“There is No Safety You Dumb Bitch” – The Hound

03/18/2017

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/there-is-no-safety-you-dumb-bitch-the-hound/

THE DAILY BELL

By Joe Jarvis

Take heed of The Hound’s warning, and let it free you. There is no guarantee of a job or safety net, there is no absolute security from evil doers, and there is only so much you can do to prevent accidents and illness. The silver lining is that recognizing this is the best way to cushion yourself from the vulnerabilities of an unpredictable world.

Brienne of Tarth, in Game of Thrones, is noble in her cause, and intends to uphold an oath she swore to Lady Stark to keep her children safe. But she is also a bit naive about the nature of the world in which she lives.

Brienne thinks she can bring Arya to a safe place, wherever that is. But as The Hound so eloquently reminds her:

“There is no safety you dumb bitch. And if you don’t know that by now, you’re the wrong one to watch over her.”

If Brienne thinks she can ever let her guard down, or relax, she will never be safe. There is no destination at which point she and Arya will be ultimately secure. It just does not exist.

And Sandor Clegane–The Hound–is right; if Brienne of Tarth cannot understand this basic fact about the world, she is not capable of keeping Arya safe.

The Hound’s negative view on the danger of the world actually leaves him less vulnerable. He never expects to be safe, and is therefore safer because he is alert to danger.

As rough and tumble as the Hound is, Arya was in fact safe the entire time she was with him. This was no guarantee, its just how it happened, mostly due to the fact that The Hound knows there is no safety to be had, except by vigilance in every moment.

There is no safe place, there is no safe time, and there are no safe people to be with. This keeps him alert and in a secure position to deal with threats.

And although Brienne’s goal is to make Arya even safer, she instead severely wounds the person protecting Arya. Brienne incorrectly judges The Hound to be a danger to Arya, and then fails to secure Arya, leaving her more defenseless than she had been previously.

And through this interaction, Brienne actually proves The Hound’s point. Brienne’s desire to bring Arya to safety created a dangerous situation that could have been avoided if she only realized that safety is a constant effort, and not a destination.

Should We Apply a Lesson From a Fake Story in a Mythical Setting?

In the modern world we are much safer than humans were in the middle ages. And in the real world there are certain things we don’t have to worry about, like white-walkers and dragons.

But unfortunately we do still have to contend with the likes of Cersi and the Lannisters, the Ramsy Boltons, and the treacherous Freys all playing their part in our own “Game of Thrones”.

In our lives, they are usually less murdery and slightly more taciturn in their elitist desire for domination.

The lesson however remains: there is no guarantee of safety (you dumb bitch).

But before you think I am being gloomy and pessimistic, consider the gift of understanding this realization.

In the pursuit of the ultimate goal of “safety” we expose ourselves and society to all sorts of dangers.

For instance, Trump just authorized the CIA to carry out drone strikes without any oversight. Obama had been carrying out drone strikes for years before that, and Bush before him had invaded countries. All of this is supposedly to make us safe. All it really did was create terrorists and pour fuel on the fire when innocent civilians get murdered by the USA’s bombs.

Would there still be terrorists and crazy people without all that provocation? Yes, I’m sure. But the numbers would most likely be lower, and we could focus on actual defense instead of offensive eradication of the source, which only grows the threat.

It is important to understand that in this world, and in this life, there is no destination. Everything is fluid, and constantly changing. We like to imagine a time in the future when we are secure, safe, comfortable, happy and just generally all set.

But the desire for a finish line is elusive; instead we must constantly extract all these things from our daily lives. Safety is no different. Happiness is a lifestyle, as if comfort, security, and yes, safety.

Safety is all relative. We can certainly do things that make us safer, and we can put ourselves at undue risk.

And this goes as much for economics as for physical safety. Don’t expect Social Security to be there for you, have a backup plan. State pensions are on just as shaky ground. Don’t assume large cash holdings are all you need. There is no guarantee that any one currency, stock, or bond remains stable. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket, including streams of income, and have a backup plan for worst case scenarios.

At the end of the day, safety comes down to vigilance. Unless you are constantly on alert to those things which threaten your safety, you will be taken by surprise.

How Safety Relates to Liberty

It doesn’t really matter if the person making you less safe is Brienne of Tarth or Cersi Lannister. Cersi, in a sense, is safer to be around, because you understand that she is dangerous, and can protect yourself.

But how can you protect yourself from someone who thinks they have your best interests at heart, whether you like it or not?

Some people will have noble goals and try to force you into their “safe” world that they have flawlessly designed for security. Their ignorance makes you just as vulnerable as Cersi’s malevolence.

We must each be at liberty to look after our own safety. Others will offer us ultimate safety, utopia, and uninterrupted security that we can just accept and then forget about. This will lead us down a path of naivety, ignorance, and vulnerability.

Whether those who lure you into the false sense of security are doing so because their goals are noble, or because their motives are nefarious hardly matters.

To riff off Benjamin Franklin, if you give up liberty in the pursuit of safety, you will get neither.


 Solutions? You Guys Want SOLUTIONS???

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/03/solutions-you-guys-want-solutions.html

 

By Anna Von Reitz

Solutions? You Guys Want SOLUTIONS?

Well, how about this?

The court system is messed up because it has been turned into a giant debt collection agency run by the creditors of the Federal Government and its “State of State” franchises.

The rest of the story is that they are collecting on fraudulent debts–debts that (1) don’t exist for the most part and (2) aren’t your debts.

Moreover, these courts are being run as quasi-military tribunals in military districts, under the pretense that the “American Civil War” was ever an actual war.

