any but the immediate causes of them, were ignorant of the defects of their Constitution.”

Patrick Henry of Virginia saw through the deception; he did not believe the Articles were weak. Speaking to the subject he said:

“The Confederation; this same despised Government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war. It rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation: it has secured us a territory greater than any Monarch possesses. And a government which has been thus strong and vigorous be accused of imbecility and abandoned for a want of energy…Why then tell us dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? And yet who knows the dangers this new system may produce; they are out of sight of the common people. It is for them I fear the adoption of this new system. Sir, it is the fortune of a free people, not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves.”

We know that the framers of the Articles of Confederation had included the following in Article II of our first Constitution.

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

This was one of the conditions present in the Articles that the nationalists/monarchists knew they had to eliminate. They simply did not want to contend with the ideas, questions and objections from 13 different colonies but instead wanted to have the people in aggregate (a nation) controlled by a central, all-powerful form of government, which they would, of course, lead. Just check how many so-called Federalists would serve in their newly created government. This would leave the states having very little to no voice in how they would be governed. Is any of this beginning to sound familiar?

The states, “retaining their sovereignty, freedom and independence” from the control of “men of intelligence” as Hamilton had described himself and his cronies would have as their government a confederated republic, the complete antithesis of a nationalist form of government. In addition, none of the “men of intelligence” wanted a government that would be limited to those powers which would be “expressly delegated” through the “consent of the governed.”

Again, understanding the difference between “expressly delegated” powers and “granted” powers is to understand the crucial difference in tyranny and limited, representative government. Expressly delegated means there is no room for “interpretation” by government employees and bureaucrats and clearly defines the intent of our founders.

It is of the highest importance that one understands that the federal government in the Articles of Confederation could operate only on the states; it had no control or power over individuals.

If an egregious or tyrannical law was passed by the federal government, the states had the ability to simply ignore it; known today as nullification or state interposition. The federal government could not arrest or imprison a state. Therefore, the “intelligent men,” in Hamilton’s view, realized they must have a national form of government that could and would act on the individual.

I believe this to be the very first confrontation between nationalists and advocates of State’s Rights, a battle that would surface again in the 1830’s with Justice Joseph Story and Senator Daniel Webster on the side of nationalism and Senator John C. Calhoun on the side of State’s Rights. (This battle of words and ideas will be covered later in our studies) This battle of ideas would eventually lead to an open, bloody war in 1861; a war that would take the lives of over 800,000 individuals and permanently install a nationalist form of government in our country.

Every malady and malaise that faces us in our country today can be traced to the implementation of nationalism instead of a strict adherence to the rights of the people of a state to nullify acts of government. Ah, but ignorance reigns supreme, for on any given day you can find a group of people somewhere who mistakenly believe they are being “patriotic,” robotically pledging allegiance to “One nation…indivisible,” a phrase which was written by a national socialist.

It is also of importance that when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 opened in May of that year, a time when representatives of only 6 states were in attendance, the first resolution adopted, stated, “a national government ought to be established.” Again, to illustrate that the idea of a national form of government was repeatedly voted down in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 once representatives from other states had arrived, the record of the proceedings as recorded by Robert Yates, delegate from New York, commonly known as “Yates Minutes,” stated the following:

“Ellsworth. [Oliver Ellsworth, delegate from Connecticut] I propose, and therefore move, to expunge the word ‘national’ in the first resolve, and to place in the room of it, government of the United States,’ which was agreed to nem con.”

Hopefully, this session has clearly illustrated that our current form of government which is totally nationalist in nature, though it was proposed and supported by several of our founders who declared themselves to be “intelligent men,” is not the form of government favored by the majority of our founders and ratified by the several states.

Almost entirely omitted from most writings on our founding era is one of the true motives of the nationalists was to take the power of governing from those in the state legislatures whom they deemed to be inferior to themselves and placing that governing power into the hands of the elite. For evidence of this I offer the following:

From Patrick Henry, “The Constitution reflects in the most degrading and mortifying manner on the virtue, integrity, and wisdom of the state legislatures; it presupposes that the chosen few who go to Congress will have more upright hearts, and more enlightened minds, than those who are members of the individual legislatures.”

James Madison, [the Constitution will lead to] “extracting from the mass of the society the purest and noblest characters which it contains.” (Is this the type of character we have in government today?)

John Quincy Adams saw the Constitution as “calculated to increase the influence, power and wealth of those who have it already.”

As stated by one of the Anti-federalists, the plan of the Constitution was “dangerously adapted to the purposes of an immediate aristocratic tyranny.”

If you maintain any thought that our present government is not an “aristocratic tyranny” just go to http://www.opensecrets.org and research the wealth and position of our current members of Congress and the “dark money” that drives our government.

(Part IV coming soon to an email near you.)

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Secret G-20 Meeting In Ireland this Summer to Manage the Collapse of America




I present this article for those of you who thrive on drama, but you may want to ask yourself why a man with his so-called connections would spill the beans on a secret meeting of people who think nothing of having people murdered. Suicide Wish???

5-21-2016 7-27-50 AM

Dr. Walker Todd, former 20 year consultant to the Federal Reserve.

By Dave Hodges

Dr. Walker Todd is heading to Ireland this summer. Ireland is lovely this time of year. Playing golf in one’s sweater could be an enjoyable vacation event. However, Todd is not going to Ireland to play golf. How do we know that Dr. Todd is headed to Ireland? He told Ed Petrowski and this was passed to me by his good friend Paul Martin. More importantly, Todd stated that there is going to be a secret G-20 meeting this summer in Ireland.

Who Is Walker Todd and Why Is This Important?

Dr. Todd stated on the radio on March 12, 2015 that America will be taken down according to the following scenario: (1) A false flag, more than likely a scenario resulting in economic collapse and the destruction of the dollar (2) The implementation of martial law, perhaps involving the use of foreign troops; and (3) All out conflict.

Dr. Todd is not to be taken lightly as he was an economic consultant with 20 years of experience at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. He is also a member of the Cato Institute‘s new Center for Monetary Financial Alternatives as one of its Adjunct Scholars.  Given his background, his expressed opinions should be given very serious consideration.

If Dr. Todd’s prediction is accurate, this fits in with what other sources are saying is coming in the very near future and it will result in the fall of America. It has always been my position that a false flag even would be used as a pretext to invoke martial law. Martial law would then be used as the excuse to begin gun confiscation. Gun confiscation will be used to disarm American citizens prior to subjugating the country by using foreign mercenaries.

As viewers of this sight will readily recognize, I have extensively written on the topic of foreign mercenaries and I did so as recently as this past weekend.

The Importance of Ireland

After the Muslim “refugee” invasion of Europe, Ireland is one of the few places left in Europe that is safe. Further, Ireland is home to one of the most notorious criminal globalists, Peter Sutherland.

5-21-2016 7-29-34 AM

Meet your soon-to-be new United Nations Governor. He orchestrated the Gulf crisis and now he will be “managing” the border crisis.

Many have asked if there was a central figure who coordinated this conspiracy. If I were an unencumbered investigator and not operating under the umbrella of an agenda, I would want to look closely at a globalist named Peter Sutherland as the possible mastermind. But you see, Sutherland is not just the architect of the Gulf Oil Spill, as you will soon note, he will be behind what is coming with the United Nations take down of the United States.

Peter Sutherland

Peter Sutherland is an insider’s, insider.  He is on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, he is an Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (2010-present), he was Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (Europe) (2001–2010) and Sutherland was Vice Chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists (2006–2009). Sutherland was also the former head of the World Trade Organization and the related GATT. Sutherland is the ultimate insider. More to the point of this article, Peter Sutherland is the head of the UN Migration Council. This means that this elite insider will ultimately determine who will live where and under what conditions. And the G-20 is secretly meeting is his backyard is no coincidence.

Precipitating Incident(s)

Further, we have two important pieces which would factor into a planned collapse of the United States/Western Europe, namely, banking and population redistribution. Additional danger and trigger points would consist of computer vulnerability of the grid and the banks. Also, the looming global food crisis could be brought into play. Why not all three? I think that is a safe bet, but in terms of lighting the fuse, I would lean towards the food crisis

Venezuela Is the Beta Test

5-21-2016 7-30-28 AM

Venezuelans are in search of anything they can eat. Despite having on the world’s richest oil reserves, dogs, cats, and pigeons are in danger. Soon, there will be only thing left to eat, each other!

Michael Snyder wrote a fantastic piece of how the United States is paralleling what is happening in Venezuela and we will soon be living the same fate here in America. One week ago, I wrote about America’s food vulnerability. Snyder’s piece is worthy of review.

Speaking of Ed Petrowski, I had Ed and Cliff Harris, who has been making accurate predictions about farming and food trends for over 40 years.. Ed Petrowski has been farming the fields of Pratt, Kansas for decades. While on my show, both men presented to the world a farmer’s perspective on what is happening with our food supply.

5-21-2016 7-31-24 AM

One of the more stunning trends that both men pointed out was the fact that over 15% of American farmers will leave the business this year because of extreme government intrusion. They both said that there will be an extreme food shortage as a result. In fact, they both said there would be a food crisis in the United States anyway. And as Cliff Harris, a climatologist pointed out, there would be a food shortage anyway due to extreme weather changes.

This was an one hour interview, where I probably did not say 100 words. I wanted the listening public to listen to two prominent men in field of farming about what is really happening to the American food supply instead of reading the lies contained in various government reports.

