Justification for Study: Living the American dream on borrowed time


By Olddog

Before I was fully retired, like most people, my focus was on supporting my family. There was not much time in that endeavor to think about much else, and again I believe most working class people experience about the same thing. There are exceptions of course, but for the most part I found that people just did not realize they were living the American dream on borrowed time. In fact, many are still unaware of their loss of freedoms, and God given rights. Many more are somewhat aware, but unconcerned due to a false sense of security. After all, this is America, right?

Due to having a natural sense of individualism, I have always been a non-conformist, and once I had the time, I set out to discover why so many people just went along with whatever they were told. Many years later that objective had been subdivided into hundreds of subjects, and I found that I had a higher sense of how people the world over are manipulated from cradle to grave, and for the most part, with their consent.

To make a long story short, many Americans have been influenced from an early age to have a high degree of emotional patriotism that makes them unwilling to face the true history of American politics’. Let’s face it, who wants to know something bad about a loved one? Who wants to admit they have been beguiled from childhood? They have become unwilling to let go of a myth, because to do so, hurts so much.

American exceptionalism is the result of this false sense of value, and trying to change some ones mind that really believes whatever America does is right, is nearly impossible, UNLESS, some person or event convinces them the time has come to have an open mind, and really study both sides of the compulsion to surrender our National Sovereignty to a Global Community.

Once that commitment has been reached and sufficient study has been accomplished, there arises the inevitable crisis of having to ask ones-self; now what the hell do we do? I’ve been there, and done that, and then had to search for the most plausible solution. When I found it, I then had to readjust my child-hood patriotism to a more sensible loyalty to the principles of freedom instead of a tyrannical monolithic nationalism.

There is no getting around it, our present United States Government is out of control, and we have no means of changing it. Assuming your loyalty is to the America we were taught to love and die for, there is only one peaceable way to save it, and that is by going back to the very beginning, and reclaiming individual State Sovereignty, and redesigning a new confederation of States that clearly elucidate the agreements.

If this sounds impossible, it has been done before, and is a lot better than having no say so in the formation of a global government at all. This is where we’re headed, whether you want to believe it or not. You have everything to gain by studying the material I send out, and everything to lose by refusing to be open-minded.

Without a controllable government, we will be slaves to people we have never heard of, and there will be no way to recover our freedom, because the whole world will be against us. Our own government already is, and you can see how hard it is to get them to listen.

Olddogs Comments!

Dear Friends, much has been learned since I wrote the above article and in this present day in history it takes a serious reader to understand how the whole world has been brain washed by the constant lies that have surrounded us from birth. You simply cannot waste your brain on entertainment in all its forms, because it will convince you that there is no truth.

For your own sake you must learn to think by discussing or dealing with matters in a thoughtful or thought-provoking way, as opposed to a superficial or merely entertaining manner. This is the only way you can shed the lies you have been indoctrinated with all your lives. The truth is out there if you will only look for it.

The incomprehensible atrocities we have been exposed to must stop before they reach the power to implement the final selection of who lives or dies. As it has been for a hundred years, there is no real freedom in this corrupt world.

The evil cartel who is responsible for these degenerate acts is composed of hundreds of filthy rich people who have set up the Queen of England, the Pope, and the International Bankers as their front men, and they have no intention of letting the worlds people live free from their control, so they must shrink the worlds population before they do lose control. It’s that damn simple, if you can see what is right before your eyes.

So if you want a catastrophic world war just sit on your ass and wait for the end. A reconstruction of freedom is now possible due to the works of several people who have advanced comprehension of history and governments of the past, but only if the people will participate and due their own studying.

Anna Von Reitz has done the leg work and many more have helped to produce instructions on recovering ones human identity and  all one has to do is learn how to file documents proving your natural identity as a living free human being, not subject to their corporate statutes, and then participate in constructing a government for the people that is really run by the people.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) Proposes Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) to Crush Rise of Cryptocurrencies



By Richard Kastelein

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently pushed out a staff discussion note called “Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations” which provides a wealth of detail in how the organisation takes view on the current rise of cryptocurrencies.

The IMF paper focusses largely on the role DLT can play in cross-border payments and ends on the role that the organisation feels they can play on a global scale to coordinate and regulate digital assets, largely, it appears, by supporting the role of central banks in their quest for creating their own CBDCs and assisting in designing the future regulatory environment.

In other words, push current private cryptocurrencies into a subservient role and let central banks take control:

“The introduction and potential proliferation of private virtual currencies might, in one view, threaten to erode the demand for central bank money and the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. A CBDC may forestall such private virtual currencies or relegate them to a secondary role in the payments system. This threat is not imminent given the current transactions domain and limitations of existing private virtual currencies and their likely medium-term growth. Stability and safety considerations connected to this proliferation may, however, be relevant in the medium run but could presumably be dealt with by other measures.”

The key findings include the following:

  • Boundaries are blurring among intermediaries, markets, and new service providers.
  • Barriers to entry are changing, being lowered in some cases but increased in others, especially if the emergence of large closed networks reduces opportunities for competition.
  • Trust remains essential, even as there is less reliance on traditional financial intermediaries, and more on networks and new types of service providers.
  • Technologies may improve cross-border payments, including by offering better and cheaper
    services, and lowering the cost of compliance with anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regulation.