It wasn’t. It was never Declared by the actual Congress and no Peace Treaty ending it exists, either. It was and is nothing but an illegal commercial mercenary operation on our shores that has been enforced and promoted by disloyal military commanders and criminals in Congress and clueless Presidents.

So, given the fact that these “courts” are foreign military tribunals here on our soil as the result of an illegal and immoral commercial mercenary action now 150 years old— and that they are collecting on debts that are odious and fraudulent by nature…..

And given the fact that Donald Trump is now the “Commander in Chief” and able to order the District Commanders to shut these so-called courts down and reopen the courts we are owed….

Why not light a firecracker up Commander-in-Chief Trump’s rump and suggest that he do so, post haste?  Tell him that Judge Anna can show him precisely how and when this system got set up and how it has been abused, and what his power is with respect to ending the hideous mockery that “stands for” a court system in this country right now.

Olddogs Comment!

Any one looking for help from the enemy is peeing in the wind, and D.C. is the heart of the monster. Trump is surrounded by people who would jump off a cliff before allowing him to know the truth. And if he should wise up he is toast. It is up to the people to grow a set and take their country back!


Things We DON’T Have to Research AGAIN

03/17/2017

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/03/things-we-dont-have-to-research-again.html

By Anna Von Reitz

It has come to my attention that patriotic Americans all over this country are spending time and resources delving into things that have already been delved into and explicitly determined with exactitude and proof.  In the interests of saving a lot of unnecessary effort, I am publishing a list of topics we have firmly and well in hand already.

 

  1. The existence of the original constitution called The Constitution for the united States of America.
  2. The existence of the “original” 13th Amendment, called the Titles of Nobility Amendment.
  3. The current status of the Reclamation Acts (still mostly in force).
  4. The non-existence of a Declaration of War commencing the so-called American Civil War.
  5. The non-existence of a Peace Treaty ending the American Civil War.
  6. The destruction by operation of Law of the original Confederation of States.
  7. The publication of a new “Federal Constitution” called “The Constitution of the United States of America” in 1868, applying to a union of corporate franchises operated as States of States.
  8. The unlawful forced conversion of 11 Southern state legislatures following the Civil War.
  9. The unlawful forced adoption of new “state” constitutions following the Civil War and the usurpation of the original States of America by federal franchises operated as States of States under the same or deceitfully similar names.
  10. The unlawful forced adoption of new names in the form “California State” to designate land jurisdiction states.
  11. The fact that neither the United States nor the United States of America have ever been sovereign nations.  Both have always been associations or federations or confederations of sovereign nations.  Our states of the union are the only sovereign nations here.
  12. Our nationality is based on our states— Texans, Wisconsinites, Minnesotans, etc.
  13. The fact that the required ratification of amendments to the Federal Constitution including the 14th and 16th Amendments by the member states never took place.
  14. The fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Governors of the “States of States” acting as franchises of the United States of America worked a constructive bankruptcy fraud against the actual land jurisdiction states and the American people.
  15. The fact that the Federal Reserve has mercilessly and fraudulently bilked and made false claims in commerce against the American states and people since 1913.
  16. The fact that the members of Congress have served themselves and promoted usurpation against the actual states and people of America.

I am sure there are more topics that have been nailed down already that I am presently not mentioning, but all these above have been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here

www.annavonreitz.com


Rule by Thieves One Week in the Life of the American Kleptocracy

03/16/2017

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82887b643445&id=fba3480350&e=84f74f6a6a

 By John W. Whitehead
March 13, 2017

“The first and most important thing to understand about politics is this: forget Right, Left, Center, socialism, fascism, or democracy. Every government that exists — or ever existed, or ever will exist — is a kleptocracy, meaning ‘rule by thieves.’ Competing ideologies merely provide different excuses to separate the Productive Class from what they produce. If the taxpayer/voters won’t willingly fork over to end poverty, then maybe they’ll cough up to fight drugs or terrorism. Conflicting ideologies, as presently constituted, are nothing more than a cover for what’s really going on, like the colors of competing gangs.” — Author L. Neil Smith

The American kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) continues to suck the American people down a rabbit hole into a parallel universe in which the Constitution is meaningless, the government is all-powerful, and the citizenry is powerless to defend itself against government agents who steal, spy, lie, plunder, kill, abuse and generally inflict mayhem and sow madness on everyone and everything in their sphere.

Case in point: in the same week that Wikileaks dropped its bombshell about the CIA’s use of spy tools to subject law-abiding Americans to all manner of government surveillance and hacking—a revelation that caused barely a ripple of concern among the citizenry—the government quietly and with little fanfare continued to wage its devastating, stomach-churning, debilitating war on the American people.

Incredibly, hardly anyone noticed.

This begs the question: if the government is overstepping its authority, abusing its power, and disregarding the rule of law but no one seems to notice—and no one seems to care—does it matter if the government has become a tyrant?

Here’s my short answer: when government wrongdoing ceases to matter, America will have ceased to be.

Just consider the devastation wrought in one week in the life of our American kleptocracy:

On Monday, March 6, police were given the go-ahead to keep stealing from Americans who were innocent of any wrongdoing.

In refusing to hear a challenge to Texas’ asset forfeiture law, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas police to keep $201,000 in ill-gotten cash primarily on the basis that the seized cash—the proceeds of a home sale—was being transported on a highway associated with illegal drug trade, despite any proof of illegal activity by the owner. Asset forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the property is guilty of a criminal offense.

On April 1, 2013, James Leonard was driving with a companion, Nicosa Kane, on U.S. Highway 59 in Texas when the vehicle was stopped by a state police officer for allegedly speeding and following another vehicle too closely. A subsequent search of the vehicle disclosed a safe in the trunk, which Leonard explained belonged to his mother, Lisa Leonard, and contained cash. When the police officer contacted Lisa Leonard, she confirmed that the safe’s contents belonged to her, that the contents constituted personal business, and that she would not consent to allowing the officer to open the safe. After police secured a search warrant, the safe was opened and found to contain $201,000 and a bill of sale for a home in Pennsylvania.