Listen to this stunning interview by clicking here.


I would be remiss if I did not reiterate Paul Martin’s source and what he said was coming, which I published in a previous article. The retired alphabet soup agency man said martial law is locked and cocked. When the crisis hits, the phone will immediately go down, where you are is where you will stay because the highways will be shut down. He advised if you are further from your home that you walk back to it, you need to carry food, water, and guns. Time frame? He says it will happen this summer.

A week ago, I speculated that Trump’s opposition quit prematurely and all at once. I speculated they were retreating to their Plan B which would be designed to deny Trump the Presidency. I think we have found the Plan B.

Here comes the broken record: Obtain food, water, guns and if you want to survive long term, you will need precious metals.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM


Banks Sued by Investor Over Agency Bond Rigging Claims



Tom Schoenberg  

David McLaughlin  

Chris Dolmetsch  

Don’t Miss Out — Follow Bloomberg On

Deutsche Bank May Punish Staff for Personal Trade With Firm

The Irresistible Force That Dominates Currency Markets Is Back

Bank of America Corp. and Deutsche Bank AG were among five banks sued over claims that traders conspired to manipulate trading agency bonds issued by government entities and institutions like the World Bank, harming investors who bought and sold the securities.

The suit by Boston Retirement System, a pension fund representing city workers, follows inquiries by U.S. and U.K. authorities into the market for the debt, known as supranational, sub-sovereign and agency bonds, or SSAs. The probes target alleged illegal collusion in international trading and follow billions of dollars in settlements over claims that banks rigged interest-rate benchmarks and currency markets.

“Defendants’ scheme was driven by greed and opportunity,” the fund said in the complaint filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court.

The lawsuit, which also names Credit Agricole SA, Credit Suisse Group AG and Nomura Holdings Inc. or their units as defendants, resembles claims made against banks over misconduct in currency markets. It accuses traders of colluding with one another to fix prices at which they bought and sold SSA bonds in the secondary market. It adds the threat of possible triple damages available under U.S. antitrust law for investors harmed by any illegal price-fixing.

Traders Probed

The SSA market is generally defined to include international development organizations, government-sponsored entities and some sovereign debt. Depending on the securities that are included, the market could range from $9 trillion to $15 trillion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The bonds generally have high credit ratings because of explicit or implicit guarantees they carry.

Among those being probed by U.S. and U.K. authorities are London traders Hiren Gudka, formerly at Bank of America and Deutsche Bank, Amandeep Singh Manku, formerly of Credit Agricole, Bhardeep Singh Heer of Nomura and Shailen Pau, formerly of Credit Suisse, people familiar with the matter have said. All four are named as defendants in the complaint. They couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit and didn’t respond to earlier requests for comment on the U.S. and U.K. investigations.

Spokespersons for Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Nomura declined to comment on the suit. Credit Agricole didn’t immediately respond to a message left after normal business hours.

Coordinate Prices

The traders allegedly communicated with one another about their customers’ SSA bond purchase and sell orders, which allowed them to coordinate the bid and ask prices they offered clients, according to the complaint. The traders’ influence in the secondary market for SSA bonds gave their customers “little choice but to accept the artificially widened bid-ask spreads” on the transactions, according to the complaint.

The lawyers who filed the suit — Labaton Sucharow LLP and Hausfeld LLP — said in the complaint that the experts they hired to review market data found the bid-ask spreads for SSA bonds were significantly higher than those of similarly rated sovereign bonds — seven basis points higher on some securities. The experts found “anomalous” intraday movement in the spreads that lawyers said “support the inference of conspiracy” among the banks, according to the complaint. Under competitive conditions, SSA bond traders wouldn’t be able to sustain bid-ask spreads over 1.5 basis points, according to the filing.

The case is Boston Retirement System v. Bank of America NA, 1:16-cv-03711, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


Few Americans realize that the big banks have complete protection by the UNITED STATES CORPORATION that misrepresents it’s self as a democratic Government, and they believe that the Federal Reserve is an arm of the non-existent Democratic Government. What do you believe? Are you just another ignorant loyal slave, or are you a mad as hell free human being that learned the truth? The International Banking Cartel has gained complete control of America from the beginning, and most American’s refuse to believe it. They would rather let the Bankers drain them of their wealth than confront the truth. BUT! NOT THIS OLDDOG!

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Watch Venezuela Because Food Shortages Looting And Economic Collapse Are Coming To America Too



5-19-2016 7-41-27 AM

By Michael Snyder

The full-blown economic collapse that is happening in Venezuela right now is a preview of what Americans will be experiencing in the not too distant future.  Just a few years ago, most Venezuelans could never have imagined that food shortages would become so severe that people would literally hunt dogs and cats for food.  But as you will see below, this is now taking place.  Sadly, this is what the endgame of socialism looks like.  When an all-powerful government is elevated far above all other institutions in society and radical leftists are given the keys to the kingdom, this is the result.  Food shortages, looting and rampant violent crime have all become part of daily life in Venezuela, and we all need to watch as this unfolds very carefully, because similar scenarios will soon be playing out all over the planet.

The funny thing is that Venezuela actually has more “wealth” than most countries in the world.  According to the CIA, Venezuela actually has more proven oil reserves than anyone else on the globe – including Saudi Arabia.

So how did such a wealthy nation find itself plunged into full-blown economic collapse so rapidly, and could a similar thing happen to us?

The president of Venezuela has declared a 60 day state of emergency in a desperate attempt to restore order, but most people don’t anticipate that it will do much good.  Social order continues to unravel as the economy systematically implodes.  The Venezuelan economy shrunk by 5.7 percent last year, and it is being projected that it will contract by another 8 percent in 2016.  Meanwhile, inflation is raging wildly out of control.  According to the IMF, the official inflation rate in Venezuela will be somewhere around 720 percent this year and 2,200 percent next year.

If people are able to get their hands on some money, they immediately rush out to the stores to use it before the prices go up again.  This has created devastating shortages of food, basic supplies and medicine.

Electricity is also in short supply, and a two day workweek has been imposed on many government employees in a desperate attempt to save power.  Violent crime is seemingly everywhere, and most law-abiding Venezuelans lock themselves in their homes at night as a result.

Much of the crime is being perpetrated by the mafia and the gangs, but sometimes it is just normal people looking for food.  Desperate people do desperate things, and according to the Guardian there have been “107 episodes of looting or attempted looting in the first quarter of 2016″…

Crowds of people in Venezuela have stolen flour, chicken and even underwear this week as looting increases across the country in the wake of shortages of many basic products. Many people have adopted the habit of getting up in the dead of night to spend hours in long lines in front of supermarkets. But as more end up empty-handed and black market prices soar, plundering is rising in Venezuela, an Opec nation that was already one of the world’s most violent countries.

There is no official data, but the Venezuelan Observatory for Social Conflict, a rights group, have reported 107 episodes of looting or attempted looting in the first quarter of 2016. Videos of crowds breaking into shops, swarming on to trucks or fighting over products frequently make the rounds on social media, though footage is often hard to confirm.

One example of this looting took place on May 11th.  Thousands of hungry people stormed Maracay Wholesale Market in central Venezuela, and the police seemed powerless to stop them

“They took milk, pasta, flour, oil, and milk powder. There were 5,000 people,”one witness told Venezuela outlet El Estímulo.

People from across the entire state came to the supermarket because there were rumors that some products not found anywhere else would be sold there.

“There were 250 people for each National Guard officer… lots of people and few soldiers. At least one officer was beat up because he tried to stop the crowd,” another source told El Estímulo.

You can see some rough footage of this incident right here

It is important to remember that this was not an isolated incident.  As people have become hungrier and hungrier, there have been reports of looting at “pharmacies, shopping malls, supermarkets, and food delivery trucks“.  During some of these episodes there have actually been people chanting “we are hungry”.

Other Venezuelans have resorted to digging in dumpsters and trash cans for food.  This many seem detestable to many Americans, but when you are desperately hungry you may be surprised at what you are willing to do.

And as I mentioned above, some Venezuelans and now actually hunting dogs and cats for food

Ramón Muchacho, Mayor of Chacao in Caracas, said the streets of the capital of Venezuela are filled with people killing animals for food.

Through Twitter, Muchacho reported that in Venezuela, it is a “painful reality” that people “hunt cats, dogs and pigeons” to ease their hunger.

You may be tempted to dismiss these people as “barbarians”, but someday Americans will be doing the exact same thing.

There has been a breakdown of basic social services in Venezuela as well.  Acute shortages of drugs and medical supplies are having absolutely tragic results.  When I read the following from the New York Times, this crisis in Venezuela become much more real to me…

By morning, three newborns were already dead.

The day had begun with the usual hazards: chronic shortages of antibiotics, intravenous solutions, even food. Then a blackout swept over the city, shutting down the respirators in the maternity ward.

Doctors kept ailing infants alive by pumping air into their lungs by hand for hours. By nightfall, four more newborns had died.

So once again I ask – how did such a thing happen to such a wealthy nation?

Here is Business Insider’s explanation…

The real culprit is chavismo, the ruling philosophy named for Chavez and carried forward by Maduro, and its truly breathtaking propensity for mismanagement (the government plowed state money arbitrarily into foolish investments); institutional destruction (as Chavez and then Maduro became more authoritarian and crippled the country’s democratic institutions); nonsense policy-making (like price and currency controls); and plain thievery (as corruption has proliferated among unaccountable officials and their friends and families).