The international organisation also calls for  jurisdictions to revise rules governing ownership and contractual rights and obligations when it comes to digital assets.

“DLT records the transfer of ownership of “digital tokens,” which are essentially units in a ledger. They can either have intrinsic value themselves (an “intrinsic token” like Bitcoin), or be digital representations of a physical or digital asset that exists outside the ledger (an “asset-based token” representing an interest in another asset such as securities). The legal status of a digital token, and the legal effect of its transfer are not clear. For example, would the transfer of an asset-backed token (e.g., representing a security) on a ledger transfer legal ownership of the security or would registration outside the ledger (e.g., in a corporate share registry) still be required? Jurisdictions are trying to develop answers to these questions but country practice varies. The resolution of these questions is crucial for the economy to function and will require more thought by policymakers.”

The IMF paper notes that:

” …in their current form, virtual currencies are not likely to be adequate stores of value given the volatility in their exchange rates to fiat money. This same volatility would undermine hub-and-spoke networks, as two “foreign exchange rate” conversions are needed: when the token is acquired, and when it is sold. Even if the virtual currency is held for very short periods, the transaction involves foreign exchange rate risk. FX risk could potentially be hedged, although costs could then rival those of correspondent bank transfers.”

The paper adds a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) might resolve the coordination problem over new virtual currencies, and could lead to even more technological innovation. But adds that it might allow the central bank to retain control of monetary policy effectiveness, in case privately-issued virtual currencies started to gain significant ground.

A DLT-based CBDC could also be more secure and resilient than current settlement systems which are exposed to single point of failure risk. Finally, by facilitating small value payments, it could boost the adoption and efficiency of the new, decentralized, service economy. However, CBDCs raise multiple potential costs and risks, such as managing the platform and its integrity, resolving scalability, and dealing with issues of privacy.

Olddogs comments!

One must have poop for brains if they think the central bankers will give up control of MONEY.




Simon Black [admin@sovereignman.com]

Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

A few weeks ago the Board of Trustees of Social Security sent a formal letter to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to issue a dire warning: Social Security is running out of money.

Given that tens of millions of Americans depend on this public pension program as their sole source of retirement income, you’d think this would have been front page news…

… and that every newspaper in the country would have reprinted this ominous projection out of a basic journalistic duty to keep the public informed about an issue that will affect nearly everyone.

But that didn’t happen.

The story was hardly picked up.

It’s astonishing how little attention this issue receives considering it will end up being one of the biggest financial crises in US history.

That’s not hyperbole either– the numbers are very clear.

The US government itself calculates that the long-term Social Security shortfall exceeds $46 TRILLION.

In other words, in order to be able to pay the benefits they’ve promised, Social Security needs a $46 trillion bailout.

Fat chance.

That amount is over TWICE the national debt, and nearly THREE times the size of the entire US economy.

Moreover, it’s nearly SIXTY times the size of the bailout that the banking system received back in 2008.

So this is a pretty big deal.

More importantly, even though the Social Security Trustees acknowledge that the fund is running out of money, their projections are still wildly optimistic.

In order to build their long-term financial models, Social Security’s administrators have to make certain assumptions about the future.

What will interest rates be in the future?
What will the population growth rate be?
How high (or low) will inflation be?

These variables can dramatically impact the outcome for Social Security.

For example, Social Security assumes that productivity growth in the US economy will average between 1.7% and 2% per year.

This is an important assumption: the faster US productivity grows, the faster the economy will grow. And this ultimately means more tax revenue (and more income) for the program.

But -actual- US productivity growth is WAY below their assumption.

Over the past ten years productivity growth has been about 25% below their expectations.

And in 2016 US productivity growth was actually NEGATIVE.

Here’s another one: Social Security is hoping for a fertility rate in the US of 2.2 children per woman.

This is important, because a higher population growth means more people entering the work force and paying in to the Social Security system.

But the actual fertility rate is nearly 20% lower than what they project.

And if course, the most important assumption for Social Security is interest rates.

100% of Social Security’s investment income is from their ownership of US government bonds.

So if interest rates are high, the program makes more money. If interest rates are low, the program doesn’t make money.

Where are interest rates now? Very low!

In fact, interest rates are still near the lowest levels they’ve been in US history.

Social Security hopes that ‘real’ interest rates, i.e. inflation-adjusted interest rates, will be at least 3.2%.

This means that they need interest rates to be 3.2% ABOVE the rate of inflation.

This is where their projections are WAY OFF… because real interest rates in the US are actually negative.

The 12-month US government bond currently yields 1.2%. Yet the official inflation rate in the Land of the Free is 1.7%.

In other words, the interest rate is LOWER than inflation, i.e. the ‘real’ interest rate is MINUS 0.5%.

Social Security is depending on +3.2%.

So their assumptions are totally wrong.

And it’s not just Social Security either.

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston Collage, US public pension funds at the state and local level are also underfunded by an average of 67.9%.

