Tuesday, December 2, 2014



“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government.  Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom  those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

To boil it down, a REPUBLIC is a government based on the RULE OF LAW.  A DEMOCRACY is the RULE OF THE MAJORITY (AKA: MOB MENTALITY).

How often have you heard people refer to America as a Democracy?  When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic?   There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our constitution do not even mention the word "democracy".

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as they feared a monarchy.  They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.

They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves.  In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People.  Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government.  It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy but what exists in America today is a far cry from the Constitutional Republic our forefathers brought forth.

Today we have DO have a mobocracy occurring in our streets all across America.

Understanding the difference is paramount.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

Socialism is the result of proletarian democracy. To the degree that the proletariat mobilizes itself and the great masses of the people, the socialist revolution is advanced.  The failure to recognize that genuine democracy and genuine socialism are absolutely inseparable is only one source of confusion.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist:

* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Every transaction, every location: tracked

By Richard Pollock

A CFPB strategic planning document for fiscal years 2013-17 describes the “markets monitoring” program through which officials aim to monitor 80 percent of all credit card transactions in 2013.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 1.16 billion consumer credit cards were in use in 2012 for an estimated 52.6 billion transactions. If CFPB officials reach their stated "performance goal," they would collect data on 42 billion transactions made with 933 million credit cards used by American consumers.

The CFPB strategic plan shows that in 2012, the bureau was able to gain access to 77 percent of all credit cards and hoped to increase that to 80 percent in 2013. By 2014, the agency also hopes to monitor up to 95 percent of all mortgage transactions.

“This is one step closer to a Big Brother form of government where they know everything about us,”


Monday, August 26, 2013

Pentagon saysFounding Fathers, Conservatives and Christians are Extremists

Pentagon Labels Founding Fathers, Conservatives and Christians as Extremists

By Todd Starnes

George Washington would not be welcome in the modern U.S. military. Neither would Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, according to Department of Defense training documents that depict the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide was obtained by Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act Request. It was acquired from the Air Force but originated from the Pentagon.

. . .



Good short fiction


Thursday, August 22, 2013

U.S. tax dollars help fund UN 'hate camp' in Gaza.

By Paul Alster

Palestinian children as young as 5 are being taught to hate Jews, glorify martyrs and support jihad, and a U.S.-funded United Nations agency is helping to underwrite the effort, according to a controversial new documentary.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency hosts summer camps in which Palestinian children are allegedly being indoctrinated, in scenes captured in “Camp Jihad: Inside UNRWA Summer Camp Season 2013.” In addition to learning hateful phrases, the children are taught that Israel belongs to them by birthright, according to the film by the Center for Near East Policy Research.

Indoctrination of young Palestinian children is nothing new, but the documentary has raised the ire of Israelis largely because of the UN role. According to UNRWA’s own website, the United States is the single-largest contributor to its work and in 2012 gave more than $232 million, ahead of the European Commission ($204 million), and the United Kingdom ($68 million).

Interspersed with sack races, arts and crafts and snack time, are scenes of instructors imparting the message that Israel belongs to Palestinians, and they must take it back by force.

The 19-minute film shows Tayma, a West Bank girl of about 8, being asked who the Jews are.
“They are a gang of Infidels and Christians,” she replies. “They don’t like Allah and do not worship Allah. They hate us.”

Another West Bank camper, Mesam Abu Hindi, has been taught to advocate violence against Israel.
“For those who are older than me, weapons will accelerate the Right of Return,” the girl states.
"When we die as martyrs, we go up to heaven," says a young girl.

And in one scene, a camp instructor tells children they will help overthrow Israel.

"With God's help and our own strength, we will wage war," she says. "And with education and jihad, we will return."

David Bedein, bureau chief of the Center for Near East Policy Research, said his film crew went into the camps and found that the agency is openly advocating taking up arms against Israel.

“What UNRWA has done is to join in over the last 12 years since the new Palestinian Authority curriculum became as virulent as it is,” Bedein said. “The kids are being trained that what they must do is campaign for the Right of Return – another way of saying ‘destroy Israel.’ A UN agency should not [be supporting a] campaign to wipe out another member state of the UN, putting ideas into the minds of children that they should engage in violence to achieve these goals.”

“We went into the UNRWA schools and camps” says Bedein. “There are people who identify themselves very clearly in the film as being teachers, administrators, counselors, and social workers. They all say “We work for UNRWA.””

 Israeli officials blame Palestinian leaders more than the UN agency.

