Thursday, June 25, 2015

Is It Happening? Downfall of America?

US Downfall Traced to Defeat of Christianity


by Richard Evans
(henrymakow.com) 
June 23, 2015    
http://henrymakow.com/2015/06/US-Downfall-Traced-to-Loss-of-Christianity.html












"America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." - Alexis de Toqueville
Is America using immoral tactics to fight unjust wars? I found part of the answer in a remarkable interview with a former US drone operator, Brandon Bryant, on BBC's HARDtalk (above.)   
I thought it would be the usual 'gung ho' pep talk about America's great weapons, but the young man impressed me with his honesty, courage and conviction.  Brandon says drone warfare represented the most cowardly warfare ever devised. Although he took part in over 1600 kills, he felt sick about it because he could not be sure whether some were even enemy combatants. 
He condemned the Presidential order to assassinate US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed by drone in 2011with another American who was purportedly editor of al-Qaeda's English-language web magazine, Inspire.  Bryant felt these assassinations constituted a blatant violation of the US Constitution - which says that US citizens must have a fair trial by their peers even when the charge is treason.  Obama simply ordered al-Awiaki and sidekick murdered by drone ten thousands miles away. 
Bryant argued, "We're supposed to be the greatest nation in the world, and we do not live up to our own standards". 
HOW DID AMERICA LOSE ITS MORAL GROUNDING?  
alexis-de-tocqueville-4-sized.jpgTo answer this question, we have to travel back to the 19th century when Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805-1859) the French social philosopher visited America to discover the reasons for our incredible success. He published his observations in his classic two-volume work, Democracy in America (1838). He was especially impressed by America's religious character. Here are some startling excerpts from Tocqueville's great work:
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.
In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.
Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.
I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.
In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...
Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...
I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.
Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.
America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. 
The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other
Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.
Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:

While I was in America, a witness, [in a court case], declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."
------
First Comment by Tony B
What is missing here is what was intended to be missed by the masons and odd ball deists who were the majority of the "founding fathers."  

The U.S. Constitution is, through and through, a masonic, commercial document, never once mentioning God or even religion until the amendments, the first ten of which were grudgingly added to get the thing accepted by the somewhat suspicious people.  Even then, the "religion" amendment only allows citizens to believe anything they wish, as the government was to butt out of religion.  This insanity puts Christianity on a par with all other religions, including satanism and the religion of atheism (it is a religion), it does NOT make the nation Christian.  As a matter of fact, this is exactly how the courts now interpret the amendment.
Always implied but never meant as the people expected, the word "liberty" in that document is heavy with the masonic meaning, which is liberty FROM God and his commandments, not liberty to worship and obey Him.  It took a few hundred years for enough Americans to realize this while Christianity was constantly downgraded in the minds of the people until now this nation has the absolutely satanic concepts of mother murder of her unborn and same sex marriages encoded in exceptionally non-Christian law, forced upon any Christians still in existence.  
Moreover, distinctly un-Christian government corruption is now the rule, not the exception and the people are treated as "subjects," that is, slaves, while government agents no longer see themselves as servants of the people but as lords or owners of the citizenry.
The U.S. never really was a Christian nation although originally the people in general held mostly Christian concepts, which was its early salvation in the great masonic experiment with republicanism, a humanistic form of governance which eventually leads to hell, as is now obvious to those who can see.
 *******