Additionally, most pension funds target an investment return of between 7.5% to 8% in order to stay solvent.

Yet in 2015 the average pension fund’s investment return was just 3.2%. And last year a pitiful 0.6%.

This is a nationwide problem. Social Security is running out of money. State and local pension funds are running out of money.

And even still their assumptions are wildly optimistic. So the problem is much worse than their already dismal forecasts.

Understandably everyone is preoccupied right now with whether or not World War III breaks out in Guam.

(I would respectfully admit that this is one of those times I am grateful to be living on a farm in the southern hemisphere.)

But long-term, these pension shortfalls are truly going to create an epic financial and social crisis.

It’s a ticking time bomb, and one with so much certainty that we can practically circle a date on a calendar for when it will hit.

There are solutions.

Waiting on politicians to fix the problem is not one of them.

The government does not have a spare $45 trillion lying around to re-fund Social Security.

So anyone who expects to retire with comfort and dignity is going to have to take matters into their own hands and start saving now.

Consider options like SEP IRAs and 401(k) plans that have MUCH higher contribution limits, as well as self-directed structures which give you greater influence over how your retirement savings are invested.

These flexible structures also allow investments in alternative asset classes like private equity, cashflowing royalties, secured lending, cryptocurrency, etc.

Education is also critical.

Learning how to be a better investor can increase your investment returns and (most importantly) reduce losses.

And increasing the long-term average investment return of your IRA or 401(k) by just 1% per year can have a PROFOUND (six figure) impact on your retirement.

These solutions make sense: there is ZERO downside in saving more money for retirement.

But it’s critical to start now. A little bit of effort and planning right now will pay enormous dividends in the future.

Until tomorrow,

Simon Black

Founder, SovereignMan.com

Neither this email nor content posted on the website SovereignMan.com is intended to provide personal tax or financial advice. Before undertaking any action described in this letter, financial or otherwise, you should discuss your options with a qualified advisor– tax accountant, financial planner, attorney, priest, IRS auditor, Bernie Madoff, etc.

Blacksmith Global Ltd.
Publisher of Sovereign Man
30 Cecil Street #19-08
Singapore, Singapore – No State 049712


by Egon von Greyerz
Fake money has created a totally uneven playing field for most ordinary people.
Money used to represent a medium of exchange that would facilitate bartering. Instead of exchanging goods or services, people would receive a piece of paper that was equal to the value of their goods or services. This was initially an honest system when for each service or goods offered there was only one bank note issued. Eventually the banker started to cheat and issued a lot more money/paper than the counter value produced in kind. And that was the beginning of money printing. It just became too tempting and convenient for governments and bankers to simply create more money since nobody would really know. So if the value of a day’s work or a pig were both say $100, the money or paper issued for this should be $100 for each. But gradually governments/banks would issue more and more paper with nothing produced in return. All banks today lend at least 10x the money deposited so for every $100 received $1,000 is leant. But the leverage can be much greater like Deutsche Bank which is leveraged nearer 50x.
The effect of this money creation is that the $100 pig will eventually cost 50x more or $5,000 for the same pig. The pig hasn’t gone up in price since there is no scarcity of pigs but the money has instead gone down in value to 1/50th. The same for a day of labour. The man who previously received $100 per day now gets $5,000 for his work. He is not working harder and the price of labour has not gone up in real terms. But the value of money has gone so he needs to work one day to buy a big which now costs $5,000. I do realise it is a very simplified explanation but in essence, it is the way the corrupt monetary system works.
And this is how governments destroy the value of money. As they mismanage the economy and can’t make ends meet, they just issue more paper which has zero real value since it just lowers the purchasing power of money.

The value of paper money has been totally decimated in the last 100 years since the creation of the Fed in 1913. The chart shows how paper money has declined in relation to “real money” which is gold. All major currencies have declined 97-99% against gold during this period. So there is only 1-3% to go until they reach ZERO. But from here to zero is another 100% fall which will be disastrous for the world and involve an economic collapse as well as hyperinflation.
In a final attempt to save the world governments will print unlimited amounts of money. This is what will make paper money totally worthless and reach zero. This is of course nothing new in history. Governments have always done it. The Roman did it and many governments since. I don’t know how many times I have quoted Voltaire in the last 17 years but it is worth repeating what he said in 1729:


The problem with money printing is not just that it destroys the value of paper money, as creating money out of thin air also creates a totally uneven playing field. To produce goods or services requires a lot of hard labour for ordinary people. But governments and bankers have the upper hand because they just need some electricity which allows them to press a button to produce money. And this money that they produce has the same value that ordinary people struggle to earn.
We are now not far from the point when the bubbles in stocks, credit and property will collapse. This will lead to a final futile attempt by governments to save the world by printing unlimited amounts of money. At that point, normal people will finally realise that the money they are holding is totally worthless. This will lead to protests, attack on government and bankers as well as social unrest.

In spite of a small move in the last few days, many holders of precious metals are getting restless. This is totally normal since we have seen a 6 year range of $150 above or below the June $1,220 bottom.

