Will Liberty Continue to have a Home in America?
By Chuck Baldwin
September 22, 2010
In his first inaugural address, President George Washington said, "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."
In Washington's Thanksgiving Day Address (1789), he said, "That we then may all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war."
Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence and America's 3rd President) said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty," and, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" He also said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Virtually everyone at the time of America's founding attributed divine blessing and protection to the establishment of these States United. That fact is undeniable--at least by any honest and objective student of history.
Indeed, Jefferson's warning is as germane today (perhaps even more so) as it was when he wrote it: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" Meaning: The God who gave and protected our liberties is the same God who can remove and overthrow them in His wrath and judgment. Some would even argue that this is what God is currently doing: removing His hand of protection from America and turning us over to divine judgment. I must confess that I wonder about this in my own mind.
Add to the abandonment of constitutional governance the advent of European-style socialism in the US, the collapse of Christian virtue and morality (even by professing Christians), the repudiation of sound money principles, and a preoccupation with globalism, and it is easy to see the handwriting on the wall (to borrow from the Old Testament Book of Daniel).
That America seems destined for a fall (how far and how fast is yet to be determined) appears inevitable. Therefore, the real questions seem to me to be, Will liberty continue to have a home in America? And, if so, WHERE will liberty continue to have a home in America?
I think it is safe to say that many Americans today are not only unwilling to fight for their own liberty (and I am not talking about fighting unconstitutional, unprovoked wars in the Middle East), they do not even seem to be able to discern what true liberty is. To many avant-garde Americans, freedom is whatever Uncle Sam (or Big Brother, as he is better known today) determines freedom to be. If one of the 3 branches of the federal government (especially the Supreme Court) determines that a God-given liberty is not a God-given liberty after all, but only a temporary and transient "privilege of the state," many Americans seem to have no personal knowledge, wisdom, discernment, or fortitude to even remotely resist it. The fact that their Creator, via Natural and Revealed Law, endows them with certain "unalienable" rights and liberties never seems to dawn on them. It's as if the only god they know is the god of government. Even many pastors and Christians are carried away with this fallacy.
During the past two years, I have traveled over 60,000 miles to virtually every crack and corner of this country, and I can tell you without hesitation or equivocation: not every place (or State) understands--or is prepared to fight to defend--freedom. All men may be created equal, but all men are not equally discerning or determined. If I observed anything, I observed the great disparity between people when it comes to their willingness to draw a line in the sand for liberty--especially when that line is being drawn against their own federal government. Oh, there may exist pockets of such people scattered here and there in certain geographical regions, but I'm talking about a concentration of determined citizenry armed and alert to the usurpations of their liberties. There are only a few places where I observed such a spirit. And if you have read my last 3 columns, you know that I have been led to the studied conclusion that the Mountain States region of America's great Northwest is certainly one of those places, if not the most notable of those places.
Accordingly, I am absolutely convinced that God is calling a determined remnant of freedom-lovers to the Mountain States. And as most of my readers now know, that is exactly where God has called us--my family and me. We are in the process of moving to the Flathead Valley [Kalispell area] of Montana.) I am personally convinced that this relocation of patriots to the Mountain States is as inevitable and divinely inspired as was the relocation of the Pilgrims to colonial America.
Granted, not all of America's patriots will be led to relocate to the Mountain States. And I would never try to presume upon God's will for another man! In reality, the Lord may lead His freedom-loving children to a variety of locations and to a variety of actions. Others will be led to "stay in Crete" to be the "salt" and "light" where they are. After all, God is much too big to confine to one place or idea.
However, it is abundantly clear to me that each of us who call ourselves patriots (Christian or not) must begin answering these questions for ourselves: Will liberty continue to have a home in America? And, if so, Where will liberty continue to have a home in America? And I suppose the logical follow-up question is, What should I do about it? My family and I have answered that question for ourselves. I therefore urge each reader to also answer that question, because the fate of our posterity likely hangs in the balance.*******
Can America Survive as a Nation?
By Joe Kress
June 9, 2010
The question can America survive another four years of mistakes and allow another Neocon or socialist New World Order’s advocate marginalize our country to third world puppet status? Survive from what, one may ask? Certainly the United States is not going to survive as a democratic republic because the nation lost that opportunity when in 1860, congress signed off the session sine die without providing a time for reconvening. At that point the United States congress dissolved itself. Lincoln then instituted martial law for the next four years without benefit of a reconvened congress and the northern states lost their rights as the second leg of government. The southern states were no longer a part of the United States.
After 1865, the right to secede, which was written into the Constitution was abolished by presidential order and the individual powers formally held by state legislatures were significantly diminished, replaced by railroad barons in control of ruthless politicians backed by equally ruthless, elite, wealthy northern opportunists/carpetbaggers who exploited the defeated southerners. The families involved in banking, munitions and later oil and the remnants of Tammany Hall were in charge. The new government was formulated. A pseudo congress composed of a Republican majority swore an oath to a government devoid of the right of succession and token representation of the former rebellious states of the South. It was so corrupt that only one man stood up against further exploitation of the South by predatory members of the Senate. His name was Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s vice president, the successor to the president in accordance with the Constitution’s guideline.
“When Andrew Johnson became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, some of the Republicans in Congress most opposed to what they saw as the too-lenient policies of Lincoln toward reconstruction saw Johnson's ascension as a hopeful sign. One of the radical Republicans of the Senate, Benjamin Wade, expressed his support: "Johnson, we have faith in you. By the gods, there will be no more trouble in running the government." Less than three years later, Wade would cast a vote to convict Johnson in the impeachment trial that nearly made him the ex-president of the United States. Wade was one of four members of the Jacobin Club that caused Lincoln fits and was no less a problem for Andrew Johnson.
“There were two contending theories in post-war Washington concerning reconstruction. One theory argued that the states of the United States are indestructible by the acts of their own people and state sovereignty cannot be forfeited to the national government. Under this theory, the only task for the federal government was to suppress the insurrection, replace its leaders, and provide an opportunity for free government to re-emerge. Rehabilitation of the state was a job for the state itself. The other theory of reconstruction argued that the Civil War was a struggle between two governments, and that the southern territory was conquered land, without internal borders-- much less places with a right to statehood. Under this theory, the federal government might rule this territory as it pleases, admitting places as states under whatever rules it might prescribe.” This position was that of the Jacobin Club.
“Andrew Johnson was a proponent of the first, more lenient theory, while the radical Republicans who would so nearly remove him from office were advocates of the second theory. The most radical of the radical Republicans, men like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, believed also in the full political equality of the freed slaves. They believed that black men must be given equal rights to vote, hold office, own land, and enter into contracts, and until southern states made such promises in their laws they had no right to claim membership in the Union.” (Republicans also had more practical reasons to worry about Johnson's lenient reconstruction policy: the congressmen elected by white southerners were certain to be overwhelmingly Democrats, reducing if not eliminating the Republican majorities in both houses.)
So what has changed since then? We have Charles Schumer instead of Charles Summer and Nancy Pelosi instead of Thaddeus Stevens, tools of the Obama Administration’s now mature, extreme communist, 1960s radical elements within congress and his cabinet. Three members of the Supreme Court are determined to implement a socialist agenda that within a short time could be expanded to be the majority number in the court. Democracy within our republic form of government increasingly erodes what exited during the worst of those days of the robber barons of the mid 19thth century and only now the erosion is backed by self-interested foreign corporations and banking interests whose goal is to create and control a one world currency within a one world government.
Seduced by cheap goods produced out of country, the dummy-downed hoi polloi were satisified to witness the core of America’s industry pawned off to other countries where labor costs are significantly lower. Our congress and governmental administrations were infiltrated, corrupted and bribed into allowing NAFTA and free trade to become the knives to slit the soft underbelly of our industries and the economy. What was wholly owned American industries are acquired by foreign interests devoid of loyalty to the United States. The Federal Government now controls the auto industry and lending institutions and working hard to eliminate health insurance in order to accomplish its single payment plan for all Americans and non-Americans living in the United States. The Federal Reserve is composed of 12 member banks of which a significant minority represents the largest banks of Europe.
Government control of so wide a swath of what is America cheapens our currency and conversely increased the price of gold, silver as well as core agricultural products, industrial metals and raw materials. This is the Marxist intent to bring the United States to its knees and to incorporate it into the international new world order. Fear of a financial collapse because of horrendous borrowing through reckless government incompetence and cronyism causes banks to decrease their reserves and provide only token lending practices the result of which stifles credit and prevents economic progress.
One of the strangest phenomenon of the pending collapse of the nation’s wealth is the growing chasm between the rich and the underclass including the middle class, the latter the backbone of America’s consumption economy. According to Forbes Magazine, 793 billionaires have joint wealth and assets estimated to be $2,600,000,000,000 (two trillion six hundred billion dollars). In 2005/6, the number of billionaires rose by 102 and their joint wealth rose eighteen percent (Figures taken from Adrian Salbuchi’s Through the Looking Glass.)
To have any idea what this means in relative terms – the combined wealth of the 793 billionaires equals 25% of the Gross National Product (GNP) of the United States, or 12 percent of the world’s GNP. Between the G.W. Bush and Obama administrations, the rising Federal debt from the first term of George W Bush and the end of March 2010 reached the 13 trillion dollar mark and financiers estimate that if the debt continues on the same track, it will have attained the astonishing 32 trillion dollar level once the baby boomers of the 60s generation are added to the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and illegal aliens added to the welfare rolls and the Obama medical care debt. So what will happen to the wealthy billionaires who have access to the best lawyers and financial minds here and overseas? Obviously what will happen to the middleclass who even now is disintegrating won’t happen to the extreme wealthy. They will, through complex tax evasion avoid legal restraints that are pertinent only to the non wealthy who can’t afford to bribe our representatives, export their wealth or use gold to purchase pennies on the devalued dollar what’s left of any real value. Of course, in order to accomplish this, the cooperation of the American communist nomenkultura (hierarchy) will share the spoils.
Our country in its beginning stages was weak and in debt at the time the British left Washington in ruins in 1813, but soon the spirit of an independent people caused the nation to prosper and to progress until the Civil War began. It ended with a devastated South abandoned and humiliated - never really recovering until the 1950s with the introduction of air conditioning. The northern states, however, soon revived their industries at the expense of the South after 1865 and picked up a head of steam of prosperity because of exporting high quality industrial products and building numerous railroad lines. The Homestead Act opened up the western plains for oil, agriculture and industrial development from Oklahoma to the Continental Divide and a flood of settlers continued on to California. The gates of the United States opened to Europe at the end of the 19th century and millions of foreigners filled the gap for a cheap labor force. Among the masses was a major influx of Jews from Eastern Europe who centered in New York in the garment trade, stock brokerage houses and investment banking.
There were glitches of long lasting negative consequences in the process of tumultuous growth; the major impediment was the money system. Duel metals, silver and gold, backed the dollar’s valuation. The ratio of the value of gold caused the silver part of the reserves to be less desirable and a run on the U.S. gold by foreign countries holding drafts redeemable in gold destabilized the value of the dollar and with it the ratio of silver to gold. A financial panic ensued in 1893 that motivated Grover Cleveland to approach Pierpont Morgan for help in saving the country from bankruptcy.
Here is an excerpt of Ron Chernow’s book “The House of Morgan”:
“There were only $9 million in gold left in the government vaults and Morgan told the president that he knew that there was a foreign government’s draft for $10 million in gold to be presented to the treasury that very day. “’What suggestions do you have Mr. Morgan, the president asked?”’ Pierpont laid out an audacious scheme.
“The Morgan and Rothschild houses in New York and London would gather 3.5 million ounces in gold, at least half from Europe, in exchange for about $65 million worth of thirty year bonds. He promised that gold obtained by the government would not flow out again. Questioned whether this was legal, he dusted off an 1862 Lincoln emergency statute that granted the Lincoln administration emergency powers to buy gold during the Civil War.
“The scheme worked temporarily and the bonds paid interest of 3½% considered extremely high at par and sold out in the first hours at $112 profit on each $1,000 bond purchased. By the end of the day, the bonds were priced at 119. In just 22 minutes, the bankers had booked $6 to $7 million in profits. The Populist uproar was furious and laced with anti-Semitism because of the Rothschild participation.
“They labeled President Cleveland a tool of Jewish bankers and the New York World described the syndicate as a pack of “bloodsucking Jews and aliens.” In his vehement denunciation in Congress, William Jennings Brian asked the clerk to read Shylock’s bond from The Merchant of Venice.”
The reason our plutocracy grew so rapidly, faster than other nations from 1865 up to 1903 is that it stayed the course of independence, free enterprise and isolationism. This was possible despite the efforts of the modern “Robber Barons”: the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Gould, Schiffs, Carnegies, Harriman/Bushes. American isolation policies of the United States were predicated on the Monroe Doctrine. It declared that all foreign influence within the Americas would be regarded as an act of hostility against the interests of the United States. The Spanish occupation of Cuba fell into that category and Grover Cleveland proceeded to threaten Spain to remove itself from the hemisphere.
The United States was also producing high quality products that infringed on British exports because of Great Britain’s lower quality products and higher costs. Plans by the British also were in the making to undermine the U.S. economy as well, but that is another part of the intrigue left for another essay. Let it suffice to be stated here that Britain expected the United States to become bankrupt once it funded the cost of the First World War. The British government and that of France did in fact borrow the money from the U.S. Treasury needed to finance their part of the war. They never intended and never did repay the debt.
Today, dollar diplomacy and the central banking, fractional reserve system began in America during the second decade of the 20th century [barely 114 years after Washington’s death], and systemically destroyed the value of our currency in favor of debt-created paper, now worth 1/100th of its value in 1913. Further contribution to the dollar’s collapse was WW I, WW II and all overt and covert future engagements, and non-war wars that the congress and future presidents refuse to declare but proceeded anyway. The debt would be financed by debt created paper without the bother of having gold or silver or any other kind of backing.