Are not the same things happening here?

The U.S. government is mismanaging our money too.  During Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House, the U.S. national debt has risen by more than eight trillion dollars.  We waste money in some of the most bizarre ways imaginable, and at this point our national debt is nearly the double the size it was just prior to the last major financial crisis.

Institutional destruction is also a legacy of the Obama regime.  With each passing day, our society resembles the Republic that our founders originally intended less and less, and it resembles socialist dictatorships more and more.  We may as well not even have a Constitution anymore, because at this point nobody really follows it.

The third thing that Business Insider mentioned, “nonsense policy-making”, is a perfect description of what has been going on in Washington D.C. these days.  Perhaps that is why Congress only has a 12.8 percent approval rating right now.

Lastly, thievery and corruption are also out of control in our nation too.  The elite and special interest groups spend massive amounts of money to get their favorites into office, and in turn those politicians shower their good friends with money and favors.  It is a very sick relationship, but that is how our system now works.

We are sitting on the largest mountain of debt in the history of the planet, and our debt-fueled prosperity is completely dependent on the rest of the world lending us gigantic amounts of money at ridiculously low interest rates and continuing to use our increasingly shaky currency which we are debasing at a staggering pace.

We consume far more than we produce, and unlike Venezuela we aren’t sitting on hundreds of billions of barrels of oil.  The amount of “real wealth” that we actually have does not justify our current standard of living.  The only way that we are able to live the way that we do is by stealing consumption from the future.  One study has found that our debt level is the highest that it has been since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and yet we continue to race down this road to economic oblivion without even thinking twice about it.

What you sow is what you will reap.

And just like Venezuela, America will ultimately reap a very bitter harvest.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court for Making a Mockery of the First Amendment


This commentary is also
available at www.rutherford.org.

By John W. Whitehead
May 16, 2016

“The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion… [I]t is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”—Justice William O. Douglas, Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)

Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court for making a mockery of the First Amendment.

All the justices had to do was right a 60-year wrong that made it illegal to exercise one’s First Amendment rights on the Supreme Court plaza.

It shouldn’t have been a big deal.

After all, this is the Court that has historically championed a robust First Amendment, no matter how controversial or politically incorrect.

Over the course of its 227-year history, the Supreme Court has defended the free speech rights of Ku Klux Klan cross-burners, Communist Party organizers, military imposters, Westboro Baptist Church members shouting gay slurs at military funerals, a teenager who burned a cross on the lawn of an African-American family, swastika-wearing Nazis marching through the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, abortion protesters and sidewalk counselors in front of abortion clinics, flag burners, an anti-war activist arrested for wearing a jacket bearing the words “F#@k the Draft,” high-school students wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War, a film producer who created and sold videotapes of dogfights, a movie theater that showed a sexually explicit film, and the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gay members, among others.

Basically, the Supreme Court has historically had no problem with radical and reactionary speech, false speech, hateful speech, racist speech on front lawns, offensive speech at funerals, anti-Semitic speech in parades, anti-abortion/pro-life speech in front of abortion clinics, inflammatory speech in a Chicago auditorium, political speech in a private California shopping mall, or offensive speech in a state courthouse.

So when activist Harold Hodge appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend his right to stand on their government plaza and silently protest the treatment of African-Americans and Hispanics by police, it should have been a no-brainer, unanimous ruling in favor of hearing his case.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not quite as keen on the idea of a robust First Amendment as it used to be, especially when that right is being exercised on the Court’s own front porch.

Not only did the Court refuse to hear Hodge’s appeal, but in doing so, it also upheld the 60-year-old law banning expressive activity on the Supreme Court plaza. Mind you, this was the same ban that a federal district court judge described as “unreasonable, substantially overbroad…irreconcilable with the First Amendment,” “plainly unconstitutional on its face” and “repugnant” to the Constitution.

Incredibly, one day after District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell issued her strongly worded opinion striking down the federal statute, the marshal for the Supreme Court—with the approval of Chief Justice John Roberts—issued even more strident regulations outlawing expressive activity on the grounds of the high court, including the plaza.

Talk about a double standard—a double standard upheld by a federal appeals court.

And what was the appeals court’s rationale for enforcing this ban on expressive activity on the Supreme Court plaza? “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the…impression…of a Court engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public.”

Translation: The appellate court that issued that particular ruling in Hodge v. Talkin actually wants us to believe that the Court is so impressionable that the justices could be swayed by the sight of a single man standing alone and silent in a 20,000 square-foot space wearing a small sign on a day when the court was not in session.

What a load of tripe.

Of course the Supreme Court is not going to be swayed by you or me or Harold Hodge.

This ban on free speech in the Supreme Court plaza, enacted by Congress in 1949, stems from a desire to insulate government officials from those exercising their First Amendment rights, an altogether elitist mindset that views the government “elite” as different, set apart somehow, from the people they have been appointed to serve and represent.

No wonder interactions with politicians have become increasingly manufactured and distant in recent decades. The powers-that-be want us kept at a distance. Press conferences and televised speeches now largely take the place of face-to-face interaction with constituents. Elected officials keep voters at arms-length through the use of electronic meetings and ticketed events. And there has been an increased use of so-called “free speech zones,” designated areas for expressive activity used to corral and block protestors at political events from interacting with public officials. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have used “free speech zones” at various conventions to mute any and all criticism of their policies and likely will do so again this year.

We’re nearing the end of the road for free speech and freedom in general, folks.

With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”

Long gone are the days when advocates of free speech could prevail in a case such as Tinker v. Des Moines. Indeed, it’s been more than 50 years since 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker was suspended for wearing a black armband to school in protest of the Vietnam War. In taking up her case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Were Tinker to make its way through the courts today, it would have to overcome the many hurdles being placed in the path of those attempting to voice sentiments that may be construed as unpopular, offensive, conspiratorial, violent, threatening or anti-government.

Indeed, the Supreme Court now has the effrontery to suggest that the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum, justifying such censorship as “government speech.”

If it were just the courts suppressing free speech, that would be one thing to worry about, but First Amendment activities are being pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

If Americans are not able to peacefully assemble outside of the halls of government for expressive activity, the First Amendment has lost all meaning.

If we cannot stand silently outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties which we cherish as Americans.

Living in a so-called representative republic means that each person has the right to stand outside the halls of government and express his or her opinion on matters of state without fear of arrest.

That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

It gives every American the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It ensures, as Adam Newton and Ronald K.L. Collins report for the Five Freedoms Project, “that our leaders hear, even if they don’t listen to, the electorate. Though public officials may be indifferent, contrary, or silent participants in democratic discourse, at least the First Amendment commands their audience.”

Unfortunately, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps, government officials—both elected and appointed—have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials.

In the process, government officials have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents, making it increasingly difficult for average Americans to make themselves seen or heard by those who most need to hear what “we the people” have to say.

Indeed, while lobbyists mill in and out of the homes and offices of Congressmen, the American people are kept at a distance through free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, and security barriers. And those who dare to breach the gap—even through silent forms of protest—are arrested for making their voices heard.

Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say.

We are now only as free to speak as a government official may allow.

Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms.

As a result, we are no longer a nation of constitutional purists for whom the Bill of Rights serves as the ultimate authority. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have litigated and legislated our way into a new governmental framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.

Without the First Amendment, we are utterly helpless.

It’s not just about the right to speak freely, or pray freely, or assemble freely, or petition the government for a redress of grievances, or have a free press. The unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.

Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance and makes independent thought all but impossible.

In the end, censorship and political correctness not only produce people that cannot speak for themselves but also people who cannot think for themselves. And a citizenry that can’t think for itself is a citizenry that will neither rebel against the government’s dictates nor revolt against the government’s tyranny.

The architects, engineers and lever-pullers who run the American police state want us to remain deaf, dumb and silent. They want our children raised on a vapid diet of utter nonsense, where common sense is in short supply and the only viewpoint that matters is the government’s.

We are becoming a nation of idiots, encouraged to spout political drivel and little else.

If George Orwell envisioned the future as a boot stamping on a human face, a fair representation of our present day might well be a muzzle on that same human face.


Dear John: Once again I must warn you that the Constitution you so bravely protect is not binding on a corporate group of Judges, regardless of what the constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC. SAY’S. If you did the research you would know it is not the same constitution as the Constitution for the united States of America. The Constitution they use is a corporate charter, a list of do’s and don’ts for the corporation. THANKS ANYWAY! Olddog

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM



Notice to Congress: The Days of Legalizing Theft Are Over


From the writings of Anna von Reitz. Big Lake Alaska September 2014

The most recent round of fraud began on March 28, 1861. That was the day the Congress of the united States of America adjourned for lack of quorum and never reconvened. Ever since, “Congress” has functioned in one of three roles—(1) as a corporate Board of Directors for private, mostly foreign-owned and deceptively named governmental services corporations operated by banking cartels (the Federal Reserve running the “United States of America, Inc.” and the IMF running the “UNITED STATES”) or (2) the government of a legislative democracy calling itself the United States of America (Minor)—American “states” more often thought of as federal territories and possessions— Guam, Puerto Rico, etc., or (3) operating as a plenary oligarchy ruling the Washington DC Municipal Government.

All this time that you thought the members of Congress were representing the people and their interests, they’ve been representing other interests entirely. That explains a lot, doesn’t it?