I often get the question if the paper gold manipulation will go on forever as seems to be the case since 2013. My very firm belief is that we are likely to see the end of this consolidation period right now. During the autumn of 2017, gold is likely to resume its uptrend to eventually much higher levels. That next strong uptrend in gold will also eventually break the paper gold market.
The reasons for the coming move are manifold. The risk situation in the world are more critical than ever both economically and geopolitically as I have outlined many times in my articles. Also, the supply situation physical gold is very tight. All the mine production of 3,000 tonnes are easily absorbed and no more can be produced.
In my recent audio interview with King World News I explain this in detail and that we have never seen sellers of physical gold in quantity and that bigger wealth preservation buyers are now buying again. We are likely to see many surprises in the coming months.

Egon von Greyerz
Founder and Managing Partner
Matterhorn Asset Management AG
Contact Us

The Actual Terrorists



Posted By Paul Graig Roberts

This is an article written by an Austrian, Klaus Madersbacher, who, somehow, was able to see through the heavy blanket of Amerian propaganda that suffocates the ability to think and to pereive throughout the entirety of Europe. He correctly undersands the Western destruction of Libya as a war crime. Germans were executed by the Nuremberg Tribunal for less.
Madersbacher is correct that Libya was a monstrous war crime committed by the Obama regime and Washington’s NATO puppets. However, Libya is a worse crime than the Nazis committed, as is Afghanistan, Iraq, Yeman, Somalia, and parts of Syria. The Germans never destroyed entire countries and murdered the leaderships. Life in Nazi-occupied France was not as pleasant as in unoccupied France, but it was far more pleasant than life today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalis, Yemem, and part of Syria after America “brought democracy” to the countries.
Under the Nuremberg standard, the country (or countries) that originates war is the country that is responsible for the war crimes. The irony is that World War 2 was the responsibility of the British and French who started the war by declaring war on Germany. So under the Nuremberg standard it is Britian and France who are responsible for the war crimes.
Madersbacher believes, as I did prior to reading David Irving’s book, Nuremberg, that Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor, succeeded in establishing the legal principle that it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression. In actual fact, the principle was not established. Irving points out that no other Tribunal was ever formed until the Clinton regime sent the Serbian president, Milosevic, to a tribunal that cleared Milosevic of the orchestrated charges.
Of course, as Madersbacher understands, for now Washington’s “might makes right” prevails, and no one is going to send the criminal regines of Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump if he follows their path, to a War Crimes Tribunal. But if Washington one day is militarily defeated or suffers economic collapse that makes the US dependent on foreign support, Washington’s war criminals, who exceed in number Nazi war criminals, could be finally held accountable.
As Madersbacher writes, we await a Stalingrad 2.0 that paves the way to a Nuremberg 2.0.
The actual terrorists
Klaus Madersbacher, http://www.antikrieg.com
”Sometimes I ask myself about the value of a ‘culture’ which isn´t able to provide people with sufficient mental capacity to enable them to recognize if they are lied to as impudently as it is presently done by the media. It doesn´t need to be said that these are targeting the interests of the overwhelming majority of mankind.”
I wrote this in July 2011, when three big European nations of culture and civilization together with some smaller ones under the leadership of the cultural superpower bombed peaceful Libya into ruins and systematically devastated the whole country.
This is exactly the kind of crime the Nazi leaders have been hanged for. The crime against peace, which apparently only very few seem to know that it does exist at all. The crime against peace – “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” – the International Court at Nuremberg declared.
Simply said that means, that the party which initiates a war is responsible for all crimes committed in the context of this war.
In the next two paragraphs, Madersbacher is saying, I think, that countries called democracies are excluded as war criminals because a parliament or congress acting for the people fund the war. He disagrees, correctly in my opinion, from this excuse for criminality.
It´s not like that, that killing or hurting people in war is no crime, that the destruction of houses etc. is no crime, when carried out by means of high tech war machinery by armies financed by a budget decided by a parliament.
Even if such outstanding democratic institutions as the Congress of the United States of America, her Majesties´ Parliament or the German Bundestag authorize such activities, this wouldn´t change a fart of the fact that these are crimes.
As is generally known the Nazi leaders were hanged after World War II. During the war they and most of the people in their country didn´t think that such a fate was going to come upon them.
Today things are not very different. I´m not going to puzzle over who of the present political leaders likely will end being hanged, if the presently waged wars will be followed by a new Nuremberg Tribunal. It has, however, to be taken as a fact, that all the wars waged at present constitute crimes against peace. And they won´t last forever.
Those who have initiated these wars and still are waging them seemingly still are appearing somehow honourably in the western hemisphere, where their propaganda organ is drowning out any rationality and is trumpeting hymns of praise for the criminals.
Until a Stalingrad 2.0 will pave the way to a Nuremberg 2.0 we´ll have to live with the situation, that those who oppose this lunacy will be labeled as “terrorists” while the actual terrorists are moving around freely.


Anything Goes When You Are a Cop in America


By John W. Whitehead
August 08, 2017
“There is one criminal justice system for citizens—especially black and brown ones—and another for police in the United States.”—Redditt Hudson, former St. Louis police officer.