After he declined to run for another term, Teddy expected his successor Howard Taft, a Republican favorite to follow his lead. However, Taft did not and the Rothschild interests were deeply disappointed that Teddy’s replacement also was not enamored with the idea of turning over the U.S. money system to the central bankers.
Taft was not a puppet of the banking interests who were hell-bent to introduce a central banking system in the United States; one that could control the issuance of debt-created money as then existed in Europe. Therefore, the Republican pseudo Neocons of yesteryear turned on him. The odd fact is that Theodore Roosevelt himself blocked what he labeled the Morgan trust cabal.
Why did he fight to block J.P. Morgan so vigorously and yet support the international banking interests and their phony money system? J.P. Morgan was the most powerful non-Semite in the banking world and that was intolerable for Teddy’s backers itching for the Federal Reserve Act to be passed at any cost so that the mainly Jewish controlled central banks of Europe, headed by the House of Rothschild, could gain inroads to the American money system. To prevent Taft from winning a second term as president, Teddy formed the Bull Moose Party as its presidential candidate for the sole purpose of splitting the Republican vote and thus ensuring the election of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson, the friend of the international warmonger bankers located mainly in London, Paris and Frankfurt. At that point the Republic came to an end and the new era of banksterism began.*******
America in Decline
Moral decline, Infrastructure decline, Slaves of civil service unions and their government employees
By Alan Caruba
Monday, March 22, 2010
There are tipping points in people’s lives and in the life of a nation. More and more I am inclined to believe that America has hit a tipping point and that its decline has been in progress now since the end of World War II. How can that be? We were and are a superpower.
While it is true that we have the greatest military power in the world, it is equally true that many of the planes being flown were brought on line in the 1950s, despite the extraordinary aircraft such as the stealth bombers. When Russia can put in a $40 billion bid to build refueling tankers after a major U.S. aircraft firm dropped out of the process, you have to ask yourself whether something is terribly wrong.
Militarily, we have worn out our forces, many of which are National Guard units, with six years of conflict in Iraq and renewed conflict in Afghanistan. All the hardware needed to maintain our troops in conflict zones need replacing. And the President of the United States wants to sign a treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenal.
It goes even deeper, however, than the capacity to wage war, let alone the will to face off with our enemies. Since around the 1960s the nation’s education system has grown steadily more costly and steadily worse in its capacity to produce students with fundamental skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. American students consistently score behind students in other nations. An educated workforce is essential to maintain excellence, let alone parity with other nations.
At the heart of the Medicare reform battle was a very simple fact. The current Medicare program is broke. The current Social Security program is broke. Most of the States in the nation are broke. America must borrow a billion dollars a day to maintain its huge entitlement programs. The interest on treasury notes alone is daunting. Expanding Medicare under such conditions is sheer folly.
The nation and the States have become slaves of civil service unions
The nation and the States have become slaves of civil service unions and their government employees now make more than those in comparable private sector positions. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees now represent 1.6 million workers. There are two million federal workers. The benefits that have been negotiated for these workers are extraordinary, particularly in the area of pensions. Many of the services they provide, other than police and fire, could be contracted to the private sector.
Unemployment continues to rise and the billions in “stimulus” programs are having no effect. The Federal Reserve continues to print money that will invariably have less value.
The exodus from States now famed for heavy taxation, California, New York, New Jersey, continues apace. The value of the nation’s housing stock continues to decline. Other States are becoming manufacturing wastelands as this essential factor of prosperity leaves the nation for others with less taxation and friendlier regulatory environments.
Amnesty and Illegal Aliens
The other problem America has not addressed or solved is that of illegal aliens. There are differing estimates of how many reside in the nation ranging from twelve to over fifteen million. They represent a drain on education systems, medical facilities, receive a variety of social services, and crowd our prisons. Previous amnesties have only served to swell the numbers of those crossing illegally into the nation in hopes of more amnesties. The Obama administration is known to want yet another amnesty enacted.
Increasingly, parts of the nation’s economy have been absorbed into the government, the most outstanding example being the takeover of General Motors and Chrysler, and control of the financial sector through bailouts.
Huge tracts of land, often with significant natural resources, continue to fall under the control of the federal government while others ban any extraction of oil, coal or natural gas. In the energy sector, more than nine million jobs exist and millions more could if the government would permit further exploration and extraction. Meanwhile, offshore of Florida in Cuba, Russians and Chinese are beginning to develop oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Obama administration is totally devoted to the global warming fraud and the baseless assertion that human beings are influencing climate change through the generation of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide. The next major legislative initiation it proposes is the passage of Cap-and-Trade, a measure to impose the largest tax on the use of energy in the history of the nation.
At the same time, the electrical grid that is responsible for the distribution of energy has been aging and is in need of expansion. No new nuclear plants have been built since the 1970s and several are scheduled to be decommissioned. Nuclear represents twenty percent of the electricity used daily in the nation. The site in Nevada for the deposit of nuclear waste, built at the cost of billions, is still not open though it is ready to provide this necessary service.
The nation’s infrastructure of highways and bridges is in near desperate need of upgrade and continues to be neglected.
Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, Pornography, Violence
Nor should we ignore clear signs of moral decline as well. The abortion issue reflects the murder of millions of unborn babies. The push for same-sex marriage is a rejection of the ancient recognition that social stability depends on the marriage of a man and a woman. Pornography and violence permeate entertainment venues. Reality TV reflects the worst excesses of behavior. Illegal drugs are available anywhere in the nation.
The list of the indicators of decline is longer, but those cited are sufficient to suggest that an implosion is only a matter of time.
The truth that there is no free lunch remains in effect.*******
Census and the Constitution
By Michael LeMieux
March 20, 2010
Many of you by now have received your 2010 Census form in the mail and have waded through the questions. I must admit I was braced for much more intrusive questions but was still wondering why the federal government needs to know whether I own or rent the dwelling I am inhabiting and how that allows them to ascertain my states representation.
On the very front of the envelope it states “U.S. Census Form Enclosed YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.” And I thought to myself, oh really? If the central government is defined by the constitution and all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people (10th Amendment) where do they get their power to go beyond that?
So I did a bit of research and this is what I found:
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
The word enumeration means to count or list one after another. The clause further defines the reason for ascertaining this number and that is to determine the number of representatives for each state and for the purposes of apportionment of direct taxes. And the definition of Census simply means “a complete enumeration of a population.” But I guess Census was easier; after all who wants to go around saying enumeration all day?
And as far as the closing stanza the term “in such manner” means the method in which it is to be completed shall be directed by law from Congress. It says nothing of adding additional purposes to the enumeration, I mean census, and the entire Federalist Paper #55, believed to have been written by James Madison February 13, 1788, speaks only of counting the inhabitants of each state for the purpose of ascertaining the number of representatives for those states.
Now remember I said that the envelope stated you had to answer the questions “by law?” Well that is found under Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221(a) and (b) which assigns a fine of $100.00 for each unanswered question and a fine of $500.00 for any false question.
Okay, I found the law but for any federal law to be valid it must by constitutional. And anyone who has done any research at all into the constitutionality of federal law knows that the federal government will stretch any logic it can to build a nexus from the Constitution to the law even if it is absurd. It doesn’t make them right it just makes them wrong with a gun.
In Morales V. Daley Secretary of Commerce, dealing with a challenge to the 2000 Census; Morales believed the various questions asked on the census form was an invasion of his privacy and was unconstitutional. I think we can all guess the outcome of this case but what is interesting is not the predictable outcome but the reasoning’s for that outcome.
The court cited a Supreme Court Case of McCullough V. Maryland (1819) in which the court stated: “The Constitution orders an enumeration of free persons in the different states every ten years. The direction extends no further Yet Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only for free person in the States but for free persons in the Territories, and not only an enumeration of persons but the collection of statistics respecting age, sex, and production. Who questions the power to do this?”
It is amazing to me that the Supreme Court flat out admits that Congress is acting outside the constitution when they state “The direction extends no further Yet Congress has repeatedly directed…” A clear example of Congress acting as it wants regardless of the Constitution solely because they want it and the Constitution be damned! We will see more of this shortly.
The Morales case goes even further by citing United States V. Moriarity (1901) stating: “This does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if ‘necessary and proper,’ for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution… For the national government to know something, if not everything, beyond the fact that the population of each stated reaches a certain limit, is apparent, when it is considered what is the dependence of this population upon the intelligent action of the general government.”
I don’t know about you but when I read the foregoing utterance by a justice of our government I could only think “What Arrogance.” They wish us to believe that they can do anything under any pretense if they can tie one action with a separate power. With that logic why not have the IRS collect and determine postage rates. After all they deal with money, our money, but money none the less. And the audacity to think that the federal government has the authority to not only know anything about you but EVERYTHING because we are all just a bunch of serf dependents waiting to be told what to do by our intelligent general government. Do you wonder now why we have so many Big Brother conspiracies out there? Makes you wonder if they are really conspiracies or maybe finders of the truth when our own government speaks of the people this way.
The Morales case argued that many of the questions go beyond the enumeration of states inhabitants to areas that are not part of the powers of Congress. The government responded that the courts in Wisconsin V. New York (1996) “makes it clear that the Constitution has given to Congress very broad discretion in conducting the census.” Really, maybe they read a different Constitution from the one I have? It seemed pretty cut and dry to me – count the number of people to determine representation and direct tax apportionment. Where is the broad discretion listed in the Constitution if not only in the minds of those that want it that way? A typical tactic of the left is to read the Constitution for what it can do for them not for what is says.
Morales goes on to explain further citing “Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999), notes that the census as mandated by the Constitution is for enumeration so that congressional districts may be established, but that the census-taking process has a long history of including much more than a simple headcount.”
So now we actually have a little truth streaming through the clouds of government obfuscation; “the census-taking process has a long history of including much more than a simple headcount.” So you see asking for more than just a head count is beyond the constitutional power of the Congress BUT we’ve been doing it this way for such a long time and the stupid dependents have given us the information so we keep on doing it.
The Morales case goes on to argue that because of the historical fact that the Census has always asked questions that apparently any question may be asked when it stated: “The Census Bureau points out that from the very first census, performed in 1790, Congress authorized questions pertaining to age, gender, and race. It also points out that the Supreme Court defers to the statutes of the First Congress because so many Framers of the Constitution were members of that congress. The fact that the First Congress included questions in addition to the head count is strong support for the constitutionality of additional questions as a general proposition.”
And though technically correct, they did answer questions pertaining to race and gender due to the apportionment rules within the Constitution that required it. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, prior to what was mentioned above states: “…Which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons…” So you can see that in order to determine the correct number for apportionment/representation they needed to establish the separation of these numbers and it was not JUST to gain more statistical data.
You can read the history of the First Census from the Census Bureau’s own report archived at their web site. Contained within this archive is the pertinent information gathered which states: “The schedules which these officials prepared consist of lists of names of heads of families; each name appears in a stub, or first column, which is followed by five columns, giving details of the family. These columns are headed as follows:
Free white males of 16 years and upward, including heads of families.
Free white males under 16 years.
Free white females, including heads of families.
All other free persons.
So even though they may have “asked” or counted based on family names it was at its basis solely an enumeration of the population garnering the numbers within a household and nothing more. The justices use of this as a basis for the full expansion of “knowing everything” is a far cry from the purpose and intent of the enumeration clause.
What I find very interesting is the government’s assurance in the Morales case that we can trust the government to do what they say. In particular they stated: “the Census Bureau assures him and the court that the law forbids the Bureau from attributing Van Fleet’s answers to Van Fleet.” (Van Fleet was a codefendant on the case) So if the Census Bureau does not attribute our answers to our names then why do they need our names? After all the majority of the census is based upon place of residence, to include unusual places such as college, nursing homes, etc, and with the exception of the homeless which is also discussed in the census documents. So why connect all this data to individuals if there is no intent to tie that information to the individual?
The answer will surprise most of you but it is for historical reasons. From the very first census the data has been made available to certain groups such as genealogical societies, veteran groups, and others. In fact the very first census, under President Washington, Congress passed an amendment to the bill to provide for selling the data to genealogical and patriotic groups to assist in the recovery of funds. Again we are asking more and more questions because that’s the way we’ve always done it, but it is not constitutional.
The final argument by the court was: “Applying the Wyoming v. Houghton analysis, it is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude upon an individual’s privacy is limited, given the methods used to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests has been found to be significant.”
So again we see their logic; the government wants the data so they pass the questions to the Census Bureau and have them add it to the census and make it a crime not to answer the question. And if anyone dares question their authority they risk thousands of dollars in fines. And of course they ask us to trust them because they have done so well in the past like with social security.
#The bottom line is that under the strict interpretation of the wording of the Constitution the expanded questions, like do you rent, mortgage, or own your home outright, are outside the constitutional authority of the government. But they have passed the law, constitutional or not, that empowers them to do so. Again, it doesn’t make them right it just makes them wrong with a gun and for most in this country that is enough to get them to comply and that is just what they expect from this dependant population.*******
Anarchy at the Door
By Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret.
February 24, 2010
From Tyranny to Tyranny
Contrary to popular belief the revolutionary war was not the result of the colonists’ disaffection with monarchical control, indeed from forty to sixty percent of the population maintained a loyalty to the Crown and thirty-five thousand plus colonists fought on the British side in the war for independence. The fact is that the war was brought about by burdensome taxation and heavy-handed enforcement by a dictatorial and controlling British Monarchy.
After a seven year conflict against long odds the colonists believed they were then free of a tyrannical government control of their individual resources, and from what they perceived to be confiscatory taxation. They were soon to be disabused of such thoughts.