Neither the Leonards nor Kane were found to be in possession of illegal drugs. However, the state initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against the $201,100 on the ground that it was substantially connected to criminal activity because Highway 59 is reputed to be a drug corridor. At trial, Lisa Leonard testified that the money was being sent to Texas so that she could use it to purchase a home for her son and Kane. Both the trial and appeals courts affirmed the authority of state officials to seize and keep Leonard’s funds under the state’s asset forfeiture law, basing their ruling on wholly circumstantial evidence and the reputation of Highway 59. Leonard then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to compel Texas to return her money, given that she was innocent of any crime. In refusing to hear the case on a technicality, the Supreme Court turned its back on justice and allowed the practice of policing for profit to continue.

On Tuesday, March 7, hacked information about the surveillance state was met with a collective shrug by the public, a sign of how indifferent the citizenry has become to living in an electronic concentration camp.

Wikileaks confirmed what we’ve suspected all along: the government’s ability to spy on law-abiding Americans is far more invasive than what we’ve been told. According to the Wikileaks Vault 7 data dump, government agencies such as the CIA and the NSA have been spying on the citizenry through our smart TVs, listening in on our phone calls, hacking into our computerized devices (including our cars), and compromising our security systems through the use of Trojan horses, spyware and malware.

As this Wikileaks revelation confirms, we now have a fourth branch of government. This fourth branch came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military. It is all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful. It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, DC.

You might know this branch of government as Surveillance, but I prefer “technotyranny,” a term coined by investigative journalist James Bamford to refer to an age of technological tyranny made possible by government secrets, government lies, government spies and their corporate ties. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it will all be recorded, stored and used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

Privacy, as we have known it, is dead.

On Wednesday, March 8, police were given further incentives to use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals.

Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident, an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car, mistakenly believing the wallet in his hand to be a gun. From the time the driver stumbled out of his car, waving his wallet in the air, to the time he was shot in the abdomen, only six seconds had elapsed. Although the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded “that a reasonable officer in Hancock’s position would have feared for his life,” the video footage makes clear that the courts continue to march in lockstep with the police, because no reasonable person would shoot first and ask questions later.

A report by the Justice Department on police shootings in Philadelphia, which boasts the fourth largest police department in the country, found that half of the unarmed people shot by police over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”

What exactly are we teaching these young officers in the police academy when the slightest thing, whether it be a hand in a pocket, a man running towards them, a flashlight on a keychain, a wallet waved in a hand, or a dehumanizing stare can ignite a strong enough “fear for their safety” to justify doing whatever is deemed necessary to neutralize the threat, even if it means firing on an unarmed person?

On Thursday, March 9, police were given even more leeway in how much damage they can inflict on those they serve and the extent to which they can disregard the Constitution.  

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing. The case arose in 2010 after a police dog attacked a homeless man near an abandoned house where police were tracking a robbery suspect. The cop refused to call off the dog immediately, despite the man’s pleading and the fact that he did not match the description of the robbery suspect. The homeless man suffered deep bites on his hand, arm and thigh, that required a nearly 16-inch skin graft, as well as severe bleeding, bruising, swelling and an arterial blood clot. Incredibly, not only did the court declare that the police officer was protected by qualified immunity, which incentivizes government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion, but it had the nerve to suggest that being mauled by a police dog is the equivalent of a lawful Terry stop in which police may stop and hold a person for questioning on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.”

Also on March 9, government officials assured the Michigan Supreme Court that there was nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors at 4 a.m. and “asking” homeowners to engage in warrantless “knock-and-talk” sessions. Although government lawyers insist citizens can choose to say no to such heavy-handed requests by police to conduct unwarranted interrogations, if such coercive tactics are allowed, it would give SWAT teams further incentive to further terrorize anyone even remotely—or mistakenly—suspected of wrongdoing without fear of repercussion.

On Friday, March 10, the military industrial complex continued to wage war abroad, while government agencies, including members of the military, remained embroiled in controversies over sexual misconduct.

A day after military brass defended the U.S.-led raid in Yemen that killed 10 children and at least six women, Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of U.S. Central Command, informed members of Congress that even more U.S. troops were needed in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban. Some 8400 American troops have been stationed in Afghanistan since the U.S. invaded the country post 9/11. Approximately 400 more Marines are being sent to Syria to aid U.S. forces in their fight against ISIS.

That same day, news reports indicated that members of several branches of the U.S. military, including the Marines, have been using online bulletin boards to either share or solicit nude or explicit photos and videos of women in the military. One Facebook page for Marines, which has nearly 30,000 followers, contained graphic language about how the women photographed, some without their knowledge or consent, should be treated. As the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) revealed, “One member of the Facebook group suggested that the service member sneaking the photos should ‘take her out back and pound her out.’ Others suggested more than vaginal sex: ‘And butthole. And throat. And ears. Both of them. Video it though … for science.’” According to CIR, the photo sharing began less than a month after the first Marine infantry unit was assigned women.

The FBI has also been getting in on the photo-sharing gig, only its agents have been distributing child porn, allegedly in an effort to catch consumers of child porn. Curiously, the Department of Justice has opted to drop its case against a man accused of child pornography rather than be forced to disclose the FBI’s tactics for spying on suspected child porn consumers and entrapping them as part of its Operation Pacifier sting. What the case revealed was that for a little while, in its single-minded pursuit of lawbreakers, the FBI became a lawbreaker itself as the largest distributor of child pornography. All told, the FBI uploaded tens of thousands of images of child pornography to the “dark web.”