On March 6, 1933 the “President” of the “United States of America, Inc.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt attended a Conference of Governors meeting. These “Governors” were all “State” franchise managers of the United States of America, Inc., exactly like local franchise owners of Burger King or Sears. They got together and pledged the assets of their customers—their employers—the American states and people——as “sureties” for their private corporate debts. And then they bankrupted the “United States of America” and all the “State” franchises.

The “federal” States that were created by the 14th Amendment of their private for-profit corporation’s look-alike, sound-alike “constitution” published as the “Constitution of the United States of America” are not the same as the actual States of the Union, nor are their “State” citizens the same as American State Citizens, nor are their “US citizens” the same as Citizens of the united States, but they pretended that they were and the banks gleefully agreed.

To secure the debt owed by the “United States of America, Inc.” the banks established maritime salvage liens against every parcel of land, every business, every man, woman, and child in America, and continued to operate their doppelganger corporation under Chapter 11 Reorganization. They laid claim to your “good faith and credit” —stole your credit cards— and your identity as an American State Citizen, and they never bothered to tell the victim.

They also had you declared legally dead and probated your estate and issued bonds based on the value of your labor and private property. Just look at “your” Birth Certificate—signed by the County Registrar, an officer of the probate court, issued in the NAME of a “dead person”—you, numbered as a bond and issued on bond paper. At the same time, they converted all your private bank accounts to the ownership of the ESTATE trust they created “in your name” and moved the ESTATE offshore to Puerto Rico where you and your assets supposedly came under the foreign

maritime jurisdiction of the United States of America (Minor). Look at the NAME on “your” bank account checks.

Look at the signature line under a high powered magnifier. The IMF claims that it owns all your bank accounts. It claims that your ESTATE was “abandoned”, and now all the spoils belong to the bank. They are pressing “Congress” to pass “laws” to allow them to seize all American bank accounts—your savings, your retirement accounts, your checking accounts, everything. We’ve seen Dodd-Frank. Now we are seeing “bail-in” proposals. The Big Banks want “Congress” to front for their greed and criminality—again.

This is all fiduciary trust fraud and fiduciary trust fraud has no statute of limitations. 1862 or 1933 or 2014—it makes no difference. We suggest that members of Congress assume their public offices acting under full 100% individual commercial liability —or be ousted and tried as criminals. Next, we suggest that they honor their contract with America and issue debt-free public money— real American Dollars. Next, liquidate all the “too big to fail” banks, tear up the corporate charters these entities have violated, seize back our purloined assets, and shut them all down.

Meanwhile, the market for financial services will open up for banks operated under actual state charters. This thing you have thought of as your government is nothing but a multi-national conglomerate run criminally amok.

The real government of this country is vested in each of you. You all hold more civil authority on the land than the entire federal government. Deal with the “FEDERAL RESERVE” and “IMF” and “CONGRESS” the same way you would deal with “TARGET” or “WALMART” or “ARBY’S” if they grossly endangered, cheated, enslaved, and defrauded you. Keep calm and get even. You all know what to do.

You have the guaranteed Universal Right of Self-Declaration provided by United Nations Conventions, plus the protections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You have the Geneva Conventions and the Lieber Code.

You have the preserved right to Common Law, guaranteed by Uniform Commercial Code 1-308 and recourse guaranteed by 1-103.6, which includes the right not to be bound by any contract that is unilateral, inequitable, involuntary, undisclosed, tainted by fraud, not in-kind, entered in your behalf by others merely claiming to represent you, or deemed to exist as the result of receiving a compelled benefit or fruit of monopoly inducement. You have the absolute right to Expatriate from their maritime jurisdiction.

Do so.

When 400 million Americans stand up and clean house, the world will listen and hear the roar!

General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code



Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Introduction – International Humanitarian Law – Lieber Code 1863


Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 (signed and ordered) by President Abe (Silverstein) Lincoln, 24 April 1863.


Note 2: The U$A is still operating under, NEVER REPEALLED NOR RESCINDED General Orders No. 100 hence WACO with no one brought to book for slaughtering civilians: men, women and children. Sound familiar?

If you have not read that vile document, conveniently written in plain English, you cannot begin to grasp the crisis foisted upon the people of Germany during W.W.II. You can bet Hitler and Co, ‘in a democracy’ [HA!] had copies of it.

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863. In t r o d u c t i o n [Display Full text]
www.icrc.orgicrc.orgTreaties HomeCached

The “Lieber Instructions” represent the first attempt to codify the laws of war. They were prepared during the American Civil War by Francis Lieber, then a professor of Columbia College in New York, revised by a board of officers and promulgated by President Lincoln. Although they were binding only on the forces of the United States, they correspond to a great extend to the laws and customs of war existing at that time. The “Lieber Instructions” strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907.



Martial Law – Military jurisdiction – Military necessity – Retaliation

Article 1.

A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.

Art. 2.

Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

Art. 3.

Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.

Art. 4.

Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial Law: it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity – virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed.

Art. 5.

Martial Law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered. Much greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist, or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed – even in the commander’s own country – when face to face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, and of the paramount duty to defend the country against invasion.

To save the country is paramount to all other considerations.

Art. 6.

All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy’s places and territories under Martial Law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying military power; but all the functions of the hostile government – legislative executive, or administrative – whether of a general, provincial, or local character, cease under Martial Law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader.

Art. 7.

Martial Law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government.

Art. 8.

Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Nevertheless, their offices and persons will be subjected to Martial Law in cases of urgent necessity only: their property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against the established military rule may be punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground for international complaint.

Art. 9.

The functions of Ambassadors, Ministers, or other diplomatic agents accredited by neutral powers to the hostile government, cease, so far as regards the displaced government; but the conquering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily accredited to itself.

Art. 10.

Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations.

Art. 11.

The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers.

It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts.

Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers.

Art. 12.

Whenever feasible, Martial Law is carried out in cases of individual offenders by Military Courts; but sentences of death shall be executed only with the approval of the chief executive, provided the urgency of the case does not require a speedier execution, and then only with the approval of the chief commander.

Art. 13.

Military jurisdiction is of two kinds: First, that which is conferred and defined by statute; second, that which is derived from the common law of war. Military offenses under the statute law must be tried in the manner therein directed; but military offenses which do not come within the statute must be tried and punished under the common law of war. The character of the courts which exercise these jurisdictions depends upon the local laws of each particular country.

In the armies of the United States the first is exercised by courts-martial, while cases which do not come within the “Rules and Articles of War,” or the jurisdiction conferred by statute on courts-martial, are tried by military commissions.

Art. 14.

Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.

Art. 15.

Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy’s country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.

Art. 16.

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty – that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.

Art. 17.

War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy.

Art. 18.

When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender.

Art. 19.

Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity.

Art. 20.

Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war.

Art. 21.

The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war.

Art. 22.

Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.

Art. 23.

Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.

Art. 24.

The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception.

Art. 25.

In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions.

Art. 26.

Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and they may expel everyone who declines to do so. But whether they do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience to them as long as they hold sway over the district or country, at the peril of their lives.

Art. 27.

The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage

Art. 28.

Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.

Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages.

Art. 29.

Modern times are distinguished from earlier ages by the existence, at one and the same time, of many nations and great governments related to one another in close intercourse.

Peace is their normal condition; war is the exception. The ultimate object of all modern war is a renewed state of peace.

The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief.

Art. 30.

Ever since the formation and coexistence of modern nations, and ever since wars have become great national wars, war has come to be acknowledged not to be its own end, but the means to obtain great ends of state, or to consist in defense against wrong; and no conventional restriction of the modes adopted to injure the enemy is any longer admitted; but the law of war imposes many limitations and restrictions on principles of justice, faith, and honor.

So – what’s wrong with this picture?

We are all supposed to believe that in this Theatre of the Absurd at the Westerbork Transit Camp that the camp commanders were totally insane to ‘allow’ or ‘encourage’ utterly inane ‘artistic’ frivolity in the ‘Brutal Death Camps’ – complete with Olympic-sized swimming pools and weddings?

What? ‘Prisoners’ getting fit and even betrothed whilst on a collision-course with the afterlife – complete with photos?

What’s the point (in wasting scarce: time, money, energy and resources for the ‘walking dead’ and Condemned – in a ‘time of war’)?

It simply does not make, especially to the most logical and notoriously ‘efficient’ peoples on planet earth, sense (‘commercial’ or otherwise).

Theaters with concerts and plays, even follies, that were enjoyed by S.R.O. full-houses “with the ‘camp commanders’ filling the front rows,” just outnumbered by their ‘prisoners/wards/ guests ‘ by up to hundreds to one?

We are told “brutal Nazi thugs” deliberately placed themselves in a situation ripe for: revolt, hostage taking and/or slaughter of the very same ‘evil Nazi camp commanders’?

Does the evidence coming to light suggest that the ‘concentration camps’ were something else like, say, refugee centers? And that the incoming refugees would, of necessity, be ‘classified’ according their mental state, criminal records and/or varying degrees of socially acceptable norms of ‘civilized’ European society? Can we accept that criminals and deviants would have been sent elsewhere remembering, of course, everyone accused proclaims innocence?

Note 1: During times of war and/or national emergency certain extraordinary protocols come into play for the ‘common (I.e.- elite/government) good’. For instance, during the U$A’s UN-civil and UN-declared so-called ‘war’:


Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 (signed and ordered) by President Abe (Silverstein) Lincoln, 24 April 1863.