Saddled with the debt brought about by this struggle over taxation the fledgling government of the new republic cast about for ways to repay the loans that funded the protracted armed engagement. Alexander Hamilton, known for his advocacy for a loose construction of the Constitution and for heavy-handed government, won approval from George Washington’s administration for a tax on alcoholic spirits that provoked an uprising by enraged citizens known as the “Whiskey Rebellion”. The rebellion prompted a government mobilization of seventeen thousand armed militiamen who turned weapons upon their fellow citizens and by force of arms put down a protest against the very tyranny that had been so recently escaped. It was the first time that the United States government turned the military loose on dissident citizens, but it would not be the last.
Think not that the founding fathers were saints in powdered wigs this is a myth that has been created and promulgated by revisionist historians and encouraged through the years by ardent nationalists. The fact is that these were simply fallible men, who were often courageous, frequently misguided, and mostly authoritarian. Within twenty years of its inception the new government had accelerated government power, produced tyrannical policies, put into place onerous taxes, embarked upon unprecedented government spending and stifled free speech by imposing fines and jail terms for up to 5 years for those citizens who criticized the government or its officials.
The inescapable truth is that the makers of the Constitution for a free people were sidestepping the provisions thereof even before the ink was dry on the document, and by their infidelity to constitutional principles the revolutionary spirit that birthed a republic for a free and independent people was forever stilled.
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1: 21-22
When one reads the Constitution as originally written and ratified it is difficult to escape the thought that it was divinely inspired. Guarantees of free agency and personal liberties influence that opinion. As I have previously stated no nation on earth is a Christian nation and that includes the United States. Nevertheless it is the God of creation who lifts up nations and it is He who puts them down. God’s scripture said to Pharaoh, “I raised you up for this very purpose that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” This was the same Pharaoh that the Lord drowned in the Red Sea. God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy and He makes obdurate and unrepentant whom He wants to make obdurate and unrepentant. God will use the heathen to His own purpose and He has done so numerous times.
Simply put if this nation would have adhered to the Constitution, considered it immutable and unchangeable, and honored the God who seems to have inspired it the nation might have escaped the egregious fate that is poised to descend upon it. Josiah pulled down idols, destroyed false prophets, moved a people to obey God’s Laws and saved - albeit temporarily - a nation. As I look around this nation, I see no Josiah.
To Obama the Pseudo Savior – Read My Lips There are No New Jobs
Most of us know of the venality that infests our legislative bodies, and we are also well aware that our judiciary is filled with judicial activists whose decrees more often than not trample on the constitutional freedoms of the American people. But, what is often not detected in this amorphous degeneracy that parades as government is a third component, and that component is the bloated and rotted bureaucracy that underlies and supports the administrative, legislative and judicial incursions upon the rights, lives and property of every citizen in this nation.
This huge body of non-elected non-accountable and often insensate individuals, humorously referred to as civil servants, is compartmentalized into various bureaus with assorted and diverse control over every aspect of the individual lives of three hundred million American citizens. The mortals who staff these agencies have powers far in excess of most political agents. They have the authority - an authority granted not by the people whom they control - to write administrative rules that have the force of law. They interpret the bills passed by legislative bodies and put into place provisions to implement the provisions thereof. It is their interpretation that marks the character of every piece of legislation passed by our legislative entities on both the federal and state levels. They are the slavering pandering watchdogs for their masters in the various branches of government, again on both the state and federal levels. And as such they are given law enforcement powers that are commensurate with that of the hatchet men of fascist totalitarian regimes.
Nice going, Barack, just the ticket to avoid escaping the axe, create more bureaucracy and enable more bureaucrats to ensure that the axe will fall. If there is a winner here in terms of jobs, other than for government employees and their unions, it escapes me.
Never have So Many been So Deceived by So Few
The impetus for the onrushing financial collapse has been cunningly engineered by the elites, a/k/a the illuminati. The ultimate goal is to move the collective capital assets of the people into the hands of the illuminati that when the collapse occurs these immense reserves of stolen capital will be used to assemble the pieces of a new world order. Out of chaos comes order, a new world order. In order for the plan to work it had to be implemented incrementally, and with infinite finesse. It had to be made to appear that the small players of the markets were on equal ground with the conglomerates and corporate giants and that the risks accruing to the investments of each were equal and shared.
In order to lure the bit players into the markets the market movers have cleverly played upon the dreams and aspirations of the commoners for wealth and prestige. The basic instinct of the fallen human nature is selfishness, and the leading traits of that instinct are greed and covetousness. The bait is the lure of riches and the power that accrues to riches, and the manipulative elite consortium that controls the markets triggers the hook.
If you are not a financial mover and shaker with the power and capital to buy and sell extraordinarily large blocks of stock stay out of the markets, it is a stacked deck. The shadowy financial elites who exercise control of the markets have all the aces and always know under which shell the pea resides. It is a sucker’s game for all but the financial giants of the illuminati.
The recent recession and precipitous market decline tells the story lets look at the winners and the losers. Millions of commoners lost their savings, their retirement accounts were depleted, their personal portfolios were devastated and their hopes and dreams fell through the floor. The elites came out of it intact and sassy, as they had intended. The visible peripheral entities under the control of the elites were endowed by the government - which they own - with billions of taxpayer dollars, this largesse was co-mingled with Federal Reserve funded interest free loans all of which enabled them to gobble up the assets of the chumps who had lost their shirts and to turn monumental profits. How providential for these that they could ostensibly fall into a barrel of manure and come out smelling like a rose.
This market plunge was only a tremor and an indicator of the implosion that is soon to follow. A total collapse is imminent and will be the precursor to an undreamed of descent into untold suffering, anarchy, and an ultimate destruction of the nation.
Its about Sowing and Reaping
“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1: 24-32
It is interesting that there appears to be an increasing vague awareness that something is wrong with our nation, and more specifically with our government. It seems that adversity provokes interest and attracts attention.
Suddenly people are wondering if they will be able to buy a house, or pay their kids’ way through college. They are concerned that there will be no jobs with which to secure the funds to purchase cars, finance vacations, or pay for nights out for dinner or to take in shows and entertainment. They have been running down the road of life at a fast clip believing in unending prosperity and perpetual bliss, and suddenly and abruptly they have come against a barrier that has cut them off from the desires of their hearts. Who’s to blame for their predicament? Certainly they are not personally responsible, it must be those legislative people that they have been returning to office time and again with their votes, Yeah that’s it - it is the stupid politicians who are at fault, let’s throw the bums out that will fix the problem.Since most of the people of this nation are spiritually blind they fail to understand that the problem is deep, it is systemic, and it is now incurable. This nation has run its course, as so many nations have done before it. Think on this dear reader in case the scripture quotes above failed to grab your attention. “We are a people who know that in the sight of God the things that we commit are worthy of death, yet we not only do the same, but take great pleasure in doing them.” It’s as simple as that we have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind that all should know that the sovereign God would not be mocked.
Your Hope My Hope
"As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name." John 1:12*******
The Spoiled System
The art of politics is the art of patronage
By Daniel Greenfield
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Do you feel disadvantaged? Is your volume of business down? Are you a member of a minority group and feel like you need an edge? Are you not a member of a minority group but wish you had your own bailout? Do you think that everyone’s getting money from the government but you. Don’t worry, there’s a solution. The Spoiled System.
The art of politics is the art of patronage, as money and political support is invested in politicians as a down payment on the government largess that they will dispense back to their supporters once in office. As the size of government has expanded, the American spoils system has gone from encompassing jobs for a few thousand bureaucrats in the early 19th century to a spoiled system in which all Americans are expected to support politicians in exchange for a share of the government loot.
The health care debate is only the latest example of how the expansion of government has drawn up battle lines among Americans who are expected to fight over the latest episode of the Spoiled System. And is it only the latest. For if we declare that government provided health care is a legal right, then why not housing or internet access and cars? The Romans had a name for this sort of thing, panem et circenses, or Bread and Circuses, in which politicians dispense the spoils of government treasuries to the public in exchange for their support.
That sort of thing has an ancient history in America going back to the earliest days of government, in which politicians realized that to survive both individually and on a party basis, they would have to create their own base. And so they did. Back in 1800, Aaron Burr, the original Democratic party scoundrel, created an entire electorate with a bill to provide free water to New Yorkers, with a company that also doubled as a bank. Some 200 years later, variations on the same trick are being played over and over good, with the instruments of the public good being exploited in order to perpetuate the spoiled system. It is only now that the system is approaching its final breaking point, as out of control government spending fueled by corruption, party politics and ‘bread and circuses’ social spending, is bankrupting America.
Political parties strive to secure their power base through giveaways to individual and entire demographic groups of supporters
The key ingredient of course is the size of government. To give away something, you must control it. And as political parties strive to secure their power base through giveaways to individual and entire demographic groups of supporters—the entitlement arms race takes on a desperate note. Because not only do both parties have to spend money to reward their supporters, but when neither party is dominant, the spending increases two-fold, because the only thing more expensive than single party piggery, is bipartisanship in which both parties tack on the spending they want to get anything passed.
That is how Bush got so many bills passed, by dramatically increasingly spending in order to reward Democratic congressmen and Senators for their cooperation. It’s why the NEA’s budget shot up to new heights under Bush, and why the same Democratic Senators now assailing Republicans for their spending, were living high on the hog back then, literally. It’s why Obama and congressional Democrats are now pondering how much money they’re going to have to spend in order to buy off a few Republican Senators to get their agenda through. Because except for the occasional moment of genuine national solidarity in a time of crisis, bipartisanship mainly means twice as much theft.
It will be much harder though, because most Republican Congressmen and Senators understand that they can’t afford to vote for much of Obama’s agenda. Not because it’s too expensive, frankly that has stopped very few politicians on either side over the last decade, but because it’s not mere waste or the spoils system in action, but an attempt by Obama and the Democrats to use spending to create their own base. The fundamental difference between the bailouts and health care is that the latter represents a political power grab, that few but the loosest Republicans will go along with for any amount of bribery. And having an aggressive grass roots movement agitating for fiscal conservatism at their doorstep, only reinforces that.
But to paraphrase Marlene Dietrich, the problem with fiscal conservatism is that it doesn’t pay… politicians that is. Fiscal conservatism looks good on the letterhead, but in the days when 99 percent of the reason to hold elected office is to bring home the pork, electing or getting elected in order to stop spending money is counterintuitive on both sides of the aisle. There are politicians who make fiscal conservatism their agenda, and some do a better job of camouflaging their earmarks than others, some like Ron Paul go so far as to insert the earmarks and then make a charade of voting against them, but none of them can really stop handing out public money to shore up their own base of support. They can’t, because the entire political system is geared to reward those who grab the money.
It is the system itself that is spoiled. Soviet economic planning created a top down system in which the absence of a free market turned the entire economy into one big black market, in which everything belonged to the government, and everyone had to earn a living by stealing from the government and reselling it on the black market. But in fact we have the same system, it just runs out of D.C. and the politicians do all the stealing for us.
In our system you don’t need to steal and resell office supplies or fish. Instead two or three politicians get up and promise to steal as much of the budget as they can on your behalf. And raise the debt limit so they can steal even more. The best thief goes off to the state capitol or Washington D.C. and the same game goes on. Most politicians disdain the system, but argue that since everyone does it, they have to deliver the pork to their constituents too. And they’re right. How many politicians would get reelected if they actually didn’t bring any of the money from Washington D.C. home? How many people would really vote for a man if he promised that their district wouldn’t receive a single dollar in Federal money? In many parts of the country it would be easier to run as a convicted child molester than a politician who actually doesn’t bring any money home at the end of the day.
The public benefits here and there, a new road, a renovated museum and the occasionally helpful government service. But for every dollar of value that the general public receives, nine dollars are routed into kickbacks to contributors (often passed off as waste), funneled into an endless bureaucracy or just shredded as part of the long drawn out process in which the government’s own size and lack of accountability results in more money being spent in a year than a committee of madmen loosed in a bank vault ever could.
But the competition ensures that the spoils system will go on. Imagine two greedy sons who open a safe containing all the money that their father left to them. They both look at each other, each brother suspecting that his sibling will go for the money. So naturally they both begin taking money, and as both shovel hundred dollar bills in their pockets, they begin grabbing the money faster and faster, as each one tries to grab as much as he can so the other one doesn’t get it.
A system in which politicians get elected in order to spend money by paying back their donors and constituents for their support
That is what we have now. A system in which politicians get elected in order to spend money by paying back their donors and constituents for their support. A system in which parties scheme to make the public more and more dependent on them, in order to control their support. Tammany Hall and the Carpetbaggers were two sides of the same coin. Government can’t be reformed, because government is the problem. Fighting the War on Drugs always runs up against the problem that there are people who want drugs and people who want to profit by selling it to them. Fighting government corruption runs up against the same problem. To win the War on Drugs, you somehow have to convince people to stop using drugs or trying to profit from selling them. To win the War on Government Spending, you have to convince politicians to stop spending money.
As long as government can spend money it does not have, raise taxes to collect more money, go into debt to spend more money and has virtually unlimited spending discretion vested in politicians who are supposed to be the people’s representatives, but instead have become their pimps, the crisis will only get worse. It will take more than a new election to change that, but a transformation in the relationship between the politicians and the people.*******
From Whence We Come
By Lynn Stuter
January 26, 2010
I had an interesting discourse with a gentleman the other day, about what is wrong with our nation. He claimed to be a Christian; had studied the Bible; but what became obvious, in our discourse, was that he had no clue the foundation of our nation.
People ask all the time, "How did we get here? What can we do?"
Those who would disparage our Founding Fathers and the foundations of our nation are quick to point out that "not all the Founding Fathers were Christians." They point this up as though it makes the case that our nation was not founded on Christianity.
And it is true that not all our Founding Fathers were Christians. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, for example, are generally considered to be deists, "a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs … a belief especially influential in the 17th and 18th centuries." (Encarta Dictionary, North America).