 “UNRWA is not perfect, but the truth of the matter is we don’t have a conflict with UNRWA; we have a conflict with the Arab world,” Paul Hirschson, of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told FoxNews.com. “The Palestinian Authority is responsible for the syllabus and they have to make sure that the syllabus is appropriate.

“This indoctrination [by the Palestinian Authority of its children] is very problematic” Hirschson added


DHS Manager runs website that promotes race war against 'whites'

What the heck?  Seriously?  How much worse can this administration and it's staff get?

Original article by By Barnini Chakraborty

A Department of Homeland Security manager in charge of buying weapons and ammunition for the government is, on the side, running an inflammatory website that throws around gay slurs and advocates the mass murder of "whites" and the "ethnic cleansing" of "Uncle Tom race traitors,"

His website, “War on the Horizon,” declares, “in order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites..."

According to the WOH website, the organization was “created for the purpose of preparing black people worldwide for an unavoidable, inevitable clash with the white race. Whites around the world are absolutely determined to exterminate Afrikan people in all corners of the earth."

The mission statement also claims to prepare blacks intellectually, spiritually, psychologically and physically for “a global clash that will mean the end of white rule on this planet or the end of the black race as we know it.”


Wednesday, August 21, 2013

POTUS meeting signals Imminent Financial Crisis

Presidential Meeting Signals Catastrophic Event: “There Is a Crisis Unfolding Somewhere in the Background”
By Mac Slavo

If there’s one thing we know about how the US government operates, it’s that the American people are often the last to know about serious problems that may be taking place behind the scenes.

This week, in a move that has spooked a lot of economic and financial analysts, President Barack Obama held a special, closed door meeting with the heads of the U.S. government’s financial, monetary and oversight agencies. It included members of the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the CFTC, the SEC, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

This has left many wondering what is really going on – and if a serious event is about to take place yet again

I guess I’m always unnerved as a result of what happened in April, the last time the President of the United States had a meeting with all of the bank heads, and two days later the price of gold was smashed for over $200. 
Now, the President is meeting with all of the heads of the various agencies, institutions, the Fed, and all of the other key money entities in the United States today.  What’s that all about?
But clearly if the President is having this meeting, there is a crisis unfolding somewhere in the background, and it could very well relate to the dollar, interest rates, and the massive derivatives market associated with interest rates

This surge in interest rates may have already seriously destabilized the entire financial system, and that’s why there is this meeting taking place in the White House today.  The fact is that the vast majority of derivatives in the global financial system are related to interest rates. 
Now, the entire financial system may be on the precipice of some sort of catastrophic event unfolding because of what we have already seen in the bond market, and how the derivatives are so heavily intertwined.  Meaning, we may be on the verge of another disastrous derivatives meltdown. 
John Embry – King World News 

Ahead of the 2008 collapse, as the pillars of our financial system were undergoing a controlled detonation, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve assured us the crisis had been contained. Experts and pundits on television were screaming to investors that everything was fine and to keep buying the dips.

Behind the scenes, however, President Bush, the Federal Reserve, and the world’s leading financial institutions were scrambling to figure out how to keep the whole thing from falling apart. As former US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson noted, we were on the brink of a historic collapse, and they knew it well ahead of time.

The American people were not as fortunate. Most of us came to the realization things had taken a turn for the worse only after 50% of our wealth had been wiped out in a stock market and housing crash.

Today, like before, all of the experts in Washington and the mainstream media are making a point to reassure us that we are in the midst of an economic recovery. However, key economic indicators suggest otherwise. We are seeing a plunge in global shipping, a halt in consumer spending, and perhaps most importantly, a significant rise in interest rates and the US government’s borrowing costs.

Now, as the President meets with a veritable who’s who of government finance, lending and monetary policy one can’t help but think something is amiss.

Are we on the brink of another global disaster?


Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Cruz birthers vs Obama birthers

More twisted facts by liberals.
 By Jake Southern

No, Ted Cruz ‘birthers’ are not the same as Obama birthers
By Aaron Blake

"Why are the media not denouncing those who question Cruz’s eligibility in the same way they have denounced the so-called “birthers” who continue to question Obama’s? Questions about Cruz’s eligibility have everything to do with interpretation of the law; the questions about Obama’s eligibility had everything to do with a dispute over the underlying facts." 

Obama "birthers" also attack from the interpretation of the law angle. 
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents (Soil Rights); by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents (Blood Rights); or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
This means that both Obama and Cruz should be eligible, regardless if either was born overseas or not - since at least one parent was a US citizen.  (Unless he renounced it when filing as a foreign student for aid in college - cough Obama - cough). 
Except for this: 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act) states that in order for one's right of "blood citizenship" to be passed to him, if he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, that the US parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14.  

Barack Hussein Obama fails the McCarran-Walter Act test for the right to claim "natural born citizen” status.  Ted Cruz passes this same test.

Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama Birthers.  Ted Cruz birthers vs Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama vs Ted Cruz.  Natural born citizen.  Eligibility for presidency.  Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama Birthers.  Ted Cruz birthers vs Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama vs Ted Cruz.  Natural born citizen.  Eligibility for presidency.  Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama Birthers.  Ted Cruz birthers vs Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama vs Ted Cruz.  Natural born citizen.  Eligibility for presidency.  Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama Birthers.  Ted Cruz birthers vs Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama vs Ted Cruz.  Natural born citizen.  Eligibility for presidency.  Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama Birthers.  Ted Cruz birthers vs Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama vs Ted Cruz.  Natural born citizen.  Eligibility for presidency.  Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama Birthers.  Ted Cruz birthers vs Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama vs Ted Cruz.  Natural born citizen.  Eligibility for presidency.  Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama Birthers.  Ted Cruz birthers vs Ted Cruz birthers.  Obama vs Ted Cruz.  Natural born citizen.  Eligibility for presidency.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

The Obama Agenda: Sheep Farms (you're the sheep)

By Jake Southern

It’s like Pol Pot’s Khmer Ruge, in reverse:  out of the ‘burbs, corralled into MegaCities:

THE OBAMA AGENDA, THE MORE YOU LEARN THE SCARIER IT GETS http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-obama-agenda-the-more-you-learn-the-scarier-it-gets/

It wouldn’t be so worrisome, if there weren’t quiet approaches from multiple angles:

·         Push for wealth redistribution by changing local taxation such that money flows from the ‘burbs into the metro areas.

·         Push for “mileage tax”, which flat punishes commuters for commuting.   (that might be the real reason driving the “black box” requirement from Uncle Fed – they want a “fool-proof” way to charge you for the miles you drive.  Plus, there’s the added benefit of invading your privacy).
·         “Sustainable development”/Agenda 21 nonsense, being fostered at the local level all over the country

According to our Environmentalist Moral Superiors, crushing the majority of our population into super-dense “barns” will keep us from driving cars, so less emissions and less demand for fuel.  Plus, Gaia will be free of our pollution (and existence) in “pristine” areas (= everywhere not city).

That’s fine by the Marxists Among Us, b/c “equality”, don’t you know.  Elitists suburbanites, with their flight to quality schools, etc – gonna get theirs.  Plus, more tax money gathered to steer behavior (basically make suburban commuting impossible).

And the Fascist Left just loves the idea – they get to micro-manage everybody tyranny like Bloomberg’s NYC!

These people are immortal, insane and truly ignorant.  I believe the legacy of the 20th Century will be “don’t dislocate the population from the resources”.  Our cities will be deathtraps if anything happens to “The Matrix” (total logistics:  fuel, transport, power, communications).

22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham

By Michael Snyder

After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again?  There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes.  In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin.  How in the world does that happen?  Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.  Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up, so it isn’t as if there is any chance that the results of the presidential election could be overturned anyhow.  But if massive election fraud did take place and nobody is held accountable, what kind of message will that send for the future?  Will we ever be able to have faith in the integrity of our elections ever again?
The following are 22 signs that voter fraud is wildly out of control and the election was a sham…
#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.
#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote.  In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.
#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent.  But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote.  Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.
#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…
It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program.
Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default.
#5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas.
#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.
#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.
#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.
#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.
#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.
#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.
#12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate ofmore than 100%.
#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.
#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.
#15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted.
#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.
#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…
“The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.”
#18 In Wisconsin, there were allegations that Obama voters were actually being bussed in from out of state
The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???
Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?
This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.
Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.
One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!
She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.
We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.
#19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on videotrying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.
#20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote.
#21 According to townhall.com, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…
Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote hasdecreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.
#22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all.
So what do you think about all of this?
Do you still believe that elections in America are fair and honest?


Wednesday, August 14, 2013

US Debt Ponzi Scheme: Government Defaults on Debt, then Hides the Truth from the Public.

Posted by: 

As Congress gets ready for yet another debt-ceiling fight, it seems our government may have already defaulted on its debts. For the last month, our debt has sat at $16,699,396,000,000; it hasn’t moved a single penny in either direction. Sadly, what’s most astonishing about the number isn’t the fact that we are over $16 trillion in debt; but instead, the fact that the number hasn’t moved in the last 30 days.
While most people would take this as a positive sign, the fact is, our debt has grown over $98 billion in the last 30 days – The Government just isn’t reporting it.
Why wouldn’t the government report $98 Billion dollars of debt, especially when they freely admit to the over 16.6 trillion?  
Well the answer to that is actually pretty simple. If they admitted to it, they would be admitting to the fact that the broke the law and allowed the country to basically default on its debt. If the Treasury Department admitted to borrowing the additional $98 billion to cover the $98 billion deficit they declared in their monthly statement for July, the Treasury would be admitting that they had already surpassed the legal limit on the debt.
So instead of admitting to breaking the law, they just readjusted the scam a bit, and the debt magically stayed $25 million below the legal limit for the last 30 days.
Our economy is a ticking time bomb…..
How much longer can they continue to pretend were not broke? Think about it; could you continue to buy food and pay your rent if your checking account was in the negative territory? Could you fix the problem by readjusting the numbers in your check ledger, and then continuing to write checks?
My bet is you would soon find yourself in a small cell. But not our government, they just continue to write checks with money they don’t have and the American public just keeps looking the other way.
Our economy is basically one big Ponzi scheme, one that would land any other American in Jail if they attempt to manage their finances in the way our federal government runs the country. I just don’t see how it lasts for much longer; if your not prepared, you better start preparing for the possibility of a collapse.


Thursday, August 8, 2013

Gestapo Police Tactics Here in the USA

Why You Should Never, Ever Drive Through Tenaha, Texas

Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. 

“Where are we?” Boatright remembers thinking. “Is this some kind of foreign country, where they’re selling people’s kids off?” Holding her sixteen-month-old on her hip, she broke down in tears. 

He says that a Tenaha officer told him, “Don’t even bother getting a lawyer. The money always stays here.”

- From Sarah’s Stillman’s New Yorker article “Taken”

The following article by Sarah Stillman in the New Yorker has been generating a lot of buzz in the past couple of days, and for good reason. Her piece titled “Taken,” is a stunning portrayal of the increasingly popular police theft tactic known as civil forfeiture.

In a nutshell, civil forfeiture is the practice of confiscating items from people, ranging from cash, cars, even homes based on no criminal conviction or charges, merely suspicion. This practice first became widespread for use against pirates, as a way to take possession of contraband goods despite the fact that the ships’ owners in many cases were located thousands of miles away and couldn’t easily be prosecuted. As is often the case, what starts out reasonable becomes a gigantic organized crime ring of criminality, particularly in a society where the rule of law no longer exists for the “elite,” yet anything goes when it comes to pillaging the average citizen.

One of the major reasons these programs have become so abused is that the police departments themselves are able to keep much of the confiscated money. So they actually have a perverse incentive to steal. As might be expected, a program that is often touted as being effective against going after major drug
kingpins, actually targets the poor and disenfranchised more than anything else.

For example: “In 2011, he reports, fifty-eight local, county, and statewide police forces in Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars.”

Although lengthy, this is a very important article and I suggest reading the entire thing. If that’s too much for you, I’ve highlighted some key excerpts below. From the New Yorker:

When they returned to the highway ten minutes later, Boatright, a honey-blond “Texas redneck from Lubbock,” by her own reckoning, and Henderson, who is Latino, noticed something strange. The same police car that their eleven-year-old had admired in the mini-mart parking lot was trailing them. Near the city limits, a tall, bull-shouldered officer named Barry Washington pulled them over.

He asked if Henderson knew that he’d been driving in the left lane for more than half a mile without passing.

No, Henderson replied. He said he’d moved into the left lane so that the police car could make its way onto the highway.

Were there any drugs in the car? When Henderson and Boatright said no, the officer asked if he and his partner could search the car.

Mistake number one, allowing him to search the car. Although these days if you say no, the cops tend to falsely claim they smell drugs as an excuse to search it anyway.

The officers found the couple’s cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station. In a corner there, two tables were heaped with jewelry, DVD players, cell phones, and the like. According to the police report, Boatright and Henderson fit the profile of drug couriers: they were driving from Houston, “a known point for distribution of illegal narcotics,” to Linden, “a known place to receive illegal narcotics.” The report describes their children as possible decoys, meant to distract police as the couple breezed down the road, smoking marijuana. (None was found in the car, although Washington claimed to have smelled it.)

The county’s district attorney, a fifty-seven-year-old woman with feathered Charlie’s Angels hair named Lynda K. Russell, arrived an hour later. Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver she drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,” or Child Protective Services.

If that is not evil, I don’t know what is. What kind of sociopath threatens to take people’s children if they don’t fork over their cash?

“Where are we?” Boatright remembers thinking. “Is this some kind of foreign country, where they’re selling people’s kids off?” Holding her sixteen-month-old on her hip, she broke down in tears.

Later, she learned that cash-for-freedom deals had become a point of pride for Tenaha, and that versions of the tactic were used across the country. “Be safe and keep up the good work,” the city marshal wrote to Washington, following a raft of complaints from out-of-town drivers who claimed that they had been stopped in Tenaha and stripped of cash, valuables, and, in at least one case, an infant child, without clear evidence of contraband.

In general, you needn’t be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with “probable cause” is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner’s guilt or innocence.

Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve.

“We all know the way things are right now—budgets are tight,” Steve Westbrook, the executive director of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, says. “It’s definitely a valuable asset to law enforcement, for purchasing equipment and getting things you normally wouldn’t be able to get to fight crime.” Many officers contend that their departments would collapse if the practice were too heavily regulated, and that a valuable public-safety measure would be lost.

But a system that proved successful at wringing profits from drug cartels and white-collar fraudsters has also given rise to corruption and violations of civil liberties. Over the past year, I spoke with more than a hundred police officers, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and forfeiture plaintiffs from across the country. Many expressed concern that state laws designed to go after high-flying crime lords are routinely targeting the workaday homes, cars, cash savings, and other belongings of innocent people who are never charged with a crime.

In August, 2007, Tenaha police pulled Morrow over for “driving too close to the white line,” and took thirty-nine hundred dollars from him. Morrow told Guillory that he was on his way to get dental work done at a Houston mall. (The arresting officers said that his “stories of travel” were inconsistent, as was his account of how much money he had; they also said they detected the “odor of burned marijuana,” although no contraband was found in the car.) Morrow, who is black, was taken to jail, where he pleaded with authorities to call his bank to see proof of his recent cash withdrawal. They declined.

“They impounded my car, and they impounded me, too,” Morrow told me, recalling the night he spent in jail. When he finally agreed to sign away his property, he was released on the side of the road with no money, no vehicle, and no phone. He says that a Tenaha officer told him, “Don’t even bother getting a lawyer. The money always stays here.” But finally he decided “to shine a big ol’ light on them.


Fukishima Still a Global Health Threat

At this point, the World Nuclear Association and the US NRC need to take over management of the situation.  TEPCO and Japan's government have proven that they can not handle the situation, and it threatens the global population.

Japan’s Nuclear Accident Response Director Warns that Tepco’s Actions Might Cause Reactor BuIldings to Collapse
Tepco’s ill-considered efforts to change soil permeability and water flow have caused severe problems at the site … including highly radioactive groundwater bubbling up to the surface.

Engineers are now facing a new emergency. The Fukushima plant sits smack in the middle of an underground aquifer. Deep beneath the ground, the site is rapidly being overwhelmed by water.

The spent fuel pool at Fukushima Unit 4 is the top threat to humanity, and is a national security issue for America.As such, it is disturbing news that the ground beneath unit 4 is sinking.Specifically, Unit 4 sunk 36 inches right after the earthquake, and has sunk another 30 inches since then.Moreover, Unit 4 is sinking unevenly, and the building may begin tilting.

Obviously this is a massive public health issue … if it gets into the ocean obviously this could be spread throughout the Pacific, could also get into the food supply. 

No wonder even top Japanese government officials are calling for Tepco to be fired … 

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Turning the USA into a Socialist Dictatorship

Obama's Creeping Authoritarianism

If we learned anything about Barack Obama in his first term it is that when he starts repeating the same idea over and over, what's on his mind is something else.

The first term's over-and-over subject was "the wealthiest 1%." Past some point, people wondered why he kept beating these half-dead horses. After the election, we knew. It was to propagandize the targeted voting base that would provide his 4% popular-vote margin of victory—very young voters and minorities. They believed. He won.

The second-term over-and-over, elevated in his summer speech tour, is the shafting of the middle class. But the real purpose here isn't the speeches' parboiled proposals. It is what he says the shafting of the middle class is forcing him to do. It is forcing him to "act"—to undertake an unprecedented exercise of presidential power in domestic policy-making. ObamaCare was legislated. In the second term, new law will come from him

"So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress."