As reporter Bryan Clark points out:

At the intersection of technology and law, we’ve proven two things as the result of Operation Pacifier: 1. Government bodies have proven their willingness to circumvent — or even break — the law to capture suspected criminals it’s not even willing to prosecute. 2. We’re living in an age where — to agencies like the FBI — criminals and their victims are less important than the tools used to track them down. It’s hard to argue on the side of an alleged pedophile. But in this case, the FBI was the pedophile’s equal. It was the agency, you’ll recall, that disseminated these images to some 150,000 registered members… this means the FBI perpetrated the same heinous crime it attempted to charge others with, all while securing what could result in zero convictions.

Mind you, this was just one week of shootings, degradation, excessive force, abuse of power and complicity in the American police state. Magnify the impact of these events 52 times over, because they are taking place every week in this country, and you will find yourself weak at the knees.

Somewhere over the course of the past 240-plus years, democracy has given way to kleptocracy, and representative government has been rejected in favor of rule by career politicians, corporations and thieves—individuals and entities with little regard for the rights of American citizens.

This dissolution of that sacred covenant between the citizenry and the government—establishing “we the people” as the masters and the government as the servant—didn’t happen overnight. It didn’t happen because of one particular incident or one particular president. It is a process, one that began long ago and continues in the present day, aided and abetted by politicians who have mastered the polarizing art of how to “divide and conquer.”

Unfortunately, there is no magic spell to transport us back to a place and time where “we the people” weren’t merely fodder for a corporate gristmill, operated by government hired hands, whose priorities are money and power.

Our freedoms have become casualties in an all-out war on the American people.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this war is being fought on many fronts, with bullets and tasers, with surveillance cameras and license readers, with intimidation and propaganda, with court rulings and legislation, with the collusion of every bureaucrat on the government’s payroll, and most effectively of all, with the complicity of the American people, who continue to allow themselves to be easily manipulated by their politics, distracted by their pastimes, and acclimated to a world in which government corruption is the norm.

How do we stop the hemorrhaging?

Start by waking up. Pay attention to what’s going on around you. Most of all, think for yourself.

As H. L. Mencken observed:

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.


What Has Been Done For You

03/15/2017

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/03/what-has-been-done-for-you.html

By Anna Von Reitz

First– to all my friends worldwide who are not Christian– bear with me.  I promise that this has a message for you, too, but for reasons that are or will become obvious, I am obliged to speak to and within the confines of Christian history for a moment.

In 1302, Pope Boniface established the world’s first and largest Express Trust called the “Unam Sanctam” Trust.  In this document he claimed that his office was that of Trustee for the whole earth and everything on it.  That is, he claimed to own the air, the birds within in, the sea and all its creatures, and the earth, too, together with all the land animals and people and buildings on it.

He claimed to own it all and to be Christ’s Trustee.

(Editors note,  Here are 4 different translations of the text of the Bull. 
From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm )

From The Papal Register, published in 1889 by P. Mury in Revue des Questions Historique p 255-256

https://archive.org/stream/sourcebookofmedi00oggfrich#page/384/mode/2up

From Frederic Austin Ogg (ed.), A Source Book of Medieval History (New York, Cincinnati: American Book Company, 1908), 385–88.

http://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/files/primary-source-39-boniface-unam-sanctam.pdf

In both English and the Latin original.
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/unamsanctum.htm

And the Roman Catholic Church set out to organize the entire world accordingly, and over the next few centuries, created three jurisdictions: air, land, and sea.

The air jurisdiction– beside containing birds — contains spirits and demons, angels, electric currents, sound waves and more—- is global in nature.  That province the Church reserved for itself.   Sins occur in the jurisdiction of the air.

The sea jurisdiction was farmed off to the British Monarch. Debts occur in the jurisdiction of the sea.

The land jurisdiction was farmed off to the Spanish Monarch.  Losses occur in the jurisdiction of the land.

And that, with more or less success, has been the “way of the world” for the last seven centuries.

But wait a minute….. if the Pope in his office is Trustee of the Spirit Realm and in his office as Roman Pontiff the Trustee of the Material Realm…..why aren’t all these bills being paid?

Obviously, Satan has been maintaining a stronghold somewhere.

Ah.

Even though Jesus and Satan played for keeps, it wasn’t the risen Christ that paid for the sins (debts) of the world.  It was a very real, very material man.  A carpenter from Galilee. And he is not here in the flesh to demand payment.

So, the theory was— until He came back in the flesh it was business as usual. Satan just conveniently kept the Keys to the Kingdom of God and operated through the office of the Roman Pontiff, while the Pope held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sweet.

However, that wasn’t the deal.  If Jesus had made a single misstep on his way to Golgotha, Satan’s victory would have been assured.  He would have reigned forever on Earth, until he destroyed it.

But Jesus carried through on His part of the bargain, paid the price, once and forever and for the whole world—- both goats and sheep, both tares and wheat, His own Followers and the Hindus of India and the Buddhists of Tibet and everyone else, everywhere, for all time.   And–this is important— all jurisdictions.

He absorbed all sins, all debts, all losses.

The Kingdom of Heaven knows no sin, no debt, no loss, no scarcity, no illness, but the Kingdom of God does.

These facts have been plainly stated in the scriptures for centuries and established in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church along with the Unam Sanctam Trust and the claim of the Popes to be the Trustees of Christ on Earth— His Vicar.

Fine.

So it was time for someone, a Beneficiary acting as Jesus’ Fiduciary Deputy in the flesh, to pull the plug.