President Trump needs to be reminded that no one is above the law, especially the police.
Unfortunately, Trump and Jeff Sessions, head of the Justice Department (much like their predecessors) appear to have few qualms about giving police the green light to kill, shoot, taser, abuse and steal from American citizens in the so-called name of law and order.

Between Trump’s pandering to the police unions and Sessions’ pandering to Trump, this constitutionally illiterate duo has opened the door to a new era of police abuses.
As senior editor Adam Serwer warns in The Atlantic, “When local governments violate the basic constitutional rights of citizens, Americans are supposed to be able to look to the federal government to protect those rights. Sessions has made clear that when it comes to police abuses, they’re now on their own. This is the principle at the heart of ‘law and order’ rhetoric: The authorities themselves are bound by neither.”
Brace yourselves: things are about to get downright ugly.

By shielding police from charges of grave misconduct while prosecuting otherwise law-abiding Americans for the most trivial “offenses,” the government has created a world in which there are two sets of laws: one set for the government and its gun-toting agents, and another set for you and me.
No matter which way you spin it, “we the people” are always on the losing end of the deal.
If you’re a cop in the American police state, you can now break the law in a myriad of ways without suffering any major, long-term consequences.

Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing—whether it’s shooting unarmed citizens (including children and old people), raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports, trafficking drugs, or soliciting sex with minors—but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for misconduct, it’s only a matter of time before they get re-hired again.

For example, Oregon police officer Sean Sullivan was forced to resign after being accused of “grooming” a 10-year-old girl for a sexual relationship. A year later, Sullivan was hired on as a police chief in Kansas.
St. Louis police officer Eddie Boyd III was forced to resign after a series of incidents in which he “pistol-whipped a 12-year-old girl in the face in 2006, and in 2007 struck a child in the face with his gun or handcuffs before falsifying a police report,” he was quickly re-hired by another Missouri police department.

As The Washington Post reports: “In the District, police were told to rehire an officer who allegedly forged prosecutors’ signatures on court documents. In Texas, police had to reinstate an officer who was investigated for shooting up the truck driven by his ex-girlfriend’s new man. In Philadelphia, police were compelled to reinstate an officer despite viral video of him striking a woman in the face. In Florida, police were ordered to reinstate an officer fired for fatally shooting an unarmed man.”

Much of the “credit” for shielding these rogue cops goes to influential police unions and laws providing for qualified immunity, police contracts that “provide a shield of protection to officers accused of misdeeds and erect barriers to residents complaining of abuse,” state and federal laws that allow police to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing, and rampant cronyism among government bureaucrats.

Whether it’s at the federal level with President Trump, Congress and the Judiciary, or at the state and local level, those deciding whether a police officer should be immune from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the job all belong to the same system, all with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous code of silence: city and county attorneys, police commissioners, city councils and judges.

It’s a pretty sweet deal if you can get it, I suppose: protection from the courts, immunity from wrongdoing, paid leave while you’re under investigation, the assurance that you won’t have to spend a dime of your own money in your defense, the removal of disciplinary charges from your work file, and then the high probability that you will be rehired and returned to the streets.

It’s a chilling prospect, isn’t it?

According to the New York Times, “Some experts say thousands of law enforcement officers may have drifted from police department to police department even after having been fired, forced to resign or convicted of a crime.”

It’s happening all across the country.

This is how perverse justice in America has become.

Incredibly, while our own protections against government abuses continue to be dismantled, a growing number of states are adopting Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBoR)—written by police unions—which provides police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

In other words, the LEOBoR protects police officers from being treated as we are treated during criminal investigations.

Not only are officers given a 10-day “cooling-off period” during which they cannot be forced to make any statements about the incident, but when they are questioned, it must be “for a reasonable length of time, at a reasonable hour, by only one or two investigators (who must be fellow policemen), and with plenty of breaks for food and water.”

These LEOBoRs epitomize everything that is wrong with America today.
Now once in a while, police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for abusing their authority and using excessive force against American citizens.

Occasionally, those officers are even sentenced for their crimes against the citizenry.
Yet in just about every case, it’s still the American taxpayer who foots the bill.

Human Rights Watch notes that taxpayers actually pay three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses: “once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police ‘defense’ funds provided by the cities.”
This is a recipe for disaster.
“In a democratic society,” observed Oakland police chief Sean Whent, “people have a say in how they are policed.”
Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, which means that “we the people” not only have a say in how we are policed—we are the chiefs of police.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at http://www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission

They are Gaining On Me, I Must Keep Running



Read More Articles by Ron Ewart

I keep running, but the dogs are gaining.  I’ve been running for two days now and I’m hungry, tired and exhausted.  I hear the hounds behind me but I must find the strength to stay ahead, always ahead.  If they catch me, I might as well be dead.

It all started one Sunday when I was working one of my fields with a tractor, preparing the field for the next round of hay for the season.  The exhaust pipe of the tractor was belching black smoke, as it usually did.  The old diesel engine kept on chugging in a low staccato, as it always did, old reliable as it was.