Please don't complain later that you didn't see it coming. As always, Mr. Obama states publicly what his intentions are. He is doing that now. Toward the end of his speech last week in Jacksonville, Fla., he said: "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress." (Applause.)

The July 24 speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., has at least four references to his intent to act on his own authority, as he interprets it: "That means whatever executive authority I have to help the middle class, I'll use it." (Applause.) And: "We're going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress."

Every president since George Washington has felt frustration with the American system's impediments to change. This president is done with Congress.

The political left, historically inclined by ideological belief to public policy that is imposed rather than legislated, will support Mr. Obama's expansion of authority. The rest of us should not.

The U.S. has a system of checks and balances. Mr. Obama is rebalancing the system toward a national-leader model that is alien to the American tradition.

To create public support for so much unilateral authority, Mr. Obama needs to lessen support for the other two branches of government—Congress and the judiciary. He is doing that.

Mr. Obama and his supporters in the punditocracy are defending this escalation by arguing that Congress is "gridlocked." But don't overstate that low congressional approval rating. This is the one branch that represents the views of all Americans. It's gridlocked because voters are.

Take a closer look at the Galesburg and Jacksonville speeches. Mr. Obama doesn't merely criticize Congress. He mocks it repeatedly. Washington "ignored" problems. It "made things worse." It "manufactures" crises and "phony scandals." He is persuading his audiences to set Congress aside and let him act.

So too the judiciary. During his 2010 State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama denounced the Supreme Court Justices in front of him. The National Labor Relations Board has continued to issue orders despite two federal court rulings forbidding it to do so. Attorney General Eric Holder says he will use a different section of the Voting Rights Act to impose requirements on Southern states that the Supreme Court ruled illegal. Mr. Obama's repeated flouting of the judiciary and its decisions are undermining its institutional authority, as intended.

The three administration nominees enabled by the Senate's filibuster deal—Richard Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Thomas Perez at the Labor Department and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy—open a vast swath of American life to executive authority on steroids. There won't be enough hours in the day for Mr. Obama to "act on my own."

In a recent Journal op-ed, "Obama Suspends the Law," former federal judge Michael McConnell noted there are few means to stop a president who decides he is not obligated to execute laws as passed by Congress. So there's little reason to doubt we'll see more Obamaesque dismissals of established law, as with ObamaCare's employer mandate. Mr. Obama is pushing in a direction that has the potential for a political crisis.

A principled opposition would speak out. Barack Obama is right that he isn't running again. But the Democratic Party is. Their Republican opponents should force the party's incumbents to defend the president's creeping authoritarianism.

If Democratic Senate incumbents or candidates from Louisiana, Alaska, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina, Montana and Iowa think voters should accede to a new American system in which a president forces laws into place as his prerogative rather than first passing them through Congress, they should be made to say so.

And to be sure, the other purpose of the shafted middle-class tour is to demolish the GOP's standing with independent voters and take back the House in 2014. If that happens—and absent a more public, aggressive Republican voice it may—an unchecked, unbalanced presidential system will finally arrive.

A final quotation on America's system of government: "To ensure that no person or group would amass too much power, the founders established a government in which the powers to create, implement, and adjudicate laws were separated. Each branch of government is balanced by powers in the other two coequal branches." Source: The White House website of President Barack Obama.

Write to henninger@wsj.com


Wednesday, July 31, 2013

What?? US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit Rules that NSA cell phone tracking without warrant is constitutional?

by Karl Denninger

You do know that your phone is always communicating with the towers when it's turned on, right?  That's how it works -- it has to occasionally ping back and forth between the tower and device in order for a call to route to you, a text message to be delivered, etc.

Guess what?  There now is a court ruling that since you voluntarily "gave" that information to the cell company even though it would be impossible for you to have such a device and have it work without giving that data to them because your giving that data (your location) was "voluntary" it is not protected under the 4th Amendment and thus does not require a warrant.

The closely watched case, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is the first ruling that squarely addresses the constitutionality of warrantless searches of historical location data stored by cellphone service providers. Ruling 2 to 1, the court said a warrantless search was “not per se unconstitutional” because location data was “clearly a business record” and therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Note that this is historical data.

That is, exactly what the NSA is grabbing from all cell carriers in bulk without a warrant.
"In bulk" means for everyone.

All the time.

The root of the problem here is not that it might lead to you "right now."  It's that the data, once acquired is never erased and thus becomes a record that can be usedat any time in the future if it becomes politically (or otherwise) expedient to use