Why the U.S. Constitution is completely bankrupt

Americanism Anti Christian Conspiracy
By Timothy Fitzpatrick
April 10, 2015 Anno Domini

https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/why-the-u-s-constitution-is-completely-bankrupt/
Resistance to the New World Order conspiracy has been pigeonholed to constitutionalism—specifically the U.S. Constitution, Americanism, and libertarianism by the architects who have set up the “truth movement” as the supposed antidote to the “enslavement” of mankind.
No further evidence is needed to expose these architects as either controlled opposition or unwitting dupes than an examination of the beacons of freedom and liberty they hold up as the primary goal around which “truthers” must rally.
Forget that the U.S. Constitution was adopted by a largely freemasonic clique of American revolutionaries or that it was shaped from the freemasons’ own constitution, the document is fundamentally illogical and contrary to true freedom. The Constitution’s absolute promulgation of indifferentism—that all beliefs are equally valid—is the most glaring error. This gross error permeates the document as well as its offspring movements libertarianism and Americanism. Indifferentism violates the primary law of philosophy, the law of noncontradiction, that no two truths can contradict each other. All beliefs cannot be equally valid simultaneously as Christ claims to be the only Truth. The U.S. Constitution then is declaring unequivocally that Christ is not the only Truth. This denial is in harmony with their loose definitions of “God”, freedom, and liberty.
The U.S. Founding Fathers’ deliberately vague writings on “God” are completely consistent with the doctrines of freemasonry, which are equally as vague and indifferent. Of course, not believing in any one truth, how can they adequately describe God? They are functioning on the basis of a fundamental lie. In Freemasonry, “God” is liberation from the true God, freedom from the true God and His just order of the universe. The masonic ambition of Godless autonomy is manifested in the rebellious character of Satan, in the pride of mankind, and in the “do what thou wilt” revolutionary spirit. It is codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and commonly known as “separation of Church and State”. Ironically, the truth movement is sold the lie that anything that violates their masonic liberation from God Almighty is “enslavement”. The global conspirators, as guilty as they are, function as a mere prop in this grand delusion. Truthers are struggling against a ghost and have no truth from which to defend their true freedom, which is only found in Christ Jesus, the true and only liberator of mankind.
I can hear supposed Christian constitutionalists arguing that notions of “free speech” and the “right to bear arms” are Godly. Under the overall rebellious spirit of the U.S. Constitution, concepts such as freedom of speech are also loosely defined by the document and the fathers. What exactly constitutes free speech and what limits ought to be in place, if any? Obscenity and pornography have only gained prominence in American society because they have been attached to freedom of speech. Is this merely a misuse of the Constitution? How can it be when the concept is so loosely defined, open to interpretation? If the framers of the Constitution wished this not to happen, would they not have clearly stated so? It’s virtually the same with every other supposed misuse of the Constitution, whether it be the dominance of corporations over the U.S. government, infanticide (state-sanctioned abortion through the 14th amendment), Talmudic influence through the courts, or, worst of all, state-sanctioned usury through institutions like the U.S. Federal Reserve. It appears that the U.S. Founding Fathers, guided by dark spirits, designed the Constitution to fail the people in their true pursuit of freedom, which comes only through Christ Jesus. To corroborate this, we have the testimony of the authors of the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a documented purported to be the documented framework from which the world’s anti-Christian conspirators would execute their specific plans for world governance. Whether or not the document is real or fiction matters not. The concepts and ideas were in circulation among the populace of the time of the document’s writing.
Constitution designed to self-destruct?
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots – the kings on their thrones – are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart. (Protocol 3:1, 19th Century)
This shows that the Elders of Zion knew full well the self-contradiction of the humanist constitutions they went on to feed the gentiles as the saviour of mankind. It makes their governance of mankind all the more diabolical.
Most Protestants and some Catholics alike have been hoodwinked by the masonic mechanism of Americanism. In order for the “truth movement” to realize its true purpose, it must recognize its error and return to Christ, the true liberator of mankind. An American or libertarian identity is really a pseudo-identity. Only through a resurgence in Catholic/Orthodox identity can the New World Order be defeated and Logos be restored.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Pope Makes a Hard Left Turn!