I looked up and saw three official-looking black SUV’s in the distance down in the draw, coming up the gravel road that led into my isolated ranch.   I knew by their speed and the dust streaming behind the trucks, that something was a foot.  What I didn’t know at the time, was that I, working my land with my tractor, was that “something”.

For you see the county council got together in one of its weekly meetings and decided that in order to curb CO2 emissions from all vehicles, due to the alleged threat of global warming, they passed an ordinance declaring that Sunday was to be a day in which all citizens of the county were prohibited from running their trucks and their tractors and that only cars could be used for the sole purpose of going to and from church.  No other form of vehicle transportation was allowed on that day.  To violate this new law was a criminal act.  If you were caught you were guilty.  No due process, no trial, and no facing your accusers.  You were just guilty.  It didn’t matter that the law as unconstitutional.

The county council had directed that the new ordinance be posted on their website and that a small public notice be published in the local newspaper.  I don’t own a computer, I don’t read the local newspaper and I had no idea that the new law even existed.  I doubt that many rural landowners in the county knew as well.  Nor did I know that the penalty for violating the law was criminal and included a huge fine and six months in jail.   But one of my neighbors did, as you shall soon see.

Down by my ranch house the SUV’s roared in and screeched to a stop in a cloud of dust.  I could see from my tractor that four hound dogs on leashes were being let out of one of the trucks.  The handler looked up in my direction.  Five sheriffs in uniform, the dog handler and the four dogs opened the gate and started walking across the field towards me.  I had no idea what they were doing here, but I thought I would stay on my tractor, still running and wait for them to tell me.

When they finally reached where I had stopped, one of the sheriffs that was out in front, with his hand waving circles in the air, motioned for me to shut down the tractor.  I ignored him.  He then handed me a piece of paper.  I opened it up and on the paper was a description of my violation and the penalties for it.  It seems one of my neighbors had seen the smoke from my tractor and called the sheriff.  The call was anonymous of course.  I looked at the sheriff, who had his hand on his gun, and said,  “I was not aware of any such law“.  The sheriff said that ignorance of the law was no excuse and that I should get down off the tractor and accompany him to the sheriff’s office.   I had but a spilt second to make a decision, go with them or run.  Six months in jail and a heavy fine would break me.  I would lose my farm.  In an instant, I chose to run.

I slammed the tractor into high gear, the front wheels jerked off the ground and I took off towards the far fence.  On the other side of the fence were deep woods that wound into the mountains behind my ranch.  I heard the multiple “cracks” of a pistol and a few bullets ricocheted off the tractor.  The dogs started barking furiously.  But since the officers were on foot, I knew that if I could beat them to the fence, I would have time to disappear into the woods.  I knew every inch of that forest and that would give me an edge, an edge I needed badly.  I didn’t even stop the tractor as it neared the fence.  I jumped off while it was still running, jumped the fence and ran in the direction of the mountain pass.  I was sure I could lose them there.

I’ve been running for two days now and I’m cold, hungry, tired, scratched and bleeding.  I can always hear the dogs in the distance, but so far I have stayed ahead of them.  I know that if I don’t make it to the pass, they will have me.  Just on the other side of the pass was a mine entrance and I knew that if I could reach the mine, one of the shafts would lead me to a place way down the other side of the mountain from which they could never find me.  I breathed a sigh of relief as I crossed over the pass and saw the mine entrance up ahead.  Finally, I would be free of the dogs.  I entered the mine, hurried towards the shaft in the darkness, feeling my way and stumbled down its full length until I reached the lower entrance.  I walked out into the sun, a free man, at least for now.

As I wandered along the path, I wondered how it is that a peace-loving, law-abiding farmer like myself could be in this situation, running from the law?  How had our government become so out of control that they would pass laws that made no sense?  What was it that we did or didn’t do that made government think that they could treat Americans in this manner?  Did we not have a Constitution that granted us certain unalienable rights?  Were not those rights a gift from our creator?  Did not those rights shield us from government abuse and tyranny?  How could government ignore the supreme law of the land with such reckless abandon?  How is it that we have reached the point where neighbor would rat on neighbor?  I thought of Nazi Germany.  As I pondered these thoughts, I ran down the path to the river that would lead me out of the county.  I vowed to find out what happened to our government and get others to help me right a situation that had gone terribly wrong.  I vowed to regain my freedom and the freedom of all Americans, no matter what it took, or where the path would lead.

AUTHOR’S NOTES:  If you don’t think that this kind of thing can happen, you are living in a dream world?  Ask the Sackets of Idaho that got hit with a $35,000 per day fine by the EPA for trying to build a new home on their single-family lot in a subdivision of built-out homes.  They had to go to the U. S. Supreme Court to get justice, but all they really got was the right to sue the EPA.

Ask the Wyoming rancher that had all the permits he needed to construct three water ponds on this own land.  The EPA charged the rancher with over $16,000,000 in accumulating fines.  The rancher finally won but at a terrible cost?

Ask the wheat farmer in California who has been fined $2,800,000 on a “filling-in-a-wetland” charge by the Army Corps of Engineers for daring to plow his own field, in full compliance with the law.  His trial comes up this month.

