“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