Note 2: The U$A is still operating under, NEVER REPEALED NOR RESCINDED General Orders No. 100 hence WACO with no one brought to book for slaughtering civilians: men, women and children. Sound familiar?

If you have not read that vile document, conveniently written in plain English, you cannot begin to grasp the crisis foisted upon the people of Germany during W.W.II. You can bet Hitler and Co, ‘in a democracy’ [HA!] had copies of it.
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. –Ayn Rand

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”. –The late, arguably suicid-ed, William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence’s 1st address to his staff in 1981. From the late Director at his first staff meeting in 1981 revealing the twisted mentality and depth of cynicism which infests the US Federal control structures, and the reality that these structures regard the American people with total contempt. This attitude is the opposite to the noble concept of service to the American people which ought to inspire holders of public office, and therefore represents the epitome of decadence. The evil spirit directing William Casey got the better of him when he committed suicide in hospital some years later, ostensibly to ‘protect the President’. The fantastic verbal fantasies perpetrated on certain US websites that are operating on the basis of Mr Casey’s principle, enunciated above, should therefore be handled with extreme care. DCI Uncle Bill Casey warned you!

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM






By The Rebel Madman

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. – William Casey, Ronald Reagan’s first CIA Director (from Casey’s first staff meeting, 1981)

On September 18, 1947, the National Security Act became law. This new law created multiple layers of unaccountable bureaucracies that have controlled our government since that date. Among those new bureaucracies were the Department of Defense, a subtle change in wording from Department of War to lull the American people to sleep believing their military would only be involved in defending the country. Of course, this has morphed into a force which, while leaving our borders unprotected, has embarked on a quest for empire with a US military presence in over 140 different countries, a massive albatross of choking debt, hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed military personnel and unconstitutional, perpetual wars for peace with nothing to show in the “win” column.

Also brought to us with the National Security Act were the agencies tasked with intelligence gathering. Among those were the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with several smaller bureaucratic siblings. Initially charged with ferreting out intelligence from our enemies, these two monoliths of government have instead turned their attention on what our government deems its most threatening enemy: the American people.

While the NSA is busy listening to your phone conversations, reading your emails and texts and monitoring everyone on social media, the CIA has devoted much time and effort into its programs of disinformation and propaganda supporting the central government and its criminal activities waged against the people who pay their exorbitant salaries, healthcare and pensions.

Vital to the continuance of these deceptions is the ability of the government to convince a majority of the people being victimized by their crimes that the crimes are committed by others without any involvement by the government itself. This serves two purposes. First, it keeps the citizens ignorant and afraid. Second, the fear generated is used to justify ever increasing budgets which fuel the crimes and those tasked with covering them up.

Folks like myself and many others who saw through the ruse used to cover our government’s involvement in false flag operations many years ago have been castigated and discredited through the disinformation arm of our government using the pejorative term of “conspiracy theorist, or conspiracy nut.” This disinformation arm of our government long ago brought the media, which includes, newspapers, most of the TV shows you watch along with the broadcast news agencies into the fold with “Operation Mockingbird.” Below are some interesting quotes for your consideration which speak to my point.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy

“There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level.” — William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government…. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.” –former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition.

It is not really hard to get the mentally illiterate of this country to go along with the government’s propaganda for they have been educated in the public fool system to accept anything told to them by their lord and masters—at all levels; they avoid uncomfortable truths like they did doing homework in high school. Besides, the truth is much too uncomfortable for them and could lead to depression and a bevy of new prescriptions.

Those of us who have tried to point out the crimes of our government from the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK to 9/11, TWA 800, the OKC bombing, the attack on the USS Liberty, foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Boston Marathon Bombing, and several school shootings—especially Sandy Hook, have been called conspiracy theorists or nuts for as long as I can remember. Many of us have experienced lost friends and acquaintances for our trouble and have also been the victims of personal attacks by those who cling desperately to government lies, especially those who would have to face the truth of their own crimes if they were to admit our government’s involvement in our own deception and economic slavery.

Facts roll off the minds of the indoctrinated and functionally illiterate like water off a duck’s back. Proof such as that offered by official documents such as those in “Operation Northwoods” seem to drive these people further into the abyss of ignorance and denial. “Please don’t make me think—it depresses me!”

Could there be evidence of the CIA’s actual intent to mislead the American public found somewhere in the bowels of government? But, more importantly, would the naysayers, functionally illiterate government shills and those who claim those who attempt to educate and reveal the truth are theorists and nuts ever admit to the truth, even if presented irrefutable evidence? I have no such hopes!

I believe Emma Goldman to be precise in her description of these people. “True freedom requires sacrifice and pain. Most human beings only think they want freedom. The truth is they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants is to be comfortable.”

The problem is: most of these comfortable folks will be the ones who rush to rat out their neighbors who have prepared for the coming tyranny when the defecation hits the fan as a result of our institutionalized ignorant population’s ready acceptance of government lies and crimes. Never forget the admonition from the Department of Homeland Security, “If you see something, say something.”

So, is there documented proof that the CIA purposely set out to cover for government crimes by describing those who caught onto the game as conspiracy theorists and nuts? Yes, it can be found in CIA document 1035-960. Here, read it for yourself.

‘Conspiracy theory’ is a term that strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events as off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States, raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs… CIA Document 1035-960 played a definitive role in making the ‘conspiracy theory’ term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

There you have it; read ’em and weep’ for your country!

Sources: Global Research, “Weaponizing the term, Conspiracy Theory: Disinformation Agents and the CIA.”

Whatreallyhappened.com, “Operation Mockingbird; The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA.”

Gladly brought to you by your local “thought crime” practitioner, conspiracy theorist and nut, the Rebel Madman.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM


EPA Chief: ‘Climate Rule Is About Reinventing A Global Economy’, No Effect On Climate




5-14-2016 10-30-35 AMImage courtesy of EPA.Gov

By: Marc Morano

TN Note: EPA Administrator McCarthy speaks in line with United Nations’ rhetoric that climate change has nothing to do with changing the climate, but everything to do with transforming global economic system into Sustainable Development, or “Green Economy.” When will the public, leaders and administrators see the blatant disconnect and say “Stop!”

Over a period of twenty months, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy repeatedly concedes that the Agency’s sweeping climate-regulation of America’s fossil fuel-fired power plants will have no impact on the Earth’s climate. McCarthy openly admits that the Clean Power Plan “is not about end of pipe controls.” Instead, she says the rule is about “driving investment in renewables…, [and] advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution”. McCarthy says, “That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”


“The value of this rule is not measured [by its climate impact]. It is measured by showing strong domestic action…”
-US House Science Committee
-July 9, 2015

“[T]here is absolutely no reason to” measure the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan “because we know it will take a lot of efforts to actually make those reductions”.
-Senate Appropriations Committee
-April 20, 2016

“We don’t have to prove that any reduction [in greenhouse gas emissions] will actually make a precipitous difference” in global warming.
-IHS Energy CERA Week
-February 24, 2016

The “benefit” of the Clean Power Plan is “in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”
-House Energy and Commerce Committee
-March 22, 2016

“[The Clean Power Plan] is not about pollution control. […] This is an investment strategy…”
-Senate EPW Committee
-July 23, 2014

“[The Clean Power Plan] is about advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution […] That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015

“[The Clean Power Plan] is a fundamental way of relooking at where the United States is heading and how to maintain our competitive edge… That’s what this is all about.”
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015

Who Controls the Money Controls the World

Click to viewWho Controls the Money Controls the World

See more videos of people who controls america ! incredible documentary youtube

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Six Issues That Are Agenda 21 and the perment death of Freedom



Every day, in meetings at all levels of government, representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), planning groups, and federal agents surround elected representatives and insist that their policies have nothing to do with international agendas. They regularly publish reports and rail against anyone even mentioning the names Agenda 21 or the new Agenda 2030. “No, no, no,” they insist. “Those people are just crazy conspiracy theorists. Ours is just a local plan for our community.”

Elected Representatives are often confused. Issues and policies suddenly appear in front of them with sample, ready-made legislation. And then the unending pressure begins for them to pass it. There is confusion, uncertainty and there is the herd mentality to pass legislation. And it’s passed without knowledge of its origins, its purpose, and especially a lack of understanding of its consequences. “Just do it,” goes the mantra.

What most of these legislators fail to understand is the direct relationship much of this legislation has with a much larger agenda. Most legislation interconnects with other pieces and parts contained in other legislation. Like the children’s song goes…”the toe bone’s connected to the ankle bone…”  And it’s done so well, wrapped in innocent-sounding, positive wrapping, so that most elected representatives will argue vigorously that they passed no such thing.  And most of all, they will answer, Agenda 21, never heard of it. Just local. Just local. Just local.

Well, let me show you how it works and how the toe bone gets connected to the ankle bone ending up with the Frankenstein monster.  Here are six issues that are rarely connected to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (especially when we are assured that Agenda 21 has nothing to do with local, state or federal government policy). However, these seemingly unrelated policies, once implemented, help enforce the stated Agenda 21 goal of “reorganizing human society.”

Issue 1: Global Warming/Climate Change. It has been so discredited in the true scientific community that proponents have become almost hysterical in their continued attempts to enforce Climate Change policy. Most recently the Justice Department is considering legal action against “deniers.”  Why don’t they stop, even to question if their science is sound? They instead use great energy to attack any scientist who does dare ask questions or finds data contrary to the “official” line. Why is it so vitally important that they continue to promote something that clearly is, to say the least, questionable?