Ask the hundreds of farmers in the rich California San Joaquin Valley that have been denied irrigation water because of a little two-inch fish, putting 40,000 farm workers out of work.

Ask the people that live along the Klamath River in Oregon and California.  They are going to lose four dams that have provided irrigation, flood control and electricity for a hundred years because the environmentalists and the Indians again, want to protect a two-inch fish and allow salmon to run up the river free from any obstructions.  How nice!  Thank you judge Boldt.

Ask the ranchers living along the Red River in Northern Texas where the BLM came along and tried to confiscate their land because the river moved.

Ask the lady that owned land along the Grays River that flowed into the Columbia River when two Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s) and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife, armed with millions of taxpayer dollars for habitat restoration, came along and took out the tide gates that protected her land from river floods and rising tides.  She eventually had to abandon her flooded house and land and lost everything.

Ask the man that was digging a ditch on his own land when along came a disgruntled neighbor and the local authorities that charged him with digging in a wetland that the authorities declared a wetland after the man had dug the ditch.  The authorities literally created a crime out of a non-violation in order to send an environmental message to other landowners.  His alleged “crime” cost him 150 days in jail and a $20,000 cash fine.  It broke him.

Ask all the rural landowners of Washington State who now won’t be able to drill a well on their land due to a State Supreme Court decision brought by environmentalists.  Their land is now worthless.

Every day lawmakers, at every level of government, are making laws just as insane as the one in our story.  Every day, most people just ignore what goes on in the halls of local, state and federal governments.  Every day that is, until one of these insane laws catches up with them and they have to choose between being caught in the enforcement of the insane law, or to run.   Many stay and fight the injustice because by God they are Americans and they have the righteous right to defend themselves under our Constitution.  But in the end they get run over by the law and the legal system, because government supports and defends government (and the environmentalists and the Indians), instead of government supporting and defending the unalienable rights of the people, as it should be.

You city folks may say, “what do you care if government, the environmentalists and the Indians push around a few rural landowners?”  Better think again for two reasons!  First, rural landowners grow and raise the food you eat.  Second, just because you live in a big city will not protect you from government abuse and tyranny.  It’s been happening for years.  You just don’t know it yet.

But we’re not sitting on our hands.  Our organization (NARLO) has reached out to rural landowners all across America for over eleven years to tell them we have their backs.  We show them how to fight and provide several tools to help them with their battle against an ever-encroaching and abusive government.  From powerful, constitutional “No Trespassing” signs HERE and HERE, to a “HOW-TO” rural handbook, we have the rural landowner covered.  We even provide help for the beleaguered IRS taxpayer HERE.

We encourage everyone, not just rural landowners, to not become victims of government, but to fight this unconstitutional abuse.  Resist!  Resist!  Resist!  Otherwise, it will continue and get worse and government will just get stronger ….. and in case you haven’t notice it, they are.

© 2017 Ron Ewart – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ron Ewart: info@narlo.org

Olddogs Comments!

There will come a time in the near future when someone will be prepared and take out a group of (Law Officers?) which will result in absolute war between the people and the powers that be, which means “He with the biggest stick wins”. At the present time a large percent of the people are totally ignorant of the tyranny we suffer and their patriotic stupidity will decide who they support, the people or the corporation? American’s have been indoctrinated from childhood to love the tyranny we all suffer without even once realizing they are slaves. In short, if it does not hurt you can shoot me. That’s the best way to describe how people have allowed the corporation to enslave them. But those of us who have established limits to the tyranny will soon rise up and be murdered in mass by the superior fire power of the militarized police. And, if that is not enough the military will be forced to annihilate us. Many of us real lovers of freedom will go down in a firestorm of lead. But we feel like it beats the shit out of kissing their ass. Those who choose to ignore the coming threat will pay the price, and the powers that be won’t shed any tears. However, if a hundred million Americans should study and learn the truth, then maybe we would have the power to make a change. What say you Mr. American, are you willing to shut off your TV, your recreation activities, and all the other side-tracking obligations, and study the issues?


Fatally Flawed Justice System:The Monopoly of the Corporate BAR Associations


Posted by Marti Oakley

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

 “There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution for the United States authorizing, or otherwise directing the creation of these self protecting unions that have monopolized our judicial system at every level and use that monopoly to profit at the public’s expense. And, there is nothing authorizing the incorporation of these specialized unions or of the Supreme Court itself. Yet here we are in the grips of these corporate entities who have monopolized the very judicial system meant to protect America from just such things.”

In every state and on the Federal level, the BAR Associations have established a monopoly on our courts and our so-called judicial system. The existing Sherman Act: the Clayton Act and FTC Act only become active when the monopolized systems that have been established harm consumers. I can think of no other more harmful monopoly to the American public overall, than what passes for the judicial system in America and its associated BAR unions that not ony control and own our courts, but also profit mightily from doing so. The law is what they say it is regardless of what the law might actually be.

The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. Obviously, the Supreme Court has decided that the monopolies that exist in our courts are not unreasonable. Especially since they too, participate in that monopoly.

Q: Do you believe the monopolies on our courts at every level via so-called BAR Associations are unreasonable?