But in reading the writings of our Founding Fathers, one thing becomes crystal clear, that the flow of power should be from "The Creator" to "the people" to "the government". Our Founding Fathers knew that the only way that man could truly be free was to establish a limited form of government that allowed man the greatest latitude to govern self.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…" — Declaration of Independence; In Congress; July 4, 1776
Thus the quote attributed to James Madison,
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
This quote from John Adams makes things even clearer,
"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."
In other words, in order for America to be free, and Americans to enjoy freedom under a limited form of government, they must choose to govern themselves, control themselves, sustain themselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
Edmund Burke made the reasoning of the Founding Fathers abundantly clear when he wrote (sic),
"Freedom without virtue is not freedom but license to pursue whatever passions prevail in the intemperate mind; man's right to freedom being in exact proportion to his willingness to put chains upon his own appetites; the less restraint from within, the more must be imposed from without."
In other words, if man does not govern himself according to the Ten Commandments of God, because of man's sin nature, what he imposes upon society will require laws to be written. (Note: used in this context, "man" refers not to gender but to humanoids in general.)
But, you say, this creates a situation, as in England, where the religion of the people is imposed by the state.
No, not so. Our Founding Fathers knew that the only way this nation could remain a limited form of government is if the people, themselves, choose to live by the Ten Commandments of God. Thus the very first amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Those who would disparage Christianity claim that Christianity has no place in the halls of government.
This is also not true. The Founding Fathers were very aware of the oppression imposed by the Church of England. They understood that to be free, people must choose, of their own free will, to live their lives according to the Ten Commandments of God, whether in their private lives or while serving the people in the halls of government. The government was established to be non-religious; not the people serving in the government.
Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a government of politicians; they envisioned a government of statesman, principled men who came together to administer a limited form of government, allowing the people the greatest amount of freedom to pursue their lives according to the Ten Commandments of God.
A government of the people, by the people, for the people. The only one like it in the world, often called the greatest experiment in the world. The reason so many have left their countries of birth to seek opportunity in America.
First of all, how many children in the public schools are taught the reality of the founding of our nation? I can answer that with one word: none. And that situation has been so for more than 50 years.
If a nation knows not from whence it came; it will not know to where it is going and Americans today, by and large, have no clue the founding principles of this nation.
What we are fighting today is truly a spiritual battle. John Adams' prophetic words, that our constitution was wholly inadequate for an unprincipled and immoral people, is upon us. The signs are everywhere …
1. Politicians instead of statesman;
2. Government leaders who worship at the altar of Satan as active members of the Bohemian Grove club, Skull and Bones, and countless others;
3. The use of the public treasury to buy votes (earmarks);
4. The people have become 'stakeholders' to be pandered to at election time and ignored the rest of the time;
5. Moral acts are the subject of derision, while immoral acts are celebrated under the mantra of equal rights;
6. Rampant crime including child sex slavery;
7. Rampant corruption in government;
8. Imperial expansionism;
9. Rabid environmentalism including the global warming hoax;
10. The sustainable global environment based on humanism/New Age;
11. Government schools (aka, "public" schools) to teach that which serves the interests of invasive and oppressive government;
12. The federal reserve bank;
13. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid;
14. The federal income tax;
15. Endless 'police actions' in foreign lands;
16. Rampant sexual promiscuity;
17. Rampant sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDs;
19. Churches that speak apostasy from the altar in an attempt to please the flock instead of pleasing God (social gospel);
20. Moral depravation;
… just to name a few.
Some will say "the outlawing of prayer in public schools." That, however, is the result of unconstitutional government schools. Why are government schools unconstitutional? Because education, in every instance, is based on a world view, a philosophy, a religion. As such, each government school, to meet the requirement of the First Amendment, must offer courses based on every religion. As they do not, they are unconstitutional. The religion undergirding government education, at this time, is humanism/New Age. While humanism admits to no Higher Authority (no Creator); New Age believes Higher Authority comes from within (self-divination).
Can we get back to our Founding principles? Never say never.
How do we do that?
Until the people of this nation fall on their knees, ask forgiveness of God, repent and go forth and do better, God will continue to turn his back on this nation and it will continue its slide into oppression.
Our constitution was truly made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.
If the American people want to live as free people, there is only one way that can happen.
Our Founding Fathers knew that; they weren't so dumb after all!*******
The Real 2010 Massachusetts Message?
People who are fed up with Washington DC elitism, the vulgar waste of the peoples resources, and the 24/7 assault on individual freedom and liberty
By JB Williams
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
In the days following the Tea Party victory and the overturning of a long time Democrat held senate seat, in the bluest voting district in America if you can imagine, I received several calls from radio shows asking for my take on “the message behind the Massachusetts miracle…”
I see only two important messages worth mentioning…
Anyone wondering what power the people have, should wonder no more
No incumbent is safe…
Republican Party elites think it was a Republican success. It wasn’t…
Democrats think it was another rebuke of old Bush policies not yet remedied by the Obama administration. It wasn’t…
Independents think it was a sign that now is the time to build a third party. It wasn’t…
Tea Party and 912 groups are wrestling for credit, when in fact - the outcome of the election was the net sum result of all of their efforts combined. No one group could have done it alone.
Politicos from the extreme left to the extreme right and all points in between are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to build upon what happened in Massachusetts. But their efforts to make partisan gains from the demise of the “Kennedy seat” might be blinding them to the real message behind the Brown win.
The people are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore!
The people behind the Brown victory were not Republicans, Democrats or Independents. They were all-the-above, and more importantly, they are all-the-above who are fed up with Washington DC elitism, the vulgar waste of the peoples resources, and the 24/7 assault on individual freedom and liberty.
I have heard the word “constitution” from more lips in the last year than I had in the preceding forty-nine years, combined!
Is the Constitution a Partisan Document?
Do Democrats take a different oath of office than Republicans? Is only one party supposed to uphold and defend the US Constitution and the Charters of Freedom while the other dismantles it?
Do Democrats take a different oath of office than Republicans? Is only one party supposed to uphold and defend the US Constitution and the Charters of Freedom while the other dismantles it?
Eighty percent of what the federal government involves itself in these days is beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. More than sixty percent of federal spending is outside of the scope and power of the federal government, according to the US Constitution.
The people have finally awakened and realized that their federal government has been slowly but surely bankrupting the nation with a plethora of unconstitutional policies for decades now. They also realize that BOTH parties have played a role in that effort.
In the five years that Republicans controlled the White House and Congress, 2001 - 2006, the national debt increased an average of 6.4% per year, from $5.8 trillion to $8.5 trillion.
When Democrats controlled the purse strings from 2006 – 2008, the national debt increased at an annual rate of 7.6%, from $8.5 trillion to $10.02 trillion.
But in the last year under Democrat control of both the White House and Congress, our national debt has increased from $10.02 trillion to pushing $14 trillion, a 40% increase in just one year, and that’s without passing nationalized health care, cap and trade, amnesty for illegals or any of the BIG TICKET items Democrats still hope to ram through before losing power.
Meanwhile, the nation and world are clearly less safe from international terrorism and “the people” are losing their rights while known terrorists are afforded all of the protections intended for only legal US citizens, under a US Constitution that Washington DC leaders seem to think a waste of paper.
The Massachusetts election was a rebuke of ALL of it!
Do only “conservatives” Love Freedom?
I don’t think so… Even the liberal peaceniks of the 60s loved the idea of individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson was a “liberal,” in the original meaning of the term, in favor of a maximum degree of individual liberty.
Libertarians are liberals with an eye on fiscal responsibility. Most independents are not “moderates” when it comes to the Constitution. They are maybe the MOST concerned with the destruction of our constitutional republic, by leaders of both political parties.
Conservatives are by nature and definition, all about “conserving” the founding principles and values that allowed the United States to become the most prosperous peaceful people ever known to mankind – the Charters of Freedom.
So who is it that still thinks the political left is on the right track in America?
No Incumbent is Safe!
If Tea Partiers were under the illusion that they elected a “conservative” in Massachusetts last week, that daydream ended hours later when Scott Brown announced that he would be stumping for RINO-extraordinaire, John McCain.
As Tea Party darling Sarah Palin was announcing her intentions to campaign for McCain, the US Supreme Court was busy announcing that John McCain is in the business of passing unconstitutional laws. Not a good way to kick off the campaign season…
Even “read my lipstick” sweetheart Sarah Palin won’t be able to save John McCain from the wrath of Tea Partiers, 912ers and town hall goers in Arizona. They have had a target on McCain’s chest since his “amnesty for everyone” days.
So, the message politicians from both parties had better pay attention to is clear.
If you have a history of voting outside of the enumerated powers in the US Constitution, you had better start sharpening up your résumé. Washington DC elitists are headed for the unemployment line.
The people are not mad at the other guy… It’s you they want to remove from office!*******
American Republic replaced by Council of Governors”?
Is this a sort of Homeland Security Politburo?
By Judi McLeod Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Quietly—even stealthily—in the opening days of the New Year, President Barack Obama has set up a “Council of Governors”.
“Is this a first step towards Martial Law, or a tie to the InterPol, RAND National Police Force stuff we’ve been hearing about,” asked a Texas patriot who tipped off Canada Free Press (CFP) after finding news of the new Council of Governors on Twitter. “Is this a sort of Homeland Security Politburo?
Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people’s nor the congress’s blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal.
“I do know it’s another sleuth order executed without any announcement, OR EXPLANATION to the People.”
Patriots know by now that the promised Obama “transparency” is a fog.
Checking the Net on the Council of Governors, CFP found other than a few blogs only UPI.com had the story as of this morning:
“President Barack Obama Monday established a panel of state governors to collaborate with Washington on a variety of potential emergencies, the White House said.” (UPI.com, Jan. 11, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.). “Obama signed an executive order establishing a panel to be known as the Council of Governors, which will be made up of 10 state governors, to be selected by the president to serve two-year terms. Members will review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States, the White House said in a statement.
“The statement said the White House would seek input from governors and governors’ association (sic) in deciding which governors to appoint to the council, which will have no more than five governors from the same party.
“The secretaries of defense and homeland security will also sit on the council, as will presidential assistants for homeland security and counter-terrorism, intergovernmental affairs, the U.S. Northern Command commander, the commander of the East Coast Guard, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau.
“The panel was set up under a provision of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, the White House said.”
There was no timestamp on the latest Emergency Order from Whitehouse.gov, which readers can see below.
The Obama administration seems to be conducting the business of America under cover of the dark.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an Executive Director to coordinate the work of the Council.
(b) Members shall serve without compensation for their work on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law.
(c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of the Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support,assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may be necessary for the performance of the Council’s functions.
(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member with authority to act on the Member’s behalf, as appropriate to aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.
(e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent with the terms of this order to refine further its purpose,scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate,among members.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term “State” has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and
(b) the term “Governor” has the meaning provided in paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
- (1) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or
- (2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 11, 2010.*******
Beating a Dead Horse
By Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret.
December 13, 2009
The fruits of tyranny
A righteous rebellion by justified dissidents will inevitably draw into the fray the millions of maladapted criminal elements in this nation that live to maim, murder and destroy. This then will hand the tyrants who rule a reason to declare martial law and will give them an excuse to turn the guns of their enforcers loose upon society to brutally suppress a rebellion of their own making. This is the way it has been with every oppressive totalitarian regime in the historical past, and this is the onrushing fate and fortune of this nation.
Many write to ask me the type of reaction I anticipate by the law enforcement community and by the military to the rebellion that is on the horizon. It is my opinion that with few exceptions these will follow orders, and if ordered to do so most will fire upon and kill their fellow citizens. To fathom this it is necessary to understand that those who comprise the ranks of these organizations are of the new generation, they are new age partisans that have been acclimated and indoctrinated, under our noses, in the socialistic doctrines of a one-world order. They will do as ordered in service to their masters.
One should not expect the military, the law enforcement community or the majority of the people to have any discernment in regard to the works wrought by iniquity and the consequences thereof:
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” II Thessalonians 11-12
Many writers view the deterioration that is upon this nation in an entirely secular light. They reckon that if the voters would turn out of office the venal bunch that exists and replace them with new personalities everything would be hunky-dory. They fail to recognize that the new personages will be drawn from the same rotten barrel and will be possessed of the same base character as those that they have replaced. Nothing will change.
I have differed with many of these writers of opinion and their temporal view of the on-rushing and cataclysmic destruction that we are about to experience. I have always maintained that it is a spiritual problem and the inevitable result of an egregious apostasy, deep and abiding iniquity and a conscious and deliberate denial of the sovereign God who rules the universe and the world.
I also note that many of the patriot writers who pen their pieces from a hopeless secular perspective fail to recognize that the Constitution is dead and has been dead for a good long while. The civil war and the egregious totalitarian excesses of the Lincoln administration pounded a stake through its heart. Since then, when it suits the purpose of whatever administration is in power, the corpse is resurrected for a time, dusted off, misinterpreted and misrepresented, and employed to prevail upon the sovereignty of the people and to bolster and affirm despotic control. We ought to play taps over the Constitution. When the people allowed it to be manipulated by the government as a so-called living breathing changeable instrument it in fact became a dead and pathetically useless document of words without force.
Killed by Diversity
We have been infiltrated by hostile nations of a domestic nature that refuse to be fused into the population as a whole. They are, and will always be, of a self-bestowed autonomy and possessed of antagonistic nation within nation properties. As such they are absolutely inimical to social cohesion and an effective national focus.
The black population over the last one hundred forty years has never collectively assimilated as a cohesive unit of American society, the Hispanic collective indwells by virtue of a desire for material gain and not by a desire to assimilate into American culture, and the Muslims seem to disparage all of mankind with the exception of other Muslims and have no desire to submit to the national authority of the American people.