Please see the attached Payment Bond.  I presented it to Cardinal Mamberti, the head of the Vatican Chancery Court, as of January 6, 2017.

http://annavonreitz.com/universalpaymentbond.pdf

You will all note from reading the attached Original Copy of the Payment Bond, that it was delivered on the Day of the Three Kings, when the princes of the Earth pay homage to their Redeemer.  You will notice that the Payment Bond lasts for 1,000 years during which the peace of the Kingdom of Heaven and its abundance is to reign and the swords are to be beaten into plowshares.  You will note that it is for redemption of the Kingdom of God, where all the sins and debts and losses are stored up. You will note that it is for all NAMES or Names of any kind.  You will note that it puts an end to the Doctrine of Scarcity, and that it proclaims that the Law of Heaven is in force on Earth: to keep the peace, to love each other, and to do no harm.  And there is no other law we are bound to.

This has been done for each and every one of you regardless of your belief or disbelief, your faith or lack thereof.  You have been dearly bought and are now redeemed, set free of sin, debt, and loss.  The cruelty of Satan’s Rule is ended. A new life lies before you.

In embracing this new life, leave behind the ideas of differences and tribes.

Dear children, note—- we are all unique.  Each one of us is utterly different from all else that is created.  Protect and care for each one, for each one is sacred.  Let all law and caretaking be focused on just each one, not on any group identity.

As long as we define ourselves as members of groups –tribes, nations, etc., we condemn ourselves to a world in which bigger nations will always subjugate smaller nations and larger gangs will punish smaller gangs.  Let this thinking go. Let all tribalism diminish until it is only a dim memory.

In the end, there is only each one of you, utterly precious, utterly unique— and All That Is, that you are part of.

My name “Anna Maria” means the “Grace of Mary”, who, when the angel came to her, said— “Let it be done to me according to your word.”  These words have echoed through the centuries in the hearts and minds and experiences of all those who have given themselves to the Lord of Heaven.

So let it be and let it begin.

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com


Vital Terms and History

03/14/2017

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/03/vital-terms-and-history.html