*******

So, the Catholic Church has a major problem right now. ...And the Pope is only a part of it

Anti-capitalism, pro-AGW, and anti-gun

Author
By Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives  June 22, 2015

http://canadafreepress.com/article/73097?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=f9ae68d474-5_20_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-f9ae68d474-291118033


By now, you’ve probably seen the Tweets, read the quotes, or listened to the proclamations coming from the Vatican. The Pope has decided to embrace the global warming faith, attack capitalism, decry the successes of western nations, and rail against guns, gun manufacturers, and those who support the industry. In short (abortion and gay marriage aside) he’s taken a turn to the hard-left. In the span of a decade, we’ve gone from a Pope teaming with Reagan to defeat the Soviet Union to a Pope who embraces the classist financial rhetoric of our old enemies.
That’s troubling, but it’s not really the problem. The Pope is free to say, believe, and claim whatever he likes. If Catholics don’t like it, they’re free to reject it and walk away.  As HermanCain.com’s resident Catholic, it’s a decision I’ve been forced to wrestle with myself.  Shut your mouth and stick with the church, or stand your ground and refuse?
I’ve made my decision, and we’ll get to it in a moment.
...But first, let me say that the Pope’s comments are only the beginning of the issue. The real problem lies deeper within the Catholic hierarchy.
In case you’re unfamiliar with what he’s been saying, here’s a sampling from the 24-hour climate change “encyclical” he posted on Twitter. If you’ve already read it, feel free to skip down:
There’s more, including a few things that any sane person would agree with, but you get the drift. Production and consumption are killing the planet, the Northern Hemisphere “owes a debt” to the Southern, and he’s taken the AGW bait 100% hook-line-and-sinker.
Yesterday, he dug his left-wing hole a little deeper by going after gun manufacturers, sellers, and investors.
  People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves Christian, Pope Francis said on Sunday.
    Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin.
  “If you trust only men you have lost,” he told the young people in a long, rambling talk about war, trust and politics after putting aside his prepared address.
  “It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn’t it?” he said to applause.
  He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying “duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another.”
The left, obviously, is overjoyed. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi spent the last three days praising this. Of course they ignore the Pope’s constant stand on homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion, but all of a sudden they love his “scientific awareness.” This alone should serve as a warning that we have a major problem, since even as a Catholic I readily admit that the church and science have -at best - a tortured relationship. 
I could point out that issuing screeds about “financial inequality” while he’s seated atop the Vatican’s Scrooge McDuck-style money vaults might be an example of the exact same type of hypocrisy. Or, I could argue that a man whose organization currently maintains a massive fleet of luxury cars, boats, helicopters and jets, shouldn’t be lecturing people about the piety of limiting fossil fuel consumption. Heck, I could even ask how the Vatican City security forces are enjoying their armory of firearms made by Glock, Berretta, and Heckler & Koch.
But what would be the point? Of late, it feels like the Pope makes his decision on these matters, and the Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals who serve him line up in silence. If the entire church hierarchy is set against dissent, why bother fighting?
This brings us to the real problem I mentioned above.
I have it on good authority, from people I trust, that dissent is everywhere within the church. Just as politics divide people in the secular world, they divide people in the spiritual one. However, I’m also hearing that no one is willing to speak out because they’re afraid of losing their jobs.  ....And that’s the real problem.
Imagine if Moses had said “sure slavery is pretty nasty and all, but my family’s in charge so I’m just going to pipe down and let it slide.” Try to picture Jesus announcing that “crucifixion looks like it’s really going to be pretty awful. So I’ve developed a new plan I call ‘keep my head down and try to let this whole thing blow over.’”
The Bible doesn’t focus on a bunch of go-along-to-get-along weaklings. We don’t line the pews every Sunday thanks to a gang of mealy-mouthed cowards. Our faith hinges on people who were willing to sacrifice everything for what they believed. I expect a person who takes to the pulpit every Sunday to follow their lead.
I have no respect for someone who’s willing to stand up there and preach about the convictions of saints, apostles, and Christ himself - all while refusing to speak out about their own beliefs because they’re afraid to lose something as base and petty as a job.
That’s what stings.
I mentioned before that I’ve made my decision about the church. It’s this: I’m not interested in being part of a group which is trending both anti-capitalist and anti-West. I’m also not inclined to ally myself with Priests, Cardinals, and Bishops who are unwilling to speak their minds. This isn’t a rejection of faith, or of Jesus, or of God.  I’m not turning my back on the Bible or its teachings. I’m simply acknowledging that, until it corrects its course, a socialist Pope sits atop an organization that’s heading down a path I can’t - and won’t - follow.
*******