Understand that I do not demean a race, a culture or a religion. I have known the friendship of individuals of all of the groups that I have addressed, and valued these individuals always as equals in every respect. It is the obstinate collective refusal to coalesce into a unified society with a shared national purpose that I address. Just as the Vandals and the Visigoths helped to destroy Rome these dissident groups will contribute greatly to the final destruction of the United States.
The deep ignorance and unlearned disposition of our political and social leaders, and the blind acquiescence of a deluded people have enabled the importation of competing cultures via the political correctness route. .
Diversity is the absolute enemy of a homogenous society and of systemic stability
This nation is facing a complete collapse; the very circumstances that brought down the Roman Empire will bring about the downfall of this nation. Uncontrolled immigration, corrupt leaders and a hedonistic and perverse people are contributing to the coming demise of the United States. Our goose is cooked, we have so displeased the sovereign God that he has brought about the elements of our destruction, and soon - very soon - His wrath will rain down upon us. Historically God has raised and destroyed seventy-four civilizations; the reason for the removal of these from existence was, in every case, deep systemic sin. This nation most certainly fits that measure.
It's About Sowing and Reaping
“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” Revelation 22:11-12
Listen up folks; nothing is going to save this nation. Historians recount a number of reasons for the final collapse of the Roman Empire; these were circumstantial elements or components of a single and exigent basic reason. The physical nature of the collapse is not complicated. Economic disintegration, the dissipated condition of the military and a series of failed military campaigns against lesser foes, egregiously corrupt governance, and a fragmented and dissident population were the obvious symptoms of an abiding systemic disease. Sound familiar? The single precipitating cause of the ultimate destruction of the empire was great national sin and a rottenness of spirit. The carnal depravity of the civilization was a stench in the nostrils of almighty God. The Lord God Jehovah raised Rome up and the Lord God Jehovah put Rome down, it as simple as that.
“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” Matthew 25: 32-33
Like Rome was - we are - a filthy nation. We are a murderous people. This statement can in no way be contradicted given the blood on our hands from the calculated and cold-blooded murder of fifty-one million babies, the spirits of which God holds in His loving hands. We are a nation of idolaters chasing after money and hedonic pursuits, and worshiping the creations of God’s hands rather than the Creator. We are a lasciviously dirty and nasty people participating in and condoning and promoting sexual deviancies as vile as those of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The enablers that vote to legalize, support, and defend same sex marriages and sodomy are no less deviant than the practitioners of these despicable acts. It is a bestial practice that even the animal kingdom shuns, and in our schools we teach our children that such practices are admirable and worthy of emulation. And then we have the audacity - the unadulterated stupidity - to ask a holy and righteous God to bless this nation.
Come Soon Lord Jesus*******
Forgot the Past? Here's the Future
(Part 1) By Jon Christian Ryter
December 2, 2009
As he campaigned for the highest office in the land, Obama promised black voters that he would restore the generational entitlement system that was dismantled during the Republican Revolution of 1994. He added that his first priority, once he took office, would be the redistribution of the wealth of "the rich." Thus far, that's the only campaign promise Obama has kept. To you and me, and to the minorities to whom he made that pledge—whose combined backbreaking sweat equity built this nation— "the rich" are the fat cat industrialists who own the companies, the Wall Street investment bankers, stock brokers and hedge fund operators like Paul Alfred Paulson who personally earned $4 billion in 2008 short selling the stocks in your 401K retirement fund (which is why you can't retire anytime soon), or the executives at AIG, or CitiBank or JP Morgan Chase who earn seven-digit incomes only because they are part of the entitled elite. (Back in my younger days when I earned about $45K, my boss earned about a half million per year and paid Uncle Sam less income taxes than I did).
Since the rich are as invisible to the media as they are to the politicians they have enriched with the gratuities that keep them in office, to the social progressives, the term "rich" refers to working class Americans who are actually upper "middle class." Politicians always talk about taxing the rich because the working class likes the idea of the rich being soaked. The problem is, the wealth of the rich sit in tax exempt trust funds. Only the money spent by the rich for their personal comforts, and the simple interest on those funds are taxable. Rich, to a politician is the small business owner who has the potential to grow his business enough to compete with the true rich. Which, of course is why they want to tax him into oblivion. The fact that taxing him to excess means you and I lose our jobs means nothing to them because the "jingle" in their pockets sings to the tune of the invisible rich. But, don't worry. The politicians will take care of you by extending your unemployment benefits an additional 13 to 26 weeks.
To the elite, we are the "rich" because we are "accidentally well-off." Thus, when a politician talks about taxing the rich, he's talking about us regardless which side of his mouth the words come. The rich fear the middle class because that's the only segment of society which threatens their grip on the serfdom (referred to today as "the low income working class—and tomorrow, the rest of us"). Try as hard as the historic pilgrim stock rich families in America did to make the US Senate an American "House of Lords," and the House of Representatives the commoners' legislative body, the middle class keeps getting elected into the Senate. The true rich in this nation are economically invisible because they want to be invisible.
Thus, when politicians talk about taxing the rich, they always mean they are going to tax the middle class. Even when the candidate assures the voters that if their household incomes are less than $250 thousand, they will not face any increased taxes. Without looking at any of the tax increases planned for those earning $30 thousand-and-up by the Obama Administration, the three "stimulus bills" already enacted: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 total three trillion, five hundred and seventy-nine billion dollars which will be paid for by the middle class because the truly rich are, once again, invisible—even to the IRS—since their money is sheltered in tax-exempt foundations.
When Obama addressed the NAACP in Cincinnati, Ohio on July 14, 2008 he told them when—not if—he won the White House, speaking as a man with foreknowledge that he was going to win the election, he was going to redistribute the wealth of America. Obama will deny he knew that ACORN and MoveOn.org's "Motor Voter" efforts would create 35,626,580 illegal votes for him, so regardless how many conservatives or liberals voted for Sarah Palin and, by extension, Sen. John McCain, his Progressive handlers assured him that, at the end of the day, he would become the 44th President of the United States. In the end, when you do the math, the statistics released by the Obama Administration on the Election of 2008 indicate there were 169 million registered voters of which 86 million were registered as Democrats, 55 million were registered as Republicans and 28 million were registered as Independents.
The FEC reported that 56.8% of the registered voters voted. That's 96,992,000 actual votes cast by registered voters who voted once. But the total number of ballots in the ballot boxes totaled 132,618,580. It appears that a lot of people voted a lot of times, (or a whole big big bunch of ballots in a whole big bunch of States were simply added to the mix before or after-the-fact and counted with the legitimate ballots). Regardless how they got there, when you do the simple math, there were 35,626,580 too many votes counted. Obama was credited with receiving 69,456,897 votes. Subtract the 35,626,580 "too many votes" and we find 33,830,317 legitimate votes cast for Obama. The Progressive far left is comprised of about 31,820.000 people who would vote for a Marxist Muslim. That leaves about 2,030,317 independent voters who cast their votes for Obama. Four million, nine hundred thirty-four thousand, eight hundred fourteen Independents voted for Palin-McCain. The media claims that the Independents—all 28 million of them—voted for Obama. Surprisingly, with all the third party rhetoric, only 1,866,000 of them voted for one of the third party candidates.
Approximately 19,158,869 of them sat out the election because the best that I can see, their votes don't show up anywhere. I guess when we want to blame Obama on someone, those were the people who gave their votes to Obama by default by not casting them for Palin-McCain (since almost every Republican vote in 2008 was cast for Alaska governor Gov. Sarah Palin, not Sen. McCain.) Had the registered independents who did not vote cast their ballot for Palin-McCain, your tax dollars would not be sitting in the personal bank accounts of America's money barons and your great, great, great grandchildren would not be up to their ears in debt the moment they were born. I understand it was the intent of the Independents to punish the GOP for becoming Democrats. But, in the end, since the only people who got punished were us, it would seem that voting for the lesser-of-two-evils would have been a much wiser choice for the American people. Hopefully each of those Americans who chose to teach the Republican Party a lesson can explain to their children how casting a vote for integrity cost each child and grandchild not yet born $36,000 in taxpayer debt on the day of their birth.
But, that's why Obama was so confident about winning when he stood before the NAACP on July 14, 2008. He assured the gathering at the 99th Annual NAACP Conference that the redistribution of the wealth of America would begin as soon as he was inaugurated in order "...to ensure [that] economic justice is being served."
He wasn't talking about recasting a broader welfare net like Peggy Joseph envisioned when she took her daughter out of school on Oct. 30, 2008 to attend a Florida Obama-Biden rally, and remarked to a NBC-TV Channel 6 reporter that this was the most memorable day in her life because when Obama won, she wouldn't "...have to worry about putting gas in my car; I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know," she concluded, "if I help them, they're going to help me." While Obama has increased the size of the Lyndon B. Johnson welfare net, his redistribution-of-the-wealth plan was not directed people like Peggy Joseph, the outspoken welfare mom, nor to minorities of any stripe. It was directed at the invisible elite who already own almost everything in the world and who, now, want to own the rest.
While the Progressive far left 111th Congress has already expanded the welfare system, it is unlikely they will restore generational welfare for the minority underclass because in the communist world all members of society must contribute their labor. Speaking of Labor, the first major recipient of Obama's largess with our children's money, was the government's own labor union, the Service Employees International Union [SEIU]. SEIU, which bargains for all local, county, State and federal employees, is the fastest growing labor union in the world The SEIU, whose revenue-stream comes from the taxpayers in the form of dues from its members and grants from the federal government, donated $61 million of your money to the Obama campaign during the past election. SEIU thugs harassed Obamacare protesters, and they were almost the sole attendees at the well-publicized Obama healthcare rallies where it appeared everyone was in favor of Obamacare. Of course SEIU is in favor of Obamacare because, like the federal government, their version of the plan doesn't contain the rationing the rest of us will endure if Obamacare becomes law. SEIU members will move to the front of the line. Taxpaying double dippers (seniors on Medicare who are also Social Security recipients) will move to the back of the line where they will remain, in perpetual limbo, waiting for medical care that will never come.
In the end, the minorities who knocked on doors, supported Obama by attending his rallies and, in the end, cast their vote for the "brother," are now wondering why they still have to pay their own mortgages, make their own car payments and, of course, put gas in their own cars. Because, for most of them, the stimulus bills which supposedly put some $3,579,000,000.00 into the economy hasn't put anything in their pockets. And, the legislation that was supposed to guarantee African-Americans and other minorities would stand at the head-of-the-line for all of the government construction projects, are still jobless. What's more, they have little or no prospects of finding a job. Nationwide, 34.5% of all young black men 25-years of age or less are out of work in a world where the universal unemployment rate (depending on whose survey you are reading is between 11.4 to 12.9%). If I was a young Black man, I'd be asking the Black brother at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue why, with all of his promises about redistributing the wealth, the unemployment rate for young Black men is three times the published rate of unemployment for the universal population in the United States. Could it be, maybe, that instead of redistributing the wealth to the poor Black guys, Obama gave the money to the rich White guys?
When the legislation, which did not get a single Republican vote, was enacted and signed into law by Obama, it stipulated that [a] all jobs created by the stimulus bill would be union jobs, and [b] minorities and women would get the jobs. I find it interesting, with the Obama Administration claiming they created, or saved, millions of private sector jobs the General Accounting Office has been able to document zero job creation, and with 8 million Americans losing their jobs since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. became law, its safe to assume no jobs were saved, either.
The stimulus money pool that was legislated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which was going to create a virtual tsunami of employment for Black Americans where Rangel and the Democrats "...knew the joblessness existed" was diverted like a dam diverts a river. Instead of creating jobs for his unemployed Black brothers, Obama funneled the money stream into the hands of America's most powerful bankers and forced General Motors and Chrysler to surrender the ownership of their companies to the US government, with the largest block of shares going to—you guessed it—SEIU, which will shortly take over the United Auto Workers which represents what auto workers are left in this country.
The Democrats insist that the Black unemployment rate is three times the rate of the White workers because racism is at play, and that's why they don't get called back for jobs after their interviews—providing they are even interviewed. First, let's all of us understand one thing. There aren't any jobs. Why? Because the $789 billion in stimulus money that was supposed to create jobs in the United States was given to the bankers and industrialists who are investing 100% of their financial efforts in the emerging nations where tomorrow's consumers live. The bulk of those dollars simply weren't invested in the United States. When asked by the GOP how many jobs he created, Obama's economic advisors and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis simply pulled numbers out of midair. The media reported them as fact. They just weren't good enough for the General Accounting Office which finally conceded the White House may have created 50 thousand jobs and perhaps saved another 50 thousand even though there was no evidence that any jobs had been created nor saved because of the stimulus plan—particularly since 8 million Americans lost their jobs since Obama took up residency in the White House.
Princeton University sociology professor Devah Pager told the Washington Post in a recent interview that "...Black men [are] less likely to receive a callback or job offer than equally qualified white men." The problem may well be that most of those young Black job applicants speak Ebony English as their first language and they simply don't have a second one. And, far too often (if the interview doesn't require a suit and tie) the job interview dress code consists of pants (whether trousers or jeans) whose waistband is about jock strap level with boxer shorts at waist level. Small business owners (about the only "new hire" employers left in America) are too image-conscious to hire employees who cannot speak American English fluently. (Nor, by the way, will they hire White applicants with spiked hair; pierced tongues, noses, brows or cheeks; or tattooed like a carney sideshow attraction.)
Smart business owners hire people based not on ethnicentricity but on the perceived work ethics of the applicant, their appearance and their ability to communicate cogently during the interview. If you think that's not so, remember this. There is a thriving black middle class in America. Most of those who own their own businesses will always hire an articulate white employee before they hire a black applicant whose first or only language is Ebony English. Like their white counterparts, they are in business to make money. And whom they employ to represent them is a reflection on their character.