It’s because all of Agenda 21 policy is built on the premise that man is destroying the Earth. Climate Change is their “proof.” To eliminate that premise is to remove all credibility and purpose for their entire agenda. They are willing to go to any length, even lies, to keep the climate change foot on our throats.

On the local level this translates into planning policy that controls energy use and the efforts to cut down on the use of cars, enforcement of the building of expensive light rail train systems and bike paths and installation of smart meters, etc.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let them speak for themselves:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart (Former Canadian Minister of the Environment) 

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth (President, UN Foundation)

“It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson (Co-Founder of Green Peace.)

Issue 2: Fear of over population is the central driving force behind nearly every Sustainable policy initiative. It’s the real force behind Stack and Pack Smart Growth cities.

The fact is, in developed nations populations are actually going down. The only real growth in the US population in recent years has been from immigration, legal or otherwise. Open border immigration policy is actually implementation of Agenda 21 as part of the drive to destroy national sovereignty and “nation states.”

Environmentalists insist that the borders must be open to allow as many to immigrate here as possible. They argue that the U.S. has a greater ability to control them and protect the environment than if we left them in third world countries. That’s because the Greens already have a stranglehold over our nation’s industry through massive environmental regulations.

In the face of their fear of overpopulation, however, studies have shown that there is no world wide over population crisis. In fact one study insists that we could put the entire population of the world in an area the size of Texas with a population density of Paris, France. Over population, and its accompanying environmental degradation, is a problem primarily in countries where the poor are deprived by government to improve their conditions. Nations that refuse to legalize private property ownership for the masses, for example, are a primary reason for growing poverty.

Meanwhile, Sustainablists work to keep these nations from developing or increasing energy use, thereby keeping them poor. Green regulations stop the building of infrastructure. They panic at the idea of increased energy use in developing nations. Instead of working to solve the real problems – the root of poverty- they exploit the excuse of over population and advocate enforcing polices to drastically reduce populations. China’s brutal one child policy of forced abortions and sterilization has become their model.

Do you think I’m joking? Then consider these quotes from the Sustainablists:

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” David Brower (Sierra Club)

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At a more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment.

Issue 3: The destruction of the free market system. We have heard statement after statement from the UN; from members of Congress; the news media; and from Hollywood, all deriding the free market system as evil, corrupt and a tool of the rich to hold down the poor. So now, after deciding that the poor are expendable for the sake of stopping overpopulation, suddenly the planners are worried about them – if it leads to their ability to raid our bank accounts. So are they really worried about protecting the environment – or are they actually  honoring the tactics of Jesse James?

Redistribution of wealth is behind every policy that comes out of the UN, and now the Obama Administration as well. The EPA is the attack dog to shut down entire industries like coal. It has become very difficult to operate a manufacturing business in the US, and nearly impossible to start a new one. Environmental protection is always the excuse, even when Obama’s own State Department said the Keystone Pipeline was not an environmental threat. A couple of years ago, radical greens, wielding torches, demonstrated outside the home of the head of the Keystone pipeline company. Visions of the terror of the Dark Agenda?

At the UN’s Rio + 20 Summit held in 2012, the idea of “Zero Economic Growth” was advocated – just to keep things fair. It was stated that even the building of new roads upsets the status quo and disrupts a well ordered society. Such idiotic ideas are the driving force behind Sustainable Development. Again, images of the Dark Ages come to mind.

Yet, consider “local” planning programs that cut off access roads, and again, discourage cars. What about the EPA’s war on industry. Pretty hard to have economic growth without industry. The timber industry is killed and communities die. Dams are torn down and farmers disappear. Zero Economic Growth in the making. Just local?

Again, not my words, let them tell you themselves:

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, (Earth First).

“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control” Professor Maurice King (Population Control Advocate)

“We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources…and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society… because the free market has proven itself incapable of doing this.” Plannersnetwork.org Statement of Principles. the American Planning Association is a member and supporter of these principles.  

Issue 4: Cheap Energy is the enemy of the Earth. To the average person the drive to stop any ability to obtain cheap energy makes no sense. People are hurting economically. Jobs are lost. Energy costs are skyrocketing. Any attempt to drill oil, fracking of shale gas, and mining coal are all vigorously blocked by government and green policy. Yet the government spends billions of dollars on “alternative energy” such as wind and solar, which provides less than 3% of our energy needs. Why? What is the motivation to put such shackles on the US economic engine? The excuse is that energy use drives up CO2 emissions and accelerates global warming – the excuse necessary to “harmonize” the US into the socialist, Sustainable global noose.

Many current state and local policies now are moving to increase taxes at the gas pump to keep energy costs high. In addition, Obama just issued an Executive Order to ban any off shore drilling of oil. So, just as the consumer started to get a break at the pump, higher taxes and Obama’s action will force prices back up.  As the prices rise the “planners” will insist that the only solution is to enforce the building of expensive public transportation.

But, according to some anti-energy advocates, the fear of cheap energy goes beyond environmental protection – energy availability helps build wealth for individuals and removes them from the rolls of the dependent – the opposite goal of sustainable policy.

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy is the worst thing that could ever happen to the planet.” Prof. Paul Ehrlich  (Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University).

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute).  

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” Jeremy Rifkin (Greenhouse Crisis Foundation).   

Issue 5: Common Core. Many people see the reorganization of the public school issue as separate from Agenda 21. It’s not. Those who are promoting what they call the Agenda for the 21st Century understand that it is going to be a long drawn out process. To “reform” a nation created on the ideals of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty into one that unquestioningly accepts government top down control will take time and a determined effort. There’s no room in a Sustainablist society for those who believe that we were born with our rights and that government’s job is to protect those rights. The sustainable system says government will grant us our rights.

To enforce such a radical turn around of our society requires that the children be indoctrinated to accept it. The effort started in earnest in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration through the massive growth of the Department of Education in such programs as Goals 2000, School To Work and Workforce Development Boards.

The original American education system effectively provided an overall academic education from which students could choose their own futures. No longer. Today, the new curriculum has morphed into what is called Common Core. It’s a State run central curriculum that revamps schools into little more than job training and indoctrination centers.

Because, you see, today’s public education system is also designed to strip the children of their attitudes, values and beliefs that parents may have instilled, and indoctrinate them into accepting global values – global citizenship and a global economy based on the sustainable agenda. Little of American civics and history are taught in today’s classroom. But text books contain whole chapters on the Five Pillars of Islam, while ignoring the 10 Commandments of Christianity. The children are fed an unending diet of the evils of capitalism; the selfishness of individualism, and the social justice of redistribution of wealth. It punishes students for possessing individuality and is designed to eliminate such natural human tendencies. That is the “common” in Common Core. Common values, common goals, common future. Don’t rock the boat of a well ordered society.

Common Core is the nationally dictated curriculum necessary for the acceptance and implementation of Agenda 21.  Of course, we still elect local school boards pretending they have some say over the curriculum. It makes us all feel safer for our children. How, then do we explain the surge of Bernie Sanders and the Tsunami of Socialism? Well, today nearly every adult up to the age of 40 has gone thought this indoctrination, trained to accept a future chosen for them by someone else.

The education system was fully outlined in a very detailed letter to Hillary Clinton from Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy in November, 1992, immediately after Bill. Clinton was elected President.

Said Tucker: “First, a vision of the kind of national – not federal – human resources development system the nation could have. This is interwoven with a new approach to governing that should inform that vision. What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone…” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state, and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”       

Issue 6: Healthcare. How is healthcare connected to Agenda 21? Simply Google “Sustainable Medicine” and you will find more than 5,850,000 English language references to the subject. Read through the ideas expressed there and you will find nearly every provision of Obamacare.

An expert on Sustainable Medicine, the late Dr. Madeleine Cosman, put it this way: “Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die.” Sustainable medicine makes decisions through visioning councils that determine what shall be done or not done to each body in its group in its native habitat. Sustainable medicine experts do not refer to citizens in sovereign nations, but to “humans” in their “settlements.” Sustainable medicine is the pivot around which all other Sustainable Development revolves. Principle #1 of the Rio Declaration that introduced Agenda 21 is that all humans must live in harmony with nature. The translation means rationing healthcare, low technology for health care treatment and emphasis on medical care not cure. And that, of course, will lead to population reduction, as called for in Agenda 21.

These are the issues that are not usually discussed or connected to Agenda 21. Yet they are being implemented, step by step, by local planners in policies that are approved by befuddled elected representatives.  It’s all driven through pressure from private NGO groups and funded by federal grants. That’s how it’s done, constantly driven a little bit with each innocent sounding idea. Then, without warning, Frankenstein rises from behind the smokescreen, toe bones and anklebones fully operational.

Americans must understand and connect these dots to everyday issues so they can clearly see the root and long term goals of these policies that are affecting our personal lives. Elected representatives at every level of government must come to understand that legislative actions have consequences far beyond their understanding. Agenda 21 is the “common core” and it has already invaded every level of our society. Our battle cry must be to stop this monster or watch freedom perish.

Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, is one of the nation’s leading experts on Agenda 21 and its assault on property rights and personal freedom. He is author of the book “Now Tell Me I was Wrong” and editor of the monthly newsletter The DeWeese Report.      For more information visit www.americanpolicy.org.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM.png


How Schooling Leads to War



From Classrooms to Killing Fields

5-11-2016 9-28-36 AM.pngby Dan Sanchez,

In 2013, American and British public opinion said “hell no” to plans to bomb (and surely regime change) Syria, taking the momentum out of the march to war. This marked a peak in post-Iraq war-weariness. But then in August 2014, many hearts were touched by the plight of a group of Yazidis trapped on a mountain and besieged by ISIS. So public opinion sanctioned a humanitarian military rescue. During the operation, it was revealed that the crisis was blown way out of proportion, as excuses for war so often are.

Predictably, ISIS retaliated. The group posted snuff films depicting the beheading of western journalists. American outrage was intense enough to allow President Obama to essentially launch a new war on ISIS. And since ISIS was in Syria as well as Iraq, this provided cover for American planes to enter and bomb Syria after all. This too elicited retaliation, in the form of ISIS terror attacks against civilians on western soil: in France, the U.S., Belgium, and elsewhere.

Following these attacks, western war weariness was eclipsed by a resurgent militant hostility toward Muslim peoples. Now America is in a fighting mood, and may be one major attack away from tipping headlong into war fever again. And all it took was less than two years of escalating tit-for-tat hostilities between western militaries and ISIS, starting with the Yazidi rescue, for public sentiment to revert from “hell no” to “let’s roll.” The American war machine is primed and “Ready for Hillary” or Trump.

How did we become so manipulable and herd-like? So easily spooked into hysterical stampedes? So docile and ready to be driven by our government herders over the precipice of war?

In a word, near-universal compulsory schooling. In school, students are not so much taught as they are conditioned. Schooling deeply ingrains certain mentalities that foster militancy: timidity and tribalism, dependency and docility, conformity and credulity. And so schools sow the spiritual seeds of war.

Only a people conditioned from childhood to be easily terrorized will react to small-scale crimes with mass panic. Only a people afflicted with rank tribalism will respond to the murder of a few dozen westerners by a handful of Islamists by sanctioning mass military violence against Muslim populations. Only a people beset with learned helplessness would respond to perceived threats by reflexively offering total deference to the authorities: yielding their freedoms and totally outsourcing the responsiblity to protect themselves and their families. Only a people trained to unquestioningly trust the ordained experts would let themselves be lied into war time and again.

The dependency and docility are cultivated by placing children under constant direction and supervision by teachers and administrators, who bestow favors and inflict punishments at will. Then there is the regimentation: the prescribed classroom routines, constantly being lined up, the P.E. exercises in military drill formation, the assigned movements from cell to cell according to a Pavlovian bell. Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance, a daily ritual of professing submission to the State, originally prescribed it to be accompanied by what he termed “a military salute”: the same salute now famously associated with the Nazis.

5-11-2016 9-29-37 AM.pngAll this conditioning is reinforced by the content of the curriculum, which emphasizes reverence for authority: from its glorification of the police to its cult of the presidency.

The factory schools mass-produce lockstep “patriots,” ready to fall in line in support of whatever war his government has declared, and to hate whichever foreigners his government has instructed him to hate. They also churn out “good soldiers” ready to enlist or be conscripted, and then to lay down their lives if so commanded: the ultimate “pledge of allegience” to the State.

In fact, universal compulsory schooling was invented specifically for this purpose. As John Taylor Gatto wrote in his Underground History of American Education:

“The particular utopia American believers chose to bring to the schoolhouse was Prussian. The seed that became American schooling, twentieth-century style, was planted in 1806 when Napoleon’s amateur soldiers bested the professional soldiers of Prussia at the battle of Jena. (…)

The most important immediate reaction to Jena was an immortal speech, the “Address to the German Nation” by the philosopher Fichte — one of the influential documents of modern history leading directly to the first workable compulsion schools in the West. Other times, other lands talked about schooling, but all failed to deliver. Simple forced training for brief intervals and for narrow purposes was the best that had ever been managed. This time would be different.

In no uncertain terms Fichte told Prussia the party was over. Children would have to be disciplined through a new form of universal conditioning. They could no longer be trusted to their parents. Look what Napoleon had done by banishing sentiment in the interests of nationalism. Through forced schooling, everyone would learn that ‘work makes free,’ and working for the State, even laying down one’s life to its commands, was the greatest freedom of all.”

In school, the teachers, textbooks, and answer keys are dispensers of the “right answers.” This is the prime source of our propensity to gullibly swallow the false narratives and outright fabrications fed them by the “experts” in government and the media to sell each war.

Then there are the emergency drills. The fire drills are still with us. The nuclear terror of duck-and-cover drills have been replaced by the updated terror of active shooter drills. These do nothing to enhance safety. The drills only drill into the developing brains of children trauma, terror, and timidity. They train the public to automatically defer to authority and yield to regimentation and mobilization whenever a perceived threat emerges.

5-11-2016 9-31-05 AM.pngSchools also help to seed the tribal nationalism that is so crucial for war. Pep rallies serve as preparatory play-acting for later participation in war rallies. The kind of sentiments first stimulated as “school spirit” and “team spirit” are later rekindled as militant patriotism. In between wars, and after graduation, the attitude of tribal chauvinism simmers as team sports fandom, ready to be boil over into militant jingoism as soon as a foreign country is designated as a “rival team.”

This too is reinforced by the curriculum, which is suffused by nationalistic myths about past wars. In American schools, the lessons most emphasized revolve around World War II. Largely based on the official narrative of “the good war,” we are indoctrinated from childhood to accept our government’s heroic and indispensible role in the world; the folly of appeasing past and future Hitlers; and the hard but often “necessary” choice to bomb, even nuke, foreign civilians for the greater good.

Schools are hatcheries of the herd-minded, and nurseries of war.

Also published at Medium.com and DanSanchez.me.

Dan Sanchez is Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE.org), contributing editor at Antiwar.com, and an independent journalist for TheAntiMedia.org. Follow him via TwitterFacebook, or TinyLetter.

Read more by Dan Sanchez

 5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM.png

Dissatisfied? Wait a minute, things will change!


Sorry I don’t have the link or author’s name…

 In 1998, Kodak had 170,000 employees and sold 85% of all photo paper worldwide. Within just a few years, their business model disappeared and they went bankrupt.

What happened to Kodak will happen in a lot of industries in the next

10 year – and most people don’t see it coming. Did you think in 1998 that 3 years later you would never take pictures on paper film again?

Yet digital cameras were invented in 1975. The first ones only had

10,000 pixels, but followed Moore’s law. So as with all exponential technologies, it was a disappointment for a long time, before it became way superior and got mainstream in only a few short years. It will now happen with Artificial Intelligence, health, autonomous and electric cars, education, 3D printing, agriculture and jobs. Welcome to the 4th Industrial Revolution. Welcome to the Exponential Age.

Software will disrupt most traditional industries in the next 5-10 years.

Uber is just a software tool, they don’t own any cars, and are now the biggest taxi company in the world. Airbnb is now the biggest hotel company in the world, although they don’t own any properties.

Artificial Intelligence: Computers become exponentially better in understanding the world. This year, a computer beat the best Go player in the world, 10 years earlier than expected. In the US, young lawyers already don’t get jobs. Because of IBM Watson, you can get legal advice (so far for more or less basic stuff) within seconds, with 90% accuracy compared with 70% accuracy when done by humans. So if you study law, stop immediately. There will be 90% less lawyers in the future, only specialists will remain. Watson already helps nurses diagnosing cancer, 4 time more accurate than human nurses. Facebook now has a pattern recognition software that can recognize faces better than humans. In 2030, computers will become more intelligent than humans.

Autonomous cars: In 2018 the first self-driving cars will appear for the public. Around 2020, the complete industry will start to be disrupted. You don’t want to own a car anymore. You will call a car with your phone, it will show up at your location and drive you to your destination. You will not need to park it, you only pay for the driven distance and can be productive while driving. Our kids will never get a driver’s license and will never own a car. It will change the cities, because we will need 90-95% less cars for that. We can transform former parking space into parks. 1.2 million people die each year in car accidents worldwide. We now have one accident every

100,000 km, with autonomous driving that will drop to one accident in

10 million km. That will save a million lives each year.

Most car companies might become bankrupt. Traditional car companies try the evolutionary approach and just build a better car, while tech companies (Tesla, Apple, Google) will do the revolutionary approach and build a computer on wheels. I spoke to a lot of engineers from Volkswagen and Audi; they are completely terrified of Tesla.

Insurance companies will have massive trouble because without accidents, the insurance will become 100x cheaper. Their car insurance business model will disappear.

Real estate will change. Because if you can work while you commute, people will move further away to live in a more beautiful neighborhood.

Electric cars will become mainstream until 2020. Cities will be less noisy because all cars will run on electric. Electricity will become incredibly cheap and clean: Solar production has been on an exponential curve for 30 years, but you can only now see the impact. Last year, more solar energy was installed worldwide than fossil. The price for solar will drop so much that all coal companies will be out of business by 2025.

With cheap electricity comes cheap and abundant water. Desalination now only needs 2kWh per cubic meter. We don’t have scarce water in most places, we only have scarce drinking water. Imagine what will be possible if anyone can have as much clean water as he wants, for nearly no cost.

Health: The Tricorder X price will be announced this year. There will be companies who will build a medical device (called the “Tricorder” from Star Trek) that works with your phone, which takes your retina scan, your blood sample and you breath into it. It then analyses 54 biomarkers that will identify nearly any disease. It will be cheap, so in a few years everyone on this planet will have access to world class medicine, nearly for free.