The Two Popes

Economic freedom, individual liberties must not be sacrificed at the altar of religious or secular dogma, that climate change is an immediate existential crisis that can only be solved by top-down dictates and controlled wealth redistribution

 

Author

Pope Francis issued a lengthy encyclical last week calling for radical change in human behavior to confront climate change. He presented climate change as the moral issue of our time. “Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it,” the pope declared. “It is a mistake to rely on the ‘myths’ of a modernity grounded in a utilitarian mindset (individualism, unlimited progress, competition, consumerism, the unregulated market),” he added. While denying that anyone is suggesting a return to the Stone Age and conceding that “[T]echnoscience, when well directed, can produce important means of improving the quality of human life,” Pope Francis refused to dismiss doomsday predictions if society continues along its present path.
The United Nations Secretary General position has been referred to by some as that of a “secular pope,” because he is expected to speak out on issues of public concern as the moral conscience of the world. On the issue of climate change, the current “secular pope” at the UN, Ban Ki-moon, spoke strongly in support of Pope Francis’s encyclical and said that he is looking forward to Pope Francis’s address to the United Nations General Assembly this September. Ban Ki-moon has made climate change his own number one issue and attended a summit on climate change hosted by the Vatican last April. He has called climate change “a true existential threat to the planet.” Ban Ki-moon is pushing for all UN member states to complete a legally binding global agreement to curb carbon emissions in Paris this December.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the problem of climate change is as serious as both the religious and secular popes think it is and that human activity is largely responsible for it, the question is how to address the problem without destroying the global economy in the process. Pope Francis rejects free market economics and technology as solutions. Ban Ki-moon is more ambivalent.
Stepping beyond his realm of religious authority, Pope Francis has taken sides in the policy debate regarding how best to reduce reliance on fossil fuels that are creating heat-trapping gasses. Don’t rely on free market mechanisms such as cap and trade, he warns.
“The strategy of buying and selling ‘carbon credits’ can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide,” Pope Francis said. “This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.”
This portion of the encyclical flies in the face of sound economic analysis and common sense. Carbon trading systems, which Pope Francis has specifically singled out for criticism, and carbon taxes are two ways to put a specific price on carbon that would have to be paid for one way or the other directly by the carbon emitter rather than indirectly as a negative externality by society as a whole.
As the World Bank explains:
“A price on carbon helps shift the burden for the damage back to those who are responsible for it, and who can reduce it. Instead of dictating who should reduce emissions where and how, a carbon price gives an economic signal and polluters decide for themselves whether to discontinue their polluting activity, reduce emissions, or continue polluting and pay for it. In this way, the overall environmental goal is achieved in the most flexible and least-cost way to society. The carbon price also stimulates clean technology and market innovation, fuelling new, low-carbon drivers of economic growth.”
Pope Francis is not swayed by such arguments. Technology is no answer to the problem of climate change, according to his encyclical. “To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up,” he said, “is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system.” Continuing this theme, the pope added that the “alliance between the economy and technology ends up sidelining anything unrelated to its immediate interests.”
Pope Francis’s prescription is more stringent and enforceable global governance. He calls for “global regulatory norms” and “stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions.” He also espouses “a better distribution of wealth,” which would include a massive transfer wealth from developed countries to the less developed countries on the theory that the richer countries are largely responsible for the plight of the poor and owe them an historical debt. The pope does not use the term “reparations,” but that is for all and intents and purposes what he is calling for.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon cannot afford to be as dismissive as Pope Francis is of market place carbon pricing mechanisms or of the importance of innovation as part of the solution to any environmental problems created by climate change and human activity. Nor would he be wise to push the notion of a global environmental authority with enforcement teeth.