Ebonics suggests either an unintelligent or at least uneducated person. While it may not be true, those who choose the gangsta appearance and an ebonics vernacular suggest poor math skills and weak work ethics. In Pager's view it's simply racism. Pager told the Post that in her own studies in Milwaukee and New York a few years ago she concluded that "...Black men with a clean record fare no better [in the job market] than white men just released from prison." Pager needs to take off her Princeton shades and look around. This economy is affecting every American: male, female, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, or European. Over 15 million US jobs—including the factories which employed them—left the United States for the emerging third world nations where 80% of the world's potential consumers await the jobs being exported from the United States. Unlike the US and western European replacement markets, which have reached a product saturation level of about 99%, in the emerging nations, consumers possess virtually no modern consumer products and need everything. Especially jobs to provide the income to buy the goods they need.
I think if I was one of Obama's Black brothers, I'd be asking for my vote back. But more than that, if the Black brothers can forego Ebony English in favor of American English and take a real close look at what the Brother in the White House is doing, they will start asking questions of the public-at-large instead of the black precinct bosses who treat them like slaves shackled to the public feeding trough. When they stop and really think about it, they're going to realize they've been Obamaized.
The Democratic Party used them once again. Only this time, there will be no Yellow Brick Road leading to a Black Utopia. When Obama completes the task of converting freedom to communism, the brothers will not be riding down that Yellow Brick Road in a new Cadillac. They will learn what the Russian people learned in 1917, the Italians learned in 1922, the Germans learned in 1934, the Chinese learned in 1946, the North Koreans learned in 1948 and the Cubans learned in 1957. Work or starve. There will be no free ride except for the rich. They will own the Yellow Brick Road and the rest of us will be traveling in the opposite direction on the rutted, potholed dirt roads to oblivion.
I don't think Black America wants their country converted into a Marxist nation anymore than White America. Perhaps its time for Black America to bond with White America and find a government that actually works for all the people. That is, after all, what the Constitution tried to create. Greedy men thwarted that plan. It's past time to take our nation back. The way I figure it, we have one election left to change our lot. That election occurs in Nov., 2010. If we don't take Congress away from the Social Progressives in 2010, the Election of 2012 will be the last election of a dying nation. And remember this...when you vote in Nov., 2010, you aren't voting for yourself...you're voting for your children and grandchildren. Don't let them grow up in a communist world, thinking that their fathers and grandfathers voted their consciience in 2010 and lost a country.*******
Natural Aristocracy - The Solution for 2010
By William Owens, Jr.
December 2, 2009
When we as conservatives finish creating our posters and holding them high at tea parties and town hall meetings—of which both are necessary, when we finish surfing the net and posting to Facebook and twitter, when we finish getting our Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly fix, of which all such activity serves its purpose, we must then arise to the level of participation and encourage and empower people to take up the role of representing the people again by running for office. For some of us this is the mandate; for others, the mandate is to support the candidates with time, money and other important resources.
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Proverbs 29:2)
The righteous has little to do with politics, as we understand it in today’s paradigm— although they should. They must be activated, and if God will show the same mercy that He demonstrated toward our Founding Fathers, they will. Unfortunately, to our own detriment, we have allowed politics to become a professional career choice by unqualified and unconcerned individuals who are driven by financial reward and prestige, rather than virtue and principle. Through the neglect of the people, we have allowed crooks to take positions of power that rob us by a law. If we are to make good use of our current dismay with government, we will only do so by activating natural aristocracy.
Thomas Jefferson typified the Founders’ philosophy of social responsibility. They strongly believed that the best citizens should accept major roles in public life. They believed people with talent and demonstrated qualities of leadership should have the same sense of duty as that which Washington exhibited when he allowed himself to be called out of retirement three separate times to serve the country. Jefferson referred to such people as the nation’s “natural aristocracy.” He said it was an aristocracy of virtue, talent, and patriotism without which the nation could not survive. (Excerpt from The Five Thousand Year Leap)
While getting my dose of Glenn Beck yesterday, my jaw dropped (literally) when he demonstrated on his famous blackboard the level of experienced workers our presidents had on their staff. If the highest was 80%, Obama is 10%. That means theoretically, one out of ten of his staff has experience in what he or she has been assigned to do! This is an insult to the American spirit of excellence, but also expected from a president who desires to create a cradle to the grave government, and impose un-American, socialistic agendas upon our nation.
Academics were established as a liberal arts devised to teach people how to think for themselves. Today they are the socialist’s tool chests to tell people how to think instead. Obama’s troubles in hiring experienced people are not because they don’t exist; it’s because they don’t fit his ideology of a government ran society: control the people.
Samuel Adams puts forth words that we must heed should we capture the essence of the American vision when he stated:
“But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen not any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” (Wells, Life of Samuel Adams)
I fear we have allowed this. Until we repent of our own neglect and refuse the glitter of gold that many times do not exist and place a value on our own country, another system-produced politician will replace Obama. The glitter has distracted us from our duty to serve! Not just in the armed forces but in halls of congress. Who best to protect our troops but the families of troops?
The founders realized that if America was to have the best possible government, it would have to create a process by which the best suited for the job would ascend to the task. They knew without such a political process, in time, our Constitution would be doomed, for it is the nature of men to abuse power and be tempted to abuse the very people they serve.
If you are looking for a confirmation on rising to the task of serving, you have it. If you are looking for a confirmation on supporting a principle-centered, value driven candidate, you have it. It is the next logical step and it is happening throughout the land. It is about time and I now can hear our Founding Fathers rousing themselves with palms slapping tables, and sticks pounding the floor declaring, “Hear! Hear!”*******
Pew poll shows Americans turning sharply toward isolationism
By Steven Thomma
Thursday, December 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — At the very moment when President Barack Obama is looking to thrust the U.S. ever more into global affairs, from Afghanistan to climate change, the American public is turning more isolationist and unilateralist than it has at any time in decades, according to a new poll released Thursday.
The survey by the Pew Research Center found a plurality of Americans — 49 percent — think that the U.S. should "mind its own business internationally" and leave it to other countries to fend for themselves.
It was the first time in more than 40 years of polling that the ranks of Americans with isolationist sentiment outnumbered those with a more international outlook, Pew said.
"The U.S. public is turning decidedly inward," Pew said.
It's also growing more unilateralist, with 44 percent saying that the U.S. "should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not."
That was the highest percentage since the question was first asked in 1964.
By a margin of 41 percent to 25 percent, Americans think the U.S. is playing a less important role in the world than 10 years ago. It was the first time since the 1970s — when the U.S. had withdrawn from Vietnam, been hurt by an Arab oil embargo and seen its citizens held hostage in Iran — that a plurality of Americans thought their country was weaker than it had been a decade before.
The shift in sentiment comes after more than eight years of war in Afghanistan and almost seven in Iraq, as well as the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Just 32 percent of the public favors increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and only 46 percent say it's likely that Afghanistan will be able to withstand the threat posed by the Taliban. The survey of 2,000 U.S. adults was taken from Oct. 28-Nov. 8 — before Obama's speech on Afghanistan Tuesday night. It has an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.
The public turn toward isolationism comes as Obama plans to escalate the U.S. role in Afghanistan with more troops and as he engages with other countries and international institutions on issues ranging from climate change to the economy.
Next week, he will visit Denmark to attend an international conference on climate change, then Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.
On other points, the Pew poll found that:
_ A plurality of Americans, 44 percent, now say that China is the world's top economic power, while just 27 percent say it's the U.S. That's a sharp reversal from nearly two years ago, when 41 percent thought the U.S. was the number 1 economic power, and 30 percent thought it was China.
_ A majority of Americans, 53 percent, see China's growing power as a "major threat." That's virtually unchanged from what the quadrennial poll found in 2001 and 2005.
However, 642 members of the Council on Foreign Relations, who are seen as opinion leaders and also were polled by Pew, had the opposite view. Just 21 percent of them saw China as a major threat, down from 38 percent in 2001 and 30 percent in 2005.
For them, Pew said, "China has been transformed from a major threat to the United States to an increasingly important future ally."*******
As Government Grows So Grows Corruption
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
November 2, 2009
Since the dawn of the twentieth century the federal government has experienced massive growth (with legislative and executive branch agencies blossoming anew in each successive administration). The Obama Administration has added immensely to this national experiment, testing if liberty can endure the presence of an ever-expanding state, an experiment that has invariably failed wherever it has been tried around the world. Regardless of how it is promoted, the essence of government is law and the essence of law is the exertion of coercive force to cause people to do that which they may wish not to do. Moreover, as government grows so grows corruption and abuse of power. There is a tipping point at which the cost of government and the corruption in government become too great for the public to bear. If we have not reached that point, we are fast approaching it. When we do, therein lies the greatest opportunity for a restoration of our Constitution of liberty and of the Republic that Constitution creates.
“My reading of history,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, “teaches me that most bad government results from too much government.” Jefferson predicted in the early years of the Republic that our government would grow and so would corruption: “Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.”
In troubled times, like the present and the Great Depression, the public ear is largely receptive to politicians’ exaggerated claims that government holds the promise of employing the unemployed, restoring economic stability, and protecting the sick. A sense of helplessness combined with a view that the market has failed leads people to relinquish their right to self-governance in favor of the new prosperity promised by demagogic leaders who, in fact, can do little to fulfill their promises. Truth be told no government program has succeeded in arresting unemployment, sustaining economic growth, or preventing illness; that government can achieve those things is an illusion but one that large numbers of Americans in each new generation believes realizable despite the proof of history. That government cannot achieve those ends should come as no surprise because government is by operational definition parasitic. It depends for its existence on removing from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. As government grows, it necessarily requires more from its host to function. It imposes an ever greater cost on the private producers of goods, services, and jobs, sapping resources that are more efficiently expended when in response to market demand. The imagination of government planners is limitless because the money they expend is not their own. Thus, ambitious calls for new agencies to redirect human behavior proliferate along with price tags that vastly exceed the actual revenue in public coffers. Milton Friedman was fond of observing that there is no limit on the willingness of politicians to spend other people’s money because they experience no personal hardship from the expenditures and enjoy great political gain from them.
Thus it is that those in power naturally seek more of it. That ever expanding aggrandizement comes with an ever increasing cost which must be exacted from the private sector to feed political ambition. In the early years of a free state, jealous of parting with private power, citizens demand limits to government and government fears them. In the latter years, government becomes so powerful that it succeeds in removing limits to its acquisition and exertion of power, and the people fear the government and with that fear goes the liberties of the people. Thomas Jefferson put it brilliantly: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” By increments at first and by leaps thereafter government grows as each newly elected politician lusts for more power than his or her predecessor had, never halting in its expansion except when the public revolts. In a socialized state, such as that which largely exists in America today, government determines market outcomes and grows at a very rapid clip, becoming a perpetual growth machine: The weight of tax and regulation destroys business, which business is said to have died from market failure, which business is then replaced by greater government control and ultimately government ownership until all that which was private becomes public.
There is a tipping point at which government growth so taxes the private sector as to retard private growth. That taxation comes not only in the form of confiscation of earnings but also in the form of stultifying regulations that inhibit free will. When one, the other, or both become so onerous as to dissuade most people from entering into business or inventing new goods or services, then the economy stagnates and eventually fails. Ironically, it is at that very point when the clamoring for more government reaches a crescendo. That is because the argument that the market has failed is a soft sell, while the argument that government has failed is a hard sell, particularly for those who run for public office (presumably because if they thought the government a failure they would not run). Those who are unemployed or insecure in a market filled with companies that cannot function adequately or at all prefer to believe government an ultimate solution when parasitic government can never be greater than its host lest it kill its host and itself. The choice is thus left to the electorate to tolerate ever greater government acquisition and control of the private sector until the mediocrity of bureaucracy becomes the common element and most, if not all, of us become civil servants or to reject government and turn to the private sector.
This macrocosmic reality is enlivened by a corrupt microcosmic reality which grows within a growing government. As government becomes more powerful, those who wish to retain positions of economic prominence in the private sector must involve themselves with government. A common quid pro quo occurs as government invades private contract, redistributes wealth, and imposes public interest regulations in the form of prior restraints. On the one hand, the anxious captain of industry comes to the realization that government actions affect market share and influence who wins and who loses. On the other hand, the ambitious politician comes to the realization that his quest for personal wealth and power is aided greatly by using the instrumentalities of government to build barriers to market entry that enhance the economic position of industry leaders. Those in government, who seek to enhance their own power and wealth find it beneficial to align themselves with wealthy industry leaders and to do their bidding through regulation and legislation.
Those in power thus transform the government into an institution for sale. The elected and the appointed use their powers to impose regulatory barriers to market entry, to grant licenses and benefits to a select few, and to use the instrumentalities of government to advance the interests of a select minority at the expense of everyone else. Through those corrupt machinations, politicians and agency heads assure themselves riches and influence after they leave office, and captains of industry insure their businesses insulation from competition and above market rates of return at the public expense. When, as at present, the business of government becomes overwhelmingly preoccupied with satisfying the demands for market barriers that come from the captains of industry, the republic is at an end and a bureaucratic tyranny arises in its place. Abraham Lincoln foresaw this happenstance in the earliest days of the industrial revolution, writing:
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.What the public ear seems reluctant to hear is a lesson taught us in every prior crisis, whether military or economic. There is an inevitability to corruption in government; it is inherent in the nature of an institution that creates no wealth of its own and plunders the riches of a free market. That fact was well understood by the philosophers of the Enlightenment and by our own founding fathers. Jefferson wrote: “Experience hath shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, by slow operations, perverted it to tyranny.”
Government may be succinctly defined as a monopoly police force that through law exerts its will to alter or prohibit freedom of action. In the view of America’s founders, government is a necessary evil (necessary to defend against forces external and domestic that would deprive people of their lives, liberties, and properties) with one essential purpose—to defend the rights of the governed. That purpose, the Declaration of Independence tells us (as did John Locke), is why governments are instituted among men and why men consent to be governed and to relinquish to the state their natural right to act against those who threaten their freedoms. There is no greater purpose to good government than protection of the rights of the governed, and there is no greater purpose to evil government than the violation of the rights of some or all to enhance the power and riches of those who govern.