When individuals go to all the expense and time of acquiring a degree in law, why should they then be required to pass some contrived test, many times at great expense, to acquire a union card (The BARS are UNIONS) permitting them to work in the field they trained in or to practice their trade in any court room in this country? No union card? No access to the courts. Didn’t pay your BAR union dues for access to the courts they monopolize? Too bad for you!

Even the Supreme Court of the United States has established itself as its own BAR. To be heard in this highly politicized “court”, you must be a member in good standing for four years in another BAR union before you can apply to appear in their closed union shop called the Supreme Court.

Why Is The United States Supreme Court Listed as a

Private Corporation On DUN & BRADSTREET?

From: John-Henry Hill Law blog

“Not only is the United States a corporation, but the “Judicial Branch of US Govt” is also a Delaware Corporation (Delaware SoS file number: 3383789), listed in Dun & Bradstreet:

“The following is the DUNS number for JUDICIAL BRANCH OF US GOV: DUNS number: 956858625”, as well.


So our courts from the Supreme Court down to state courts are corporate “policy” (as in police) courts.”

About the Court https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx

“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” – These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

Equal Justice Under the Law? Really?

R.I.P. Pro Se Litigants Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has finally revised its rules to prevent a non-lawyer from arguing before the Court.

When the Supreme Court issued its new rules for the Court in July of 2013, it curiously included rule 28.8. The move by the Court merely codified its standard practice of denying requests by non-lawyers ( no BAR union member) to argue their cases. In fact, the last time a non-lawyer managed to get in front of the Court was in 1978:

Antitrust law only springs into action against a monopoly when it destroys the ability of another company to enter the market and compete. But! Since all courts and BAR Associations operate as corporations, does this not make them businesses operated with one fiduciary duty? That duty is to make a profit.

Q: Does it not also make them invested competitors against the pro se litigant?

The key question, of course, is whether a particular monopoly is harming consumers – or merely harming its competitors for the benefit of those consumers.

Q: Who would be the competitors these closed union shops are competing with?

A: The pro se litigants who have realized that the thousands of dollars demanded for representation will likely produce few results. Because of this, they have chosen to learn the law and represent themselves.

The answer isn’t as simple as “big equals bad”, or “competitor harm equals consumer harm.” Instead, courts must rely on complex economic analysis to determine whether consumers, not just competitors, have suffered harm.”

No they do not. They simply have to rely on the Constitution and the laws that are in compliance with it. But, as these “courts” have decided unilaterally that the Constitution applies only if and when it is to their benefit, or one of their corporate contractors, they have lost any relevance or reasonable excuse for their continued existence.

The Constitution provides no provision for the courts to declare themselves immune from prosecution for wrong doing or for their obvious pandering to their own members of their specific union.. Neither does it make any provision for the establishment of these unions or the monopolies that have resulted in what are supposed to be the people’s courts of law.

If you or I cannot claim “ignorance of the law”…why is a judge or attorney allowed to? Aren’t they supposed to be experts in the law? Supposedly, this is the reason they voted to give themselves immunity. Otherwise they might be afraid to hand down certain rulings….like those where they ignored the law or where they knowingly violated the very principles that put them on that bench.

Practicing Law without a license

The Constitution does not say that we need to have a license to access the law. That is a self-protective declaration used to keep non-union members out of the courts. What it does say is that we are allowed to have representation i.e., someone who acts on our behalf. Not a word is said about hiring a BAR union member who will charge you unimaginable fees just to gain access to that court.

In Summary

We need to end the BAR Associations and return the law and the access to the courts to the people. No one should be forced to pay exorbitant fees to closed union BAR members to access the courts. What is the first question many judges ask before any court begins proceedings? “Has your attorney been paid?”. And that would concern that judge for what reason?

Neither does any judge have the authority to order anyone to “hire an attorney”. Yet it happens everyday in court rooms across America.





The facts underlying this appeal are easy to understand. It is the “law” of “judicial immunity” to violate the Constitution that is complex and incomprehensible; it is a false body of law that begins with a contradiction:

  1. Judges are immune from redress to those they injure in violation of constitutional rights under color of office.
  2. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the right of the People to petition government for a redress of Grievances.”
  3. The”Coup de Grace” emasculating the Petition Clause is found in 28 USC 2674, in the 1988 amendments.

“Personal” immunities created by the judiciary




Administrative Claims

Before an action may be filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, an administrative claim must be presented to the federal agency employing the person whose act or omission caused the injury. Presentation of an administrative claim to the appropriate agency is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 S.Ct. 1980 (1993);

Meridian Intern. Logistics, Inc. v. United States, 939 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1991).

28 U.S.C. § 2675. The claim must include a sum certain amount of damages sought and must include sufficient information to allow the agency to investigate the merits of the claim.

28 C.F.R., Part 14.

Normally, an administrative claim should be presented on a government form called the Standard Form 95 (SF 95). Filling out the form according to the instructions on the form should assure that all necessary information is provided.

The staff attorneys for the applicable agencies or the United States

Attorney’s Office will provide SF 95’s for the presentation of administrative