The global agreement that the Secretary General is seeking by the end of this year is premised on national commitments to carbon reduction targets, which are to be accomplished through nationally crafted solutions that may or may not embrace market incentives and technology, depending on their particular economic, social and cultural circumstances. The World Bank, with whom the Secretary General has partnered, supports carbon pricing to bring down fossil fuel carbon emissions and make cleaner options more competitive. According to the World Bank, as of last September “[S]eventy-three countries and 11 states and provinces—together responsible for 54 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and 52 percent of GDP—joined 11 cities and over 1,000 businesses and investors in signaling their support for carbon pricing.”
Choice of means to reduce carbon emissions at the national level, not top-down dictates from global bureaucracies, will be the only viable path if any sort of meaningful climate change agreement at all among UN member states is to be achieved.
Thus, if Ban Ki-moon were to come out and reject market place carbon pricing mechanisms such as cap and trade, he would be working at cross-purposes with his stated goal of moving the member states towards declaring their national commitments to carbon reduction as part of a year-end binding global agreement. In fact, he has in the past come out in support of putting an explicit price on carbon as one option for consideration.
Yet Ban Ki-moon does not want to publicly disassociate himself from the portion of Pope Francis’s encyclical that rejects free market solutions. In response to my question on this point at the daily press briefing at UN headquarters on June 12th, the spokesperson for the Secretary General minimized any differences between the religious and secular popes:
“I think the Secretary-General very strongly supports the Pope’s efforts to ensure that climate change remains at the top of the global agenda and to mobilize his authority, his moral authority, in that regard. The fact that the Pope and the Secretary-General may not agree on every line, on every approach, I think, doesn’t take away in any way the Secretary-General’s support for the encyclical… we are not dissecting the encyclical to see where we differ with the Pope… overall I think the Secretary-General spoke strongly in support of the encyclical and continues to do so.”
Pope Francis would have been more credible if he had not tried to cross the line from religious leader to secular public policy opinion maker in his encyclical. And the UN Secretary General will be more credible if he sheds the role of “secular pope” who over-moralizes the issue of climate change. Instead, Ban Ki-moon should stick to the fine art of quiet diplomacy and negotiation facilitation. He can provide member states and the private sector with a global perspective on the effects of climate change, including the assembly of data and more balanced scientific analysis. He and his expert staff can help the member states try to devise practical and efficient targets and means to achieve them within their respective capabilities. He can help encourage businesses to make investments in alternative energy sources and cleaner fossil fuel technologies. He can suggest how developed countries could partner with less developed countries in overcoming obstacles to beneficial change and coming up with smart carbon emission mitigation strategies, without insisting they owe an enormous debt to developing countries as Pope Francis has done. Without the greatest engine for betterment of the human condition that the world has ever known - the free market and its concomitant of technological change—much of the world today would be living in far more dire circumstances reminiscent of the rigidity, disease and poverty of pre-Renaissance feudal society.
Economic freedom and individual liberties must not be sacrificed at the altar of religious or secular dogma, including the dogma that climate change is an immediate existential crisis and that it can only be solved by top-down dictates and government-controlled wealth redistribution.
*******

Saturday, June 13, 2015

And You Think You Live in a Free Country?