Big and corrupt governments are common in our modern world. The instrumentalities of those governments have effectively been sold to industry leaders who, in turn, reward elected and appointed officials responsible for the sale with lucrative post-government positions and rewards. With the expansion of the preferred method of restricting market entry, prior restraints, our liberty has increasingly been circumscribed. We pay through taxation and, ultimately, inflation, for the cost of our own enslavement. Americans are slow to appreciate that liberty recedes as government grows, but they appear to be awakening to the reality that a government that expends $13 trillion dollars more than it takes in is more government than they can tolerate. In the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “all experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” But there is a tipping point and we are fast approaching it.
That individuals love to be free is a fundamental verity. So long as they perceive themselves free, they are content to tolerate the failings of government, but when they perceive themselves in a state of servitude sooner or later they will replace the government that oppresses them and restore the freedom that is their birthright. Few would have given Ron Paul much of a chance to influence public opinion as greatly as he has, yet his message of a return to a Constitution of liberty is striking a chord with more and more Americans. Whether those Americans whose love of liberty is greater than love of self will reclaim a majority of the electorate and remove from office the many whose love of self is greater than love of liberty remains to be seen.
But the outcome of that evolution in American history will determine when the Republic created by our Constitution will be restored. I am not willing to accept that the question is whether the Republic will be restored because I believe that the American loves liberty too much to allow the Republic to become a lost relic of history. The question is not whether, but when.
The Republic is Dead; We are Ready to Fight, Now What?
By Greg Evensen
November 1, 2009
There is no one left to turn to for relief from an onslaught that would have been a declared war had it come from another country. We as a nation of citizens, have been brutalized so badly by criminals inside the government, that we could have easily justified the use of deadly force to beat back the pillaging of our homes and communities. And diabolically, this has been done by the very people who were allowed a seat of power over us by our own vote.
The ongoing war for liberty is being waged on a thousand fronts. City and county governments have been persuaded by government agents to buy into Agenda 21 at all levels and adopt the radical environmentalist agenda. These local maniacs have done so eagerly. They revel in the appearance of solidarity both socially and politically with those who want to see swamp dwelling muskrats be able to retain attorneys should their habitat be threatened. Utterly blind deceit and a spirit of delusion reigns. Churches and cities have joined in efforts to provide illegal aliens (illegal here meaning ILLEGAL) “sanctuary” in direct and open violation of federal law. You know, the kind of federal law that says you can’t shoot FBI agents on sight or that you MUST pay a voluntary illegal federal income tax, or call a sodomite evil, to just name a few minor federal laws. But then, since when has consistency or lawful conduct ever meant anything to BATF, FBI, IRS, CIA, DEA or NTSB agents that were at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, Flight 800, New York, the Pentagon, Dallas, etc., etc., etc…..We have been misled, lied to, confused, plotted against and abused by lawyers representing all of these entities so many times, that every last one of the perpetrators would have been hung in the public square 120 years ago.
Instead, patriots, citizens, civic groups and moms and pops have been the target of these same self-serving, power infested dirt bags simply because they wanted the truth and were not going to accept any other made up version of Washington’s idea of “truth.”
Many of these good people have been the victim of government abuse at the hands of federal prosecutors and judges who receive bonuses for successful prosecutions. Honest, God fearing and courageous individuals have been persecuted by the United State’s government for following the law, publishing the truth, and protesting the cowardly use of “Nazi” power that was allowed by federal judges bought and paid for by the Council on Foreign Relations or simply the so called “Justice Department.”
My dear God, how is it possible that the Attorney General’s office is staffed by radicals and rights robbers? How is it that Eric Holder, a radical political leftist shames us daily by walking into his office? Add to that a supremely incompetent Janet Napolitano, racist Planned Parenthood supporter Sebelius, bumbling Biden and on and on and on.
So instead of moral leadership in the states, we must endure examples of freedom’s guardians like the State of Missouri and the “bumper sticker” warriors with the Missouri State Highway Patrol. We watch helplessly as Arizona is set upon by jackals from Mexico and California slips into the ocean of poverty and liberalism run amok. All in the name of progressive socialism, or “do whatever you want and get someone else to pay for it” statism. The Republic died because we were not content with freedom in every corner of the land. No, we allowed our legislators at all levels to create “freedom” out of nonsense and liberty out of lawlessness. We shook our heads when the courts made law from guilt, incarcerated the innocent, and set the criminals free. We are living with Alice in the 180 degree world of Wonderland. Bad has become good, right has become wrong and gray the color of choice.
Now comes the hard part. There are no easy paths left for America or Americans. Any last second victory with a miracle field goal is just not there to be found. We left the playoffs in second place. Doesn’t matter that they cheated and the refs were bought off, it is in the books as a loss. Get that fact firmly planted in your minds. This game is OVER!
You may continue to live in your comfort zone and deny all truth. Some of you do and justify it because you don’t want to rock anybody’s boat. A few of you write to me, lie about the facts and tell me I am the nut job. Hear me well. I do not want to rock boats, I want to sink fleets!! That time is now. If they wanted me to go to Viet Nam and fight someone else’s civil war, then I am just as ready to fight one right here and right now. They have sent our military to prove freedom and “democracy” are worth fighting for. Well, how about doing the same in America? Let’s put those troops on our own borders, PLEASE!! Let’s sink the coastal pirates and the drug runner’s boats with chain guns and A-10’s. Throw some ordinance in those border tunnels. Yea, sure. But we WILL kill women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge now won’t we, and call it righteous. Janet “the Bull” Reno embarrassed us all with her other worldly looks and actions in the name of the American people as another “hero” at Justice.
Let me cut to the chase. Some in America are quietly and to a very minor degree working to bring sanity back to our local, state and federal governments. It will not be enough and it will not turn the tide. I respect them for trying and know that many have believed they could effect real change (not the Obama type). Others have written off the government and agency goons at all levels and are gearing up for some monumental change. You know, the kind of change that will have authorities buying all the Depends they can find for the day of reckoning with American citizens.
In that regard, Americans from coast to coast have been calling and scheduling in-field training to be conducted within their local regions in anticipation of whatever is to come. They are ready, they are eager and they are committed to this effort. Our training team will be joining hundreds with the goal of amping up the training levels for many who have not even started a camp fire. This is exactly what is desired and precisely what is needed for those who have said, "we have nothing more to lose and we will defend what we have left."
Like with the training sessions held this year across America, a DVD produced by our production crew was made to send to those who could not get to a seminar. The seminars are over and only field training is now being conducted. We have also produced a nearly six hour DVD outlining much of what is covered in the field and was actually taped at our inaugural two day camp this past July. Hundreds wanted to come, but could not make it that time. We will hold these camps next year beginning in April and those sites will be posted at our web-site. Nine have scheduled already. They are reserved on a first come basis. That information and the seminar or training DVD’s are available at www.theheartlandusa.com. There is a holiday special if you want both training aids. They are available NOW. If the national scene changes and we can’t make it to your area, then the DVD will give you more than you could get otherwise, short of the actual training itself.
I am afraid that the time has arrived for Americans to decide that the robbery of their nation can no longer be tolerated. To cede one more inch of freedom’s last acre is 50 million acres too much. To allow the enslavement of our children by a government pretending to be our benefactor is a crime that must be avenged. That is why we are in the field with you. We will do our best to help you get through this national nightmare. All we ask is that you stand with us in prayer and roll up your sleeves. It’s time to till the soil.
The End of an Era and the Promise of a New
By Professor Paul Eidelberg
October 29, 2009
We are approaching the end of an era. Politics and democracy have entered their terminal stage. Party government has become nothing more than a struggle for power, and parliaments are but arenas of self-aggrandizement. This was inevitable. It was inevitable because, in its modern conception, democracy separated morality and politics, just as Christianity separated religion and state. Hence, egoism—even in principle, let alone in practice—was bound to supplant family values and the common good.
Democracy has fulfilled its historical function. Its two cardinal principles, freedom and equality, liberated the acquisitive instincts, facilitated the conquest of nature, alleviated widespread toil and poverty, and opened the door to talents. But while men and women in democratic societies enjoy unprecedented freedom and equality as well as material abundance, a frightful number find their lives lonely and meaningless. The reason is not far to seek: democracy is the dissolver of ideologies, of traditional beliefs and norms of behavior which alone can sustain individual freedom along with national solidarity and ethical purpose.
The decency and civility still visible in contemporary democracy have nothing to do with democracy itself. They derive from the morality of the Bible now under attack by the atheism and nihilism permeating academia. Neither democratic equality nor democratic freedom provides any moral standards as to how man should live. What is there about democratic equality that would prompt a person to defer to wisdom or to show respect for teachers or parents? What is there about democratic freedom that would prompt him to restrain his passions, to be kind, honest, or just?
More and more people are beginning to see that democracy is in a state of decline.
“Spin”—really lying—has become the norm of politics.
Centralized government and bureaucracy have eviscerated personal responsibility and civic mindedness. The masses vote every few years and then relapse into servitude, stupefied by the tube.
Actually, there is no such thing as democracy—not in this technocratic world where a chaos of Information and Disinformation has buried serious thought and wisdom. The language of democracy is nothing but a fig-leaf for self-serving elites steeped in decay.
Democratic politics is still politics, devoid of honesty. Corruption on the part of public officials is rampant. Democratic governments cannot overcome horrendous crime rates, drug addiction, pornography, sexual perversions, mental disorders, broken families, and the decline of intellectual standards. Democratic hedonism fuels these maladies.
Meanwhile, multiculturalism in the universities is destroying all notions of objective truth. This presages the end of Western civilization—which accounts for the resurgence and spread of Islam. How can one readily teach Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, at Stanford University, when half of the undergraduates are Asiatic? How can one teach the Judea-Christian ethos of America’s Declaration of Independence to students weaned on the Quran—the former scorned, the latter exalted, by America’s president? Where are we to find universal truth?
Marxism? No one can any longer take Marx seriously, even though Marxism, in diluted form, continues to influence Western politics. As for Christianity, its doctrine of separation of church and state, once salutary, now precludes Christianity from having architectonic influence on contemporary society. America, once a sober Christian nation, elected, according to Islamic law, a Muslim as its president, who seems to hate everything America stands for, indeed, who has the audacity to belittle America’s Founding Fathers whose statesmanship is second to none. To what can we turn for inspiration?
Enter Israel. Israel’s rebirth in 1948 provides the national foundation for the universal recognition of the Torah as the paradigm of how man should live. Even now we behold a renascence in Jewish philosophy as well as a convergence of science and Torah that surpasses the works of the great Jewish philosophers of previous ages.
It is in this light that we are to understand why the nations are trying to truncate and destroy Israel. Subliminally, they know and fear that their modes of thought and ways of life have no intrinsic validity.
Despite Israel’s bungled Western political system, and despite the death and destruction inflicted upon her by the successors of the Nazis, Israel has risen from ashes and dust to become the virtual capital of the world in scientific technology, which—mark my words—is but the surface and prelude of a spiritual renaissance.
Israel will survive its traitors and tormentors, as it has for more than two millennia. The Jewish people have a Covenant with God, and “God is not a man that He should deceive, nor mortal that He should change His mind.”
Personal Responsibility: Personal Accountability
By Frosty Wooldridge
October 29, 2009
Following up the two part series on “U.S. Filling Up with Dumb People”, an amazing number of emails arrived with a sense of heart break, distress and futility. Older Americans seem to think that America can return to the way it was! Younger Americans don’t have a clue as to the way it used to be! Immigrant Americans don’t know what America once was nor do they care about what we are becoming. They don’t know the difference.
Immigrants celebrate being here rather than being where they came from because where they came from can only be described as miserable enough to flee. Please be advised that over 10 million people wait in line to move to America and their numbers grow by 77 million annually. But as more and more of them arrive, they turn our country into the same chaos they left in their countries. Example: California!
As we change our language to many languages, as we change our ethnic makeup to a majority of Mexican-Americans and Muslim-Americans by 2042, (Source: PEW Research) as we change our dominant Christian religion that built this country—into a multicultural morass, as we lower our standards in education, culture and personal accountability—America will never again enjoy its exceptional past.
This quote bears repeating as it applies to America. In Dr. Otis Graham’s “Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis”, he writes, “Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all--ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.”
Last night, I was interviewed on the Jeff Rense Show at www.rense.com. We covered the “Tragedy of Detroit” and the two part series on America becoming a nation of dumb people. Rense’s audience could hardly believe that 42 million Americans cannot read. More emails piled into my inbox.
A reader wrote, “Just finished reading your latest about "Illiteracy" and thank you for the updates. I wonder if you have read: "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allen Bloom. The Subtitle is: "How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's students" Deliberately!” Before 1960, Americans enjoyed a high degree of personal responsibility and personal accountability. Most graduated from high school and could read, write and work mathematical equations. No matter how poor or how illiterate, Americans worked to put food on the table. But after Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society” erupted with free food, free housing, free medical, food stamps and a host of ‘get something for nothing’, American culture for minorities changed and then, it changed for whites in America, too.
As apathy and tolerance grew, lobbyists and high stakes money changers directed Congress. McNamara cooked up the Vietnam War in 1965. As we sacrificed 58,300 young men, the high class grew even richer and more powerful. Those soldiers became pawns in a money game. No different today in Iraq and Afghanistan!
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Today, we wage two wars for absolutely no purpose, no resolve, no victory and no end. Our 535 members of Congress, once touting our “war against terror” in Afghanistan, a country without one single jet, helicopter or missile--now find themselves lost in an immoral morass. None of them possesses the courage to stop the killing. Yet, they continue voting for spending $12 billion a month for two wars while our schools and health care systems collapse from lack of funding.
"Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out…and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel. …And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" — with his mouth." — Mark Twain, "What Is Man"?
That same group refuses to stop insourcing, outsourcing and offshoring of American jobs while 14 million Americans suffer in unemployment lines. With 35 million Americans subsisting on food stamps, that same Congress allows 2.5 million legal and illegal immigrants into this country annually.
We face ominous challenges as to water, energy, climate destabilization, foreign debt, consumer debt, education, crime, illiteracy, but our president and Congress run, duck and hide from dealing with it.
Meanwhile, we inject 1.2 million high school dropouts into our society annually along with 2.5 million third world immigrants. (Source: NBC’s Brian Williams, June, 2008) We cannot keep up with it or its consequences. Visit this site for a rendition of Colorado Governor Lamm’s speech: “How to Destroy America”
Mark Twain said, “Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other. It's like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won't fatten the dog.”
A mind-numbing 2.3 million Americans languish in our prison system.
For lack of education of its citizens and a sense of responsibility of every citizen toward this civilization, the United States cannot and will not survive as a viable culture, language and people.
Intellectual Poison of Multiculturalism
If what we’re doing to ourselves is so good, why isn’t it working?
Intellectual Poison of Multiculturalism
If what we’re doing to ourselves is so good, why isn’t it working?
We must move toward personal responsibility and accountability for every single person in America to read, write, work mathematics, vote, work and think critically. If we don’t, we can expect more of our current dilemma—only worse by the expected 100 million people added to this country within 26 years.
Without personal responsibility and accountability, we degrade our civilization beyond improvement.
One solution: “US Sustainable Immigration Policy” of 100,000 or less annually. Join www.NumbersUSA.com to get that accomplished. Become personally responsible for your country’s future!
The Four Cardinal Errors that Almost Destroyed AmericaPart 1
By Professor Steven Yates
September 13, 2009
Four Cardinal Errors, as I will call them, have all but destroyed our original Republic, dating from July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Error One: the Republic failed to gain full freedom and economic sovereignty from the British Crown, and this state of affairs went unrecognized. Error Two: the country adopted an educational system whose premises were alien to those of a free Republic. Error Three: Americans slowly but steadily lost the “moral religiosity” of its founding traditions, replacing it with a naturalistic materialism also imported from Europe. Error Four: Americans did not recognize the British Fabian Society for what it was, and stayed blind as agents of Fabian permeation gradually assumed control over dominant institutions and occupations in this country. This paved the way for the piece-by-piece erosion of our sovereignty and its replacement by world government (“global governance”).
The first of these will doubtless come as something of a surprise. Please allow me to elaborate. (The second, third and fourth will be dealt with in future installments.)
Cardinal Error One. Our Republic, founded in 1776, failed to retain its full freedom and economic sovereignty from the British Crown—which had long been the wealthiest and most powerful secular entity in the Western world. (See E.C. Knuth, The Empire of the City: The Secret History of British Financial Power, orig. 1944).
Mayer Amschel Rothschild had five sons and five daughters. He trained each son in the science of moneylending, and eventually placed each in a central bank in a major city in Europe: Amschel Mayer stayed in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer went to Vienna, Nathan Mayer went to London, Kalmann (Karl) Mayer went to Naples, and Jacob (James) Mayer went to Paris. Remaining in close communication, the five Rothschild sons became the first internationalists whose only loyalties were to money, power, and the Rothschild name. Central bankers had adopted fractional reserve banking, the art and science of lending more money than the bank had in reserve—in effect, creating money out of thin air—and then charging interest on it. This had proven to be a road to riches previously undreamt of! Mayer Amschel Rothschild has been quoted: “Allow me to issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who makes the laws.”
Each Rothschild daughter, meanwhile, married into another wealthy banking house, extending Rothschild influence but without using that name. Within a couple of generations, there were people advancing Rothschild causes who very likely had no idea who they were working for.
The British Crown was, as we already noted, one of the largest repositories of wealth and power in the West. The Crown’s Dutch East Company spanned the globe. It was inevitable that the most talented of the Mayer Amschel’s sons—Nathan Mayer—would establish his bank (N.M. Rothschild & Sons) in the hoary City of London, the heart of Crown territory. Soon, Rothschild influence also spanned the globe.
The colonies established in North America were intended to be commercial entities serving the Crown. The colonists eventually began to chafe at the fact that they were not treated the same as other British citizens. Contrary to what many history books teach, they did not initially want independence from the British Empire. ‘Taxation without representation,’ for example, was obviously not a demand for independence but for equal treatment under British law. Their demands met with no response from King George III, who in 1775 proclaimed the colonies to be in rebellion. (Note that word proclaimed. We will see it again.) By the end of the year, independence stirrings had begun. In early 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense. Paine’s tract brazenly attacked the very institution of monarchy and made an eloquent case for independence over reconciliation: “The authority of Great Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have an end …” And later: “A government of our own is our natural right.” Common Sense was widely read throughout the colonies. A Declaration of Independence was inevitable, as was the war for independence which followed.Thirteen colonies became a Perpetual Union of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation—a document creating a highly decentralized society rooted in the assumption that concentrations of power are dangerous. By the mid-1780s, however, the elites within the states were grousing that the federal government established under the Articles was too weak—and to be sure, a number of volatile issues both within and between the states had erupted which it was unclear could be resolved peacefully under the authority of the Articles. It wasn’t clear that the Perpetual Union established under the Articles was sustainable. In 1787 the states sent representatives to the first Constitutional Convention, which met behind closed doors. Its stated purpose was to revise the Articles of Confederation. But why the secrecy? This raised red flags even then.
The representatives emerged after three months with an entirely new document, the Constitution of the United States of America. When asked by a woman what kind of government this Constitution created, monarchy or republic, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” One thing was for sure: the Constitution had created a stronger central government than its predecessor. It is unfortunate that Thomas Jefferson had been in Europe while this was going on. Had he participated in the Constitutional Convention, it is at least possible that the resulting Constitution and all subsequent history might look very different.
To be adopted, the new Constitution needed ratification by nine of the thirteen states. James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton penned The Federalist Papers making a public case for ratification. Others—whom history labels the “Anti-Federalists”—smelled a rat and argued against the Constitution’s ratification. Authors such as Richard Henry Lee and Robert Yates (no known ancestral relation to the present author) among others circulated numerous statements contending, among other things, that the Constitution contained too many loopholes which those who wanted a still larger central government would eventually climb through. Among their worries was the lack of an explicit statement of people’s natural rights which the federal government was obligated to respect. Statesmen like George Mason paid attention. A compromise was reached: a Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution) was inserted.In light of history, this wasn’t enough. History has validated the fears of the “Anti-Federalists.” But alas, we get ahead of ourselves.
The Constitution created a new system of government, one stronger and more centralized than that of the Articles but still limited. The federal government was to have three branches, each with specific delegated powers—or, better, responsibilities, since the overriding aim of having a Constitution was to contain power by creating a balance of powers within the federal government itself; and with dual sovereignty—the central concept of true federalism in which the powers of the federal government were few and carefully defined while the rest was left to the states (Ninth and Tenth Amendments).
Among the responsibilities assigned to Congress was to “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Article I Section 8 did not authorize Congress to delegate this responsibility to any private entity or public-private partnership. This clause in the Constitution was abrogated almost at once by Thomas Jefferson’s arch foe Alexander Hamilton, allowed to create the first Bank of the United States over Jefferson’s explicit objections. Jefferson’s warnings about central bankers, doubtless based on first hand observations from his time in Europe, are well known.
It is likely that the European banking elite—centered in dynasties such as that of Rothschild and Schiff—wanted to destroy the fledgling Republic across the ocean right from the start. They would bring it under their control, or else! The Treaty of Paris of 1783 had officially ended the war, but His Brittanick Majesty’s overbearing presence remained, including on U.S. soil. President George Washington, seeking to avoid renewed hostilities with the still-powerful British war machine, sent John Jay to London to work out a new treaty that would diffuse the danger of renewed conflict. This treaty—virtually forgotten by historians today—became known as the Jay Treaty and was very controversial in its time. It was signed in London on November 19, 1794. Back in the states, it was submitted to our Senate on June 8 the following year and provoked an angry and rancorous debate. It was finally passed on June 24 (the vote was 20 – 10). The House passed it on August 14, 1795. Then it was sent back to the British. Great Britain ratified it on October 28, 1795; His Brittanick Majesty proclaimed it on February 29, 1796.
Time out! Remember that word proclaimed? What, precisely, do we mean, proclaimed? There was no basis for a recognition of proclaimed in the Constitution! Proclaiming was something done by British royalty, not Constitutional Republics!
What this means is bound to be startling, even to Patriots who believe they’ve seen everything! In the last analysis, given that it was proclaimed, the Jay Treaty is more a British document than an American one. His Brittanick Majesty ended the American War for Independence on February 29, 1796—with a treaty that does not explicitly assent to U.S. sovereignty and independence. Rather, it establishes “a firm inviolable and universal Peace, and a true and sincere Friendship between His Brittanick Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and the United States of America …” Had Americans just fought a war for independence only to have established an ambiguous “Friendship” with the Crown, one that is “inviolable”?The disturbing question that should pull us all out of our comfort zones: in this last analysis, did the United States of America remain, however covertly, under the thumb of the British Crown? Were Americans merely allowed to believe they had attained full sovereignty?
A final note about the Jay Treaty. Its Articles V, VI and VII of the Jay Treaty establish the first international mixed commissions, to resolve disputes not yet resolved through negotiation. This set an important precedent for later “commissions of inquiry” with autonomous decision-making power.
Remember that Alexander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States was in operation by this time. Hamilton had defended what amounts to mercantilism in Federalist #12. Unlike Jefferson and the “Anti-Federalists” he wanted a centralized and activist government. Was Hamilton secretly working for the Crown, and therefore also for the Rothschilds? His goals aligned with theirs, and the future was open to the very meddling by European bankers about which Jefferson was warning everyone who would listen. A few historians believe Nathan Meyer Rothschild ordered the War of 1812 as punishment for our refusal to recharter Hamilton’s bank (so much for the “inviolability” of the Friendship Treaty from the Crown’s point of view). Wars, of course, create debt; central banking, to create the money to pay the debt, becomes an irresistible temptation. The Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816. Rothschild agents John Jacob Astor, Stephen Girard, and David Parish were placed in charge. With Nathan at the helm, the Rothschilds ascended to full power during the first two decades of the 1800s—especially with the insider-trading stunt he pulled with the Battle of Waterloo which made him Great Britain’s richest man.
President Andrew Jackson—a hero of that war following his victory in the Battle of New Orleans—would shut down the Second Bank of the United States having denounced the institution as “a den of vipers and thieves.” This was the culmination of his protracted battle with Rothschild agent Nicholas Biddle, who had assumed the Bank’s presidency in the 1820s. The bankers retaliated by causing a near-depression that severely damaged the remainder of Jackson’s presidency. He would survive an assassination attempt on January 30, 1835. His would-have-been assassin admitted working for “foreign interests.”
While we had no central bank during the decades which ensued, we also had no means to prevent Rothschild meddling in American affairs. For example, Rothschild agent August Schoenberg came to our shores and changed his last name to Belmont. He began purchasing government bonds, rose in wealth and stature through his firm August Belmont & Co., and eventually became an advisor to the White House. John Slidell, another Rothschild agent, had been a merchant in New York before relocating to New Orleans to build up a law practice. He would serve in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Finally, Judah Benjamin was a Rothschild agent who would rise to become Jefferson Davis’s chief advisor. Yes, we now have pretty good evidence that the attempt to divide the U.S. in two was a Rothschild scheme from the get-go. The emerging battle over slavery served as a convenient issue on which to focus public attention. Those with real power couldn’t care less about such things as the treatment of minority groups unless it creates a wedge issue they can use.
Fractional money flowed into the coffers of corporations that built the industrial revolution that transformed the Northern states during the second third of the 1800s. This process took people off the land they had farmed and sent them into burgeoning cities. It created a fundamentally different culture. Invariably, people began to lose touch with the land and would eventually lose the ability their ancestors possessed to live off the land. The North’s commitment to industry versus the South’s preference for an agrarian economy also helped set the stage for dividing America into two separate nations that could be more easily brought under Rothschild/Crown control.Was the most violent war ever fought on U.S. soil really orchestrated from overseas, or is this just a “conspiracy theory”? Consider what Otto Bismarck (a protégé of Frankfort’s Amschel Mayer Rothschild) would say in 1876: “The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed… Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the Union.”
Abraham Lincoln thwarted the division of the U.S. into two separate nations—and kept the nation out of debt to foreign bankers by printing Greenbacks. He’d had to sign a National Banking Act (1863) as a wartime measure, however, and this was a step back toward a central bank. Some recent treatments of Lincoln portray him as a ruthless and unscrupulous tyrant (see, e.g., Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln, 2002). In a sense, he was between a rock and a hard place. By using brute force to bring the Confederacy back into the Union he thwarted the Rothschild scheme but there was a steep price: the end of dual sovereignty and hence of true federalism. The federal government ascended to its present status as dominant over the states. The consolidation of federal power (which should have become known as central power) proved to be permanent. The South, ravaged by war, descended into poverty. For all this, there are Southerners who have never forgiven Lincoln. On the other hand, had he allowed Southern secession to stand, this would have given the Rothschilds what they wanted—and heralded an uncertain future for both societies in which neither would have enjoyed what sovereignty they had for very long. Lincoln seems to have known what was really going on. In an 1865 statement he told Congress, “I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.”
Lincoln made other remarks suggesting that he believed his life would end violently, with an assassination. He knew he had made enemies who had no scruples about murdering those who interfered with their plans. Not long before his assassination he wrote: “The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”