By Anna Von Reitz

Terms and History You Need to Know —
Abraham Lincoln, a Bar Member, functioned in the office of President of the United States (not the President of the United States of America) from his inauguration in 1861 until his assassination in 1865.
Like Barack Obama, this foreign corporate office is the only one he was eligible to serve as a Bar Member.
Remember that all Bar Members were prohibited from holding public office in our government by the Titles of Nobility Amendment to the original Constitution. They are still precluded from holding any public office in our lawful government. Notice the word “public” in the phrase “public office”. Also note the word “lawful”.
We have fifty “lawful” land jurisdiction governments— owed to each of the the united States of America and the undelegated portion of international jurisdiction owed to their union of states known as the united States of America.
We also have a “legal” international jurisdiction government run by the United States, which is also ultimately owed to the united States of America owed under a contract known as The Constitution for the united States of America.
When you become a member of the Bar, you give up your right to hold any public office in the government of the United States of America, but you can hold any private corporate office you like. So, that is what they have done since 1819.
Count how many Bar Members are currently serving in the US Congress?
What does that tell you about how the US Congress is functioning—-in what capacity it is functioning? The only capacity it CAN be functioning in is as a foreign corporation. And the only offices that a foreign corporation can have are private offices, not public offices.
This is why “Acts of Congress” are referred to as “Public Policies”. They can’t produce Public Law while operating this way.
At the end of the illegal mercenary action known as the American Civil “War” the Southern states lay in ruins, subject to the occupying Union Army. The Northern states were in bankruptcy, subject to Trustees—- members of the “Rump Congress”— acting under the direction of European banking interests.
That’s Ground Zero.
The Reconstruction Acts were passed by these members of the “Rump Congress” and they remain substantially in place to this day.
As part of the Reconstruction Acts, quasi-military tribunals were set up throughout ten military districts established in the South. The military commanders in charge of each district were allowed to appoint civilians loyal to the Union to serve as judges.
The lawfully elected Governors and Legislators of the southern states were forcefully removed from office and other appointees were put in their place. These people then functioned as rubber stamps for whatever the Rump Congress wanted. They were known as “carpetbaggers” because they descended hurriedly from the North and commonly carried their essentials in suitcases made from carpet scraps.
They used their positions to steal whatever the war hadn’t destroyed.
In the next several years the process of “Reconstruction” overseen by the Holy See resulted in all the states re-writing their state constitutions. The original land jurisdiction states were renamed.
The original State of Wisconsin which was one of the united States of America was renamed the Wisconsin State.
A new corporate franchise doing business as a franchise of the United States, Inc. took over the name “State of Wisconsin”.
This corporate franchise joined other such franchises in other states to form a new union calling itself the United States of America.
Please note the use of deceptively similar names throughout and the resulting constructive fraud.
“The Constitution for the united States of America” was left to gather dust and a new “Federal Constitution” was published under the name “The Constitution of the United States of America” in 1868.
This is known as a “succession to contract”.
Now, obviously, the “State of Wisconsin” that was part of this new union of states calling itself the United States of America was not the same as the “State of Wisconsin” that entered the union of states calling itself the “united States of America” in 1848.
That original land jurisdiction “State of Wisconsin” was renamed the “Wisconsin State” and so on for all the states and commonwealths.
The new United States, Inc., corporate franchise operating under the name “State of Wisconsin” took over and operated under the so-called Federal Constitution published in 1868— The Constitution of the United States of America, and nobody was the wiser, because the names “State of Wisconsin” and “State of Wisconsin” were identical.
The rank and file people couldn’t tell the difference and weren’t made privvy to these deceptive actions resulting in foreign corporate franchises being substituted for their own original state of the union.
It was the first big identity theft.
Then, equally, the rank and file people weren’t made aware of the substitution of the “United States of America” for their original union of states known as the “united States of America.”
This was the second big identity theft.
Now the foreign bankers that engineered the bankrupcty of the original States of America were in the driver’s seat and able to direct their Bankruptcy Trustees — the Rump Congress– to do whatever they wanted.
They gutted the Southern States and so began the largely unhindered plundering and pillaging of foreign interests on American soil against the American states and the American people.
From that time on, Congress has functioned in collusion with foreign creditors to pillage and plunder the American states and people.
By the time the Great Depression rolled around, FDR functioning as the President of the United States of America (the one set up in 1868) was ready to kick things up a notch. He decided to bankrupt the United States of America, Inc. and all the “States of States” that had been formed after the Civil War.
The proceedings of the Conference of Governors, March 6, 1933 give full testimony to what the rats did.
FDR bankrupted the United States of America, Inc. and the “Governors”— the foreign franchise operators— agreed to “pledge” the “good faith and credit” of their “states” and the “citizens thereof”.
Of course, those states were federal corporation franchises and the “citizens thereof” were United States Citizens— that is, territorial citizens and federal employees.
But that did not stop the vermin from making false claims against the actual land and private property belonging to the Wisconsin State and the American people.
Once again, foreign creditors swept in like clouds of locusts and placed false titles against every scrap of land, every outbuilding and shed in America.
These “titles” are liens.
The innocent living people of Wisconsin and Minnesota were subjected to mortgages owed by the “State of Wisconsin” and “State of Minnesota”, for example—- basically being forced to pay back debts they never owed for the benefit of these foreign US “State of State” franchises, which in turn were paying off the debts of the United States of America, Inc.
Because the normal rank and file Americans were never given disclosure about any of this, nobody complained. The debts of the foreign United States, Inc. and its franchises were “assumed” by the actual states now operating as the Wisconsin State, Minnesota State, and so on—-and FDR and his cronies who were getting shed of all their debts by palming them off on Mom and Pop weren’t about to complain or tell anyone what they had done.
For the next sixty-six years the foreign creditors of the United States of America, Inc. and its foreign “State of State” franchises milked and bilked the actual American States and people, subjecting them to taxes, mortgages, and utility bills they never owed.
Finally, in 1999, the bankruptcy of the United States of America, Inc., settled and all debts were discharged. The battered American States and people should have been released from any further “assumption” of debt, but no…. another fraud game had been set up in the meantime.
FDR sold off the interest in the bankrupt “States of States” to the IMF, and the IMF promptly created its own STATES OF STATES. These foreign municipal “STATES” were run out of the Municipality of Washington, DC under names like “STATE OF NEVADA”. And from there, they created— you guessed it — another union of states called the UNITED STATES.
And, once again, because the hapless American people weren’t given any disclosure of these deals being made “in their behalf” by their supposed “representatives”—- still more corporate debts were assessed against them and “hypothecated” against their credit and against the credit of their actual states.
The United States of America , Inc., by and through its various State of State franchises, claimed to own all the U.S. Citzen franchises named like this: John Michael Doe. He was on the hook to pay off their debts.
The UNITED STATES, INC., by and through its various STATE OF STATE franchises claimed to own all the U.S. CITIZEN franchises named like this: JOHN MICHAEL DOE. He was on the hook to pay off all their debts.
And just recently, UNITED STATES President Barack Obama created a whole other fraud, in which THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., claims to own all the US CITIZEN franchises named like this:
JOHN M. DOE and has made them responsible to pay the debts of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
And then I said, “Hell, no.” (Well, it was actually something a bit more profane that I said.)
And I said it loudly.
And I kept on saying it, until yes, the entire world has heard the word coming down from the Far North.
This crappola is at an end.
There is no “succession to contract” except that claimed by the actual American states and people who are the living heirs of the original equity contract known as The Constitution for the united States of America and the successor contract known as The Constitution of the United States of America, which God knows, we paid for, lock, stock, and barrel.
It is all ours, free and clear, and we are NOT accepting the debts of the UNITED STATES, INC. and its STATE OF STATE franchises, nor are we accepting the debts of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. and its STATE franchises.
Not happening. The jig is up.
We claim it all and we are in fact and in deed, the Priority Creditors of the UNITED STATES, INC., and its franchises and also any other secondaries, derivatives, or successors.
Take YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE with its reference to the “Historic State” and make these vermin aware that its not so “historic”— that it was bankrupted, but didn’t cease to exist any more than you ceased to exist because you were deliberately mischaracterized and misidentified and defrauded by dishonest foreign bankers and treasonous, clueless members of Congress.
And by the way, the bankruptcy of 1933 and its execution by the so-called U.S. Trustees was all fraud, too.
Fraud has no statute of limitations.
Hello?

Olddogs Comments!

I am well aware folks that the info I am re-publishing is depressing and frightening, but look at the up side which is; we only need a hundred million people to learn how to be free and stand up and make demands, So, do not let this cluster F*%k get you down, as it is only your inner rage at being beguiled that will carry you through the process of becoming what you thought you already were.

A FREE AND INDEPENDENT HUMAN BEING!


Truth Is Rare and Hard to Find

03/13/2017

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/03/11/truth-rare-hard-find-paul-craig-roberts/

Paul Craig Roberts

Recent developments show how important and necessary websites such as paulcraigroberts.org are. The latest Wikileaks release of CIA documents code-named Vault 7 reveal that the CIA has the capability and the intent to mask the cyber-attacks it commits by making them seem as if they originated from another source.

This capability destroys the concept of evidence. The CIA can carry out a cyber attack or steal information and leave a fingerprint, so to speak, of the country or person it wants blamed. If the CIA can leave the fingerprint of an innocent party, we must assume the CIA can also put secret documents or child pornography on a person’s computer. Because of the CIA’s capability, henceforth we cannot know if any evidence presented in any trial against any defendant is real of faked. http://www.globalresearch.ca/wikileaks-reveals-cias-umbrage-allows-agency-to-carry-out-false-flag-cyber-attacks/5578786 and
https://www.rt.com/news/380051-assange-malware-cia-fingerprints/

Maria Zakharova points out another reason that sites such as this one are crucial. The fake news promoted by CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, and all the rest of the Western presstitutes has undermined the credibility of all traditional Western media, leaving only Internet sites that vary in commitment to truth from which the public can form an opinion. In a press conference, Zakharova said that the Western media is shameful, a form of vandalism. She asks if the Western media has yet hit bottom “or can they dive a little lower?” The US media is engaged in “a total disinformation campaign not only for their internal audience, but also for the global audience. . . This is Orwell, 1984. Now we know who he wrote about when he wrote about Big Brother. Big Brother, in America, is now the media, which has stepped so far outside of professional ethics, as well as their own competency. They accuse and judge, based on entirely fabricated lies. . . That which is happening now is a global tragedy, the destruction of trust in the authority of media. What is going to happen in the future?” http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/03/big-brother-is-here-zakharova-warns-of.html

The future of truth lies with websites, such as the one you are reading. This website has faithful donors. They are the people who pushed me out of retirement back into the fray. Many of them make automatic monthly donations. Others have joined them. But most of the people who use this site do not support it.

As we see President Trump collapse on his promise of normalized relations with Russia, we witness another president captured by the military/security complex.

For an individual website to go up against powerful forces controlling billions of dollars requires your support. If you are with me, I need your financial support.

If you have any doubts that the media are a propaganda agency for the ruling elite, note that when Julian Assange released the CIA documents given to WikiLeaks that show the CIA’s ability to blame its hacks on innocent parties, ABC presstitute Brian Ross was uninterested in the documents and attempted to discredit the WikiLeaks release with the question if Assange had ever been paid by the Russian government. Assange replied “no” but that it was a “pretty sad question” which tried to divert from the content of the released documents. “Quite interesting,” Assange said, “to see ABC taking that line.” https://www.rt.com/viral/380044-assange-denies-russian-funding-msm/
In other words, when the CIA’s own documents are presented to the whores who comprise the Western media, the well-trained whores cast aspersion on the person who makes the documents public, not on the crimes of those that the documents reveal.

As I wrote some years ago, “Truth Is Imperiled.” You cannot acquire truth from the Western media, but you can get truth from this site. So support it.


The War on Cash Finds Its General

03/11/2017

https://mises.org/library/war-cash-finds-its-general

Kenneth S. Rogoff
Princeton University Press, 2016

Kenneth Rogoff would sharply disagree with Peale, a character in the 1915 novel It Pays to Advertise, who said that the most beautiful word in the English language is “cash.” For Rogoff, a distinguished monetary economist (and chess grandmaster) who teaches at Harvard, cash, especially in large denominations, ought to be eliminated.

Rogoff has two main arguments for his proposal; but, before examining them, let us look at exactly what he wishes to do. In his suggested plan, which “can be adapted and tweaked in many directions,” “All paper currency is gradually phased out, beginning with all notes of $50 and above (or foreign equivalent), then next the $20 bill, leaving only $1, $5, and (perhaps) $10 bills. … The government provides all individuals the option of access to free basic-function debit card/smartphone accounts, either through banks or through a government option. … Regulatory and legal framework aims to discourage other means of making large-scale payments that can be completely hidden from the government. … Government helps facilitate … real-time clearing for most transactions.”

One word reverberates throughout this proposal: “government.” For Rogoff, the government must combat nefarious characters in the “underground economy,” not to mention tax cheats, who transact business in paper money. Think of all the revenue the government has lost, owing to the selfishness of these miscreants!

The problems posed by the underground economy, Rogoff tells us, are far-reaching in scope: there is a great deal of “missing” cash, mostly in large denominations. “The bulk of US cash in circulation cannot be accounted for by consumer surveys. Obviously, if consumers are holding only a small fraction of all cash outstanding, they cannot possibly be holding more than a small fraction of the $100 bills in circulation, since $100 bills account for nearly 80 percent of the value of US currency.”

Where are the missing $100 bills? Much of it is used in illegal activities, like the drug trade. “The drug trade is a famously cash-intensive business at every level. … The RAND Corporation has estimated the combined size of the market for four major illegal drugs in the United States to be more than $100 billion in 2010. … Eliminating cash would hardly eliminate drug cartels. Nevertheless, it would be a significant blow to their business model at many levels.”

But could we not instead deal with this problem by ending the drug war? In a legal market, could the drug cartels survive? Rogoff has in part anticipated this response, but he rejects it summarily. “Obviously there are other ways of reducing drug-related crime. A simple one would be to legalize marijuana … [but] hard drugs would remain problematic.” The thought that the drug war should be ended entirely has not entered his head.

He might reply in this way: “Even if you crazed libertarians would make all drugs legal, you still have to acknowledge that some activities that should be illegal, like human trafficking, depend on dealing in cash. This fact by itself suffices to justify my proposal.”

And this is not all that concerns Rogoff. Cash transactions enable people to avoid paying taxes. “The largest holdings and use of cash in the domestic underground economy likely derive from residents of all types … who are broadly engaged in legal activities but who are avoiding taxes, regulations, or employment restrictions … the tax gap is sufficiently huge that if eliminating cash can close it by as little as, say, 10 percent, the revenue gains would be quite substantial … the gains would be on the order of $50 billion from federal taxes alone and perhaps another $20 billion for state and local taxes.” Rogoff recognizes that many people do not want tax regulations to be “rigidly enforced” but responds that tax evasion creates a “horizontal equity” problem: if you evade your taxes, others, who do not, will have to pay more. But once again, the libertarian response does not occur to him: taxes are unjust exactions that violate people’s rights.

Suppose, though, that one grants to Rogoff that taxes are legitimate and also that ready access to cash makes some crimes much easier to commit. Has he made his case for the abolition of cash? As he recognizes, the advantages of his proposal must be balanced against concerns about privacy: “It is important to separate out protection from government snooping and protection from relatives, friends, employers, or other private entities. Of course, people will always want to keep some expenditures or income secret from spouses, parents, and friends. The government can perfectly allow such transactions as long as they do not entail recurrent large expenditures and income to be completely hidden from the government.”

Incredibly, he fails to realize that many of us do not want the government to monitor what we are doing. As long as our neighbors cannot snoop on us, everything is fine. Where liberty is concerned, Rogoff just does not “get it.” He points that a critic of his proposals quoted against him Dostoevsky’s remark, “Money is coined liberty,” but notes that the remark in The House of the Dead describes life in prison. “To draw an analogy between life in a Tsarist prison and life in the modern liberal state as a defense of large-denomination notes borders on the absurd.” The modern liberal state is your friend; why worry?

What we have discussed so far is only Rogoff ’s first argument for the abolition of cash: he has another as well. If the economy is in a recession, the monetary authorities may need to “turbocharge” the economy by pushing interest rates down. Doing so, they hope, will stimulate production and increase aggregate demand. But at present an obstacle blocks these plans. The money rate of interest has already fallen to zero. Further reductions require negative rates. But if these are imposed, depositors will withdraw their funds. Why keep money in the bank if part of your money will be confiscated?

Rogoff describes the problem of the “zero bound constraint” in this way: “paper currency can be thought of as a zero-interest-rate bond. … As long as people have the choice of paper money, they are not going to be willing to accept an interest rate that is significantly lower on any kind of bond … the zero bound has essentially crippled monetary policy across the advanced world for much of the past 8 years since the financial crash of 2008. If unconstrained negative rate policy was possible … central banks would never ‘run out of bullets’ (i.e., room to keep cutting interest rates)” (p. 5).

If paper money is eliminated, depositors will no longer be able to withdraw their money. What could be simpler?

It is disappointing that Rogoff fails to mention Austrian arguments that stimulating aggregate demand through monetary expansion is not the appropriate response to recession. He has read Rothbard and cites him on paper money in the colonial period (p. 235, note 26). But the Austrian theory of the business cycle is not
within his range of vision.

He does, though, address an argument by Milton Friedman that is highly relevant to stabilization policy. “Friedman perfectly well understood that monetary policy could be a potent tool for economic stabilization, but he argued that central banks were so incompetent and so prone to inflationary finance that life would be simpler and better if the whole concept of Keynesian activist monetary policy was simply forgotten” (p. 188).

He replies that Friedman’s alternative of limited monetary expansion according to a fixed rule has not worked. Friedman thought that there was a fixed relationship between the quantity of money and prices, but this has not always proved to be the case. Rogoff may be right, but he has not responded to Freidman’s argument against central bank discretion. The fact, if it is one, that a particular alternative to discretionary policy fails is irrelevant. If someone argues that policy A will fail, claiming that alternative B is no better is hardly a response.

Regardless of whether Rogoff ’s way of dealing with the zero bound constraint is economically sound, though, is it not unfair on its face? If you deposit money in a bank, why should it be subject in part to confiscation? Rogoff answers that those who press this objection are victims of a “money illusion”: “Many people will likely regard negative interest rates as a violation of the trust citizens place in their government. … To see negative nominal interest rates as unholy but moderate inflation as just bad is to suffer what economists call ‘money illusion’ ” (emphasis in original). But why not take this point to be an argument against government-mandated inflation rather than, as Rogoff wishes, a defense of negative interest rates? Rogoff complains of the “zero bound constraint,” but he is himself bound by statist assumptions.

Olddogs Comments!

Rogoff is just another government, (“Think Banker”), scumbag employee. In his eyes it is perfectly alright if the people are screwed, murdered, or incarcerated for nothing but wanting to do what ever they want with their money, even though most have no clue that it isn’t their money anyway. Think for a minute folks, is your house yours if you do not have an allodial title, on your car, or other assets? Your money is a way of having independence, which is something the bankers and their government do not want us to have. Keeping absolute control over every facet of our lives is the same as physical slavery.

Allodial Rights & the Unalienable Right to Property

http://www.thesocialleader.com/2010/12/allodial-rights-unalienable-property/Under plenary allodialism, such real property could not be taxed or regulated. This is the basis of a free market. There is no government intervention whatsoever with market-based actions and ownership. If allodial rights in land are stripped from the people then we have a situation of totalitarian government. The four rights of the feudal lords are reapplied, but the names are changed. These are now referred to as taxation, expropriation, escheat and eminent domain. The right of the government to own specific portions of land for specific reasons is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. (This is a topic for another article)However, nowhere is power granted for them to retain public land for unremunerated purposes, nor is power granted for them to regulate private property. This has come from an improper interpretation and construction of the commerce clause.

The power to regulate property is a right reserved to each individual property owner. Not because the government granted it, but because it is unalienable. It is this unregulated pursuit, acquisition, and use of property that defines and enables the pursuit of happiness. A free market world where our unalienable allodial rights are secured is a world, the happiness, success, growth, glory, progress, and order of which we do not now enjoy nor comprehend. Yet, it is a world worth giving our life, fortune, and sacred honor for.” By Kyle Roberts