*******
Clearing your browser history could land you in prison
by: Daniel Barker
Friday, June 12, 2015
http://www.naturalnews.com/050044_browser_history_PATRIOT_Act_NSA.html
(NaturalNews) Over the past couple of decades, our increasingly authoritarian government has become particularly adept at using "terrorist" events and threats both real and imagined as an excuse for curtailing ordinary citizens' freedom and criminalizing their actions.
An obvious example is the USA PATRIOT Act, which was created as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Under this act, many freedoms were taken away from Americans while simultaneously authorizing the government to begin spying on its own citizens and violating what were once considered precious and inviolable rights to privacy.
The PATRIOT Act was the excuse for the NSA's mass collection of phone call data, as revealed by Edward Snowden. This policy has just been extended, albeit with a few ineffectual and largely symbolic changes designed to whitewash the continued practice of spying on innocent citizens.
The latest move towards criminalizing what most would consider normal behavior follows in the wake of the Boston bombings and the subsequent prosecution of those involved, however marginally.
The Nation reports:
Khairullozhon Matanov is a 24-year-old former cab driver from Quincy, Massachusetts. The night of the Boston Marathon bombings, he ate dinner with Tamerlan and Dhzokhar Tsarnaev at a kebob restaurant in Somerville. Four days later Matanov saw photographs of his friends listed as suspects in the bombings on the CNN and FBI websites. Later that day he went to the local police. He told them that he knew the Tsarnaev brothers and that they'd had dinner together that week, but he lied about whose idea it was to have dinner, lied about when exactly he had looked at the Tsarnaevs' photos on the Internet, lied about whether Tamerlan lived with his wife and daughter, and lied about when he and Tamerlan had last prayed together. Matanov likely lied to distance himself from the brothers or to cover up his own jihadist sympathies -- or maybe he was just confused.
What happened next is crucial: Matanov then went to his home and cleared his internet browser. That action led to him being charged with destruction of records under what is called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a law that was passed after the Enron scandal and was ostensibly created to protect Americans from predatory practices by corrupt corporations.
Matanov is not the only person being subjected to the law; there are other cases where citizens are being charged and convicted of acts that amount to little more than clearing one's browser history, something many of us do innocently on a regular basis.
The problem is that the use of this law to charge and convict individuals has become more common, and its application is often questionable. The Nation gives a hypothetical example and an explanation of why the increasing use of this law is so dangerous:
Prosecutors are able to apply the law broadly because they do not have to show that the person deleting evidence knew there was an investigation underway. In other words, a person could theoretically be charged under Sarbanes-Oxley for deleting her dealer's number from her phone even if she were unaware that the feds were getting a search warrant to find her marijuana. The application of the law to digital data has been particularly far-reaching because this type of information is so easy to delete. Deleting digital data can inadvertently occur in normal computer use, and often does.
This is a clear example of how our government uses high-profile and emotionally-charged cases to convince us that it's excusable to strip us of our rights. It also shows how vaguely worded laws can be used in broad ways to control us and limit our freedoms.
Curtailing Second and First Amendment Rights
Another recent example concerns proposed regulations by the State Department that seek to limit "unregulated" discussions and videos on internet forums dealing with firearms.
The Washington Examiner states:
In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government -- or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.
Is anyone else beginning to see a pattern here?
Sources:
http://m.thenation.com
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com
*******
Also See:
The Media is Controled by Mega-Corporations!
(Part 1)
31 July 2013
and
(Part 2)
19 December 2013
and
Is It the End of the Internet & Freedom of Speech? 15 June 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2008/06/end-of-internet-freedom-of-speech.html
and
The Internet - Is It the Next Freedom to Go?
15 December 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/12/internet-is-it-next-freedom-to-go.html
*******

Thursday, June 11, 2015

The North American Union has a New Name!

*******
*******

*******
TPP the European Union of North America
Claus is on his way to 12 TPP nations and packing grift for many more

Overnight the long suspected nightmarish North American Union (NAU) has come true.
Even though its creators have tagged it with a much more benign-sounding, all-encompassing name, 
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it’s the equivalent of taking North America—America in decline in particular—off life support.
 