3D printing: The price of the cheapest 3D printer came down from $18,000 to $400 within 10 years. In the same time, it became 100 times faster. All major shoe companies started 3D printing shoes. Spare airplane parts are already 3D printed in remote airports. The space station now has a printer that eliminates the need for the large amount of spare parts they used to have in the past.

At the end of this year, new smart phones will have 3D scanning possibilities. You can then 3D scan your feet and print your perfect shoe at home. In China, they already 3D printed a complete 6-storey office building. By 2027, 10% of everything that’s being produced will be 3D printed.

Business opportunities: If you think of a niche you want to go in, ask yourself: “in the future, do you think we will have that?” and if the answer is yes, how can you make that happen sooner? If it doesn’t work with your phone, forget the idea. And any idea designed for success in the 20th century is doomed in to failure in the 21st century.

Work: 70-80% of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years. There will be a lot of new jobs, but it is not clear if there will be enough new jobs in such a small time.

Agriculture: There will be a $100 agricultural robot in the future. Farmers in 3rd world countries can then become managers of their field instead of working all days on their fields. Aeroponics will need much less water. The first Petri dish produced veal is now available and will be cheaper than cow produced veal in 2018. Right now, 30% of all agricultural surfaces is used for cows. Imagine if we don’t need that space anymore. There are several startups who will bring insect protein to the market shortly. It contains more protein than meat. It will be labeled as “alternative protein source” (because most people still reject the idea of eating insects).

There is an app called “moodies” which can already tell in which mood you are. Until 2020 there will be apps that can tell by your facial expressions if you are lying. Imagine a political debate where it’s being displayed when they are telling the truth and when not.

Bitcoin will become mainstream this year and might even become the default reserve currency.

Longevity: Right now, the average life span increases by 3 months per year. Four years ago, the life span used to be 79 years, now it’s 80 years. The increase itself is increasing and by 2036, there will be more than one year increase per year. So we all might live for a long, long time, probably way more than 100.

Education: The cheapest smart phones are already at $10 in Africa and Asia. Until 2020, 70% of all humans will own a smart phone. That means, everyone has the same access to world class education. Every child can use Khan academy for everything a child learns at school in First World countries. We have already released our software in Indonesia and will release it in Arabic, Swahili and Chinese this Summer, because I see an enormous potential. We will give the English app for free, so that children in Africa can become fluent in English within half a year.


2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM.png


Apples or Oranges?



Anna asks you.

Everyone continues to mistake apples for oranges.  Just like we, the people, are not THEM, the persons, our system of law is not THEIR system of law.

In the Common Law, which we are owed, the people have the right of “jury nullification”.  Any jury of 12 honest Americans can overturn, edit, or abolish any law passed by any legislature. Period!  That is how the people rule.

But these crooks have instituted their admiralty law system and we haven’t provided ourselves with the system we are owed, so here we sit.

Our friend in Georgia is still confused by this, still banging his head pushing against a “pull” door.  He can’t get justice out of THEIR system and should not expect to.  It is not a justice system and it is not controlled by the people. It is a debt collection agency set up to create and launder penal bonds for the corporations that own the court system.

Literally, they own the courts.   If IBM owns the court, are they going to find in your favor when you bring suit against IBM?

Current statistics say that that happens less than 2% of the time.

So— what to do?   Milligan Ex Parte says that wherever our American Common Law Courts are functioning, there is not excuse for them using military-corporate tribunals.

Organize your jural assemblies for the land jurisdiction of the United States, elect your judges, your Sheriffs on the Land, your clerks, etc., and get going.

 Calling Out John Daresh, and NLA



by Anna Von Reitz

Do you all have sense enough to know that a Common Law Grand Jury is just one part of a Common Law Court?

Go through it in your own head. What makes up a court?

You have the office of the judge (or justice or magistrate), you have the court clerk, you have the bailiff, you have the grand jury, you have the trial jury, and you have a sheriff and his deputies to enforce the jury’s decision.

Observe that the Grand Jury is just one part of the whole. Without the rest, it spins its wheels. It goes nowhere.  It does nothing.  Just like NLA’s Common Law Grand Juries have done for the past three years.

John Daresh and Kyle Rearden and the other ignorant prognosticators want you to believe that a Common Law Grand Jury can function on its own and I am telling you that it can’t.

Now let’s look at the facts.  How many cases has NLA prosecuted in the last three years?

Zero that I know of.

Of those, how many were brought to a just conclusion?

Also zero.

You can’t run a car on just an engine.  You need a drive train.  You need a fuel pump.  You need brakes. And the truth of the matter is that simple.

So here we are, taking up the rest of the work to be done to actually form the American Common Law Courts that are so desperately needed and what does NLA do?

Tries to undermine the effort.  Tries to STOP us from building real public courts. Says that we are “fake judges” when we do.

Well, if we are “fake” then it stands to reason that they are “fake” — but the truth is that if we are owed a Common Law Grand Jury, we are owed an entire Common Law Court System and if NLA or John Daresh ever had any intention of actually doing anything meaningful, they’d be doing it by now.

Not just spending their time and energy gossiping and telling lies about us.

See this article and over 200 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

10 13 11 flagbar


The straight skinny and What You Need to Do



By Anna Von Reitz

Dear Ron,

I obviously haven’t been doing a very good job of communicating or you guys haven’t been doing a very good job of reading— in either case, you should not be surprised by what Obummer is doing.

The IMF has declared “war” on our “persons”.  See the email letter sent to Pope Francis April 22.  See the Letter to Congress.

What happened is that the “United States” defined as the “territories and District of Columbia” seized upon and mischaracterized us as their “Citizens” when in fact we have never been their “Citizens”.

They then created Cestui Que Vie Trusts named after us: JOHN MANLY DOE

They did this without our knowledge or consent.

They rolled all of our assets into these trusts and bonded the assets—- used our assets as collateral backing their debts, without our knowledge or consent.

They went on a decades-long spending spree via the abuse of our credit and finally reached the end of that very long rope all without us knowing a thing about it.

Now the cows have come home.

They have exhausted their credit and our credit in the international community and the secondary creditors are after them.

Mr. Obama is preparing his minions for war because otherwise the IMF has threatened to send UN troops in here to seize our assets in repayment of debts owed by the “United States” defined as “territories and District of Columbia”.

So, we have criminals proposing to start a war on our land and we have angry creditors of those criminals threatening to crash our gates and we have 390 million Americans, most of whom are asleep on their feet from working so hard to pay debts they never owed in the first place.

This craziness has got to end and if we don’t put a stop to it, who will?

We are the priority creditors of Mr. Obummer and his corporations.  The Chinese and all the others will have to get in line behind us.

And at the end of the day, you can’t get blood out of a turnip.  Mr. Obama is a turnip.

The United States defined as the “territories and District of Columbia” never had a pot in the first place.  Everyone knows that.

Everyone knows exactly what services we contracted for from them, too, so it it no big leap to figure out that no, we are NOT responsible for paying for all the crap these vermin have engaged in.  Their corporation is on the hook for all the “extra” spending— not us.

We, the States of America, have accrued a National Credit equal to their “United States” National Debt as a result of how the debt-credit system works.

As their Priority Creditors, we are entitled to collect from them first.

We have ordered the international Trustees and the banks involved to do the bookkeeping involved and settle the imbalance without further ado. This is something that Obama doesn’t have the authority to do.  Only we do.

So we did.

And now it is up to the Pope and the UN Trustees to settle the accounts on paper and it is up to us to deal with our out of control employees.

Part of dealing with them is correcting each and every American’s political status, back to their birthright standing on the land of the organic states of the Union.  Use the “Act of Expatriation and Oath of Allegiance” I provided as an example template— fill in your own names and information, get it notarized, send a copy to John Kerry and the State Secretary of State where you live and the head of their Immigration and Naturalization Service.  Send all mail via Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested.

Revoke your “election to pay” federal income taxes at the same time.  You are not a corporation. You are not a “federal” citizen. You owe them no taxes.

And now you are home again, free and clear, at peace, without a debt to anyone in the world.

If Mr. Obama and the “United States” defined as the “territories and District of Columbia” continues to cause trouble we have numerous means of dealing with him at our disposal and it is certain that we will deal with his corporations, too.

It is all a matter of waking up and realizing who you are and taking care of your own business. In this case, we took care of doing it for the whole nation, because we were the only ones who knew what to do and who did it in a timely fashion.

Next time this kind of fraud blows up, we won’t be here, so it is imperative that you all learn from these mistakes and start handling your affairs and the affairs of your nation more responsibly.

The Federal United States is not now and has never been the “same as” the Continental United States.  Their government is under contract to provide us with “governmental services” but it is a separate and foreign government with respect to us.

Since the early 1900’s, they have operated their “Federal States” and serviced their “Federal Citizens” on our land in an irresponsible manner and have conducted business in dishonest ways, such as calling themselves the United States of America (Minor) so as to promote the confusion between their identity and ours.

Now that you all clearly understand that and understand that you have been mischaracterized as “Citizens” of this foreign entity, I trust that you are capable of correcting the public records and your political status back to your birthright status and claiming your identity as an Ohioan or Wisconsinite or whatever other state you come from.

And get busy forming your local jural assemblies, setting up your own Common Law Courts, your Counties on the Land, your States on the Land, and thinking about the Continental Congress which must be convened to finally settle all this hash.

You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

See this article and over 200 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com