They’re pulling the plug on North American sovereignty and getting away with it by passing off the TPP under the sugar coating of ‘Free Trade For All’.
Santa Claus is on his way to 12 TPP nations and packing grift for many more.
“President Obama’s trade agenda is dedicated to expanding economic opportunity for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses. That’s why we are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 21st century trade agreement that will boost U.S. economic growth, support American jobs, and grow Made-in-America exports to some of the most dynamic and fastest growing countries in the world. (Office of the United States Trade Representative)
“As the cornerstone of the Obama Administration’s economic policy in the Asia Pacific, the Trans-Pacific Partnership reflects the United States’ economic priorities and values. The TPP not only seeks to provide new and meaningful market access for American goods and services exports, but also set high-standard rules for trade, and address vital 21st-century issues within the global economy. “

Obama is not for Free Trade, Free Enterprise, or anything else that promotes business, jobs and individual independence

The best way to recognize the TPP is masquerading as Free Trade is reminding yourself that top TPP booster President Barack Obama is not for Free Trade, Free Enterprise, or anything else that promotes business, jobs and individual independence.
Obama’s first business move after election was to nationalize America’s prime industries under the “too big to fail” mantra and has been killing off jobs ever since.
About nebulous TPP, columnist, talk show radio host Doug Hagmann and Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions are right on the mark:
“In sum and substance, the TPP appears to be one of the most important end-game mechanisms necessary to usher in a state of global governance.” (Hagmann, Canada Free Press, June 10, 2015).
“It has all the earmarks of how the European Union got started.” 
(Sessions on Mark Levin last night).
Launched in secret; negotiated in secret over a 6-year-long period and voted on in secret in a locked room by a handful of the anointed,  co-opted by Obama’s top GOP Go-To Guy,  Paul Ryan; the TPP papers,  never seen by a single member of the public at large, is ready to turn the world upside-down.
Founded on Nov. 1, 1993, by founding member states Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands,  Belgium and Luxembourg, the European Union was, more than anything else, a convenient regionalization for centralized Big Government.
To be boosted by the corporatists of every country, the TPP now has 12 members: the United States, Mexico, Canada, Brunei, Singapore, New Zealand, Vietnam, Chile, Australia, Peru, Japan, and Malaysia.

Finding the path of least resistance to escape the wrath of their own constituents, the leaders of six European nations moved further away from the people they were elected to serve by going deeper into a sanctum, held as sacrosanct.
Just like the EU, the TPP will grow into a leviathan.

In the not-so-long-ago old days, people could target and remove from power rogue politicians. 
You can’t target politicians anymore, they’re all of a group protected in the sanctum.
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its agent of tyrannical empowerment, the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) exists today as the most overt and sinister example of the Communist utopian dream of a one world government. (Doug Hagmann)
“The “conspiracy theory” detailing the establishment of a “New World Order” where national sovereignty, the destruction of the middle class and ultimate enslavement of all people except the global elite remains a conspiracy, but is no longer a theory to be ridiculed. Its final stages are being put into place for all to see, or at least those who have eliminated the corporate media from their daily diet of disinformation, deception and distortion.
“Due in large part to a media captured and controlled by global corporate interests, and the unabashed secrecy that surrounds this “trade” agreement, most people are in the dark about the intent and consequences of the TPP and the TPA.Moreover, there is deliberate obfuscation of the terms being used and the insincere attempts to legitimize the need for the TPA, which was once known as “Fast Track Negotiating Authority.”
The newly named North American Union, written off for years as just another conspiracy theory, is here.
Obama, the man who was never there, gets to escape into the inner sanctum after taking down America, an inner sanctum where the common citizenry can’t catch him.
TPP is the wormhole Obama could climb into, taking all of America’s natural resources with him to be divvied up among which ever friends he chooses.
In the fullness of time, America is no longer a sovereign nation.  But neither are Canada and Mexico.
As Doug Hagmann pointedly asked on June 10: “Who will fight the beast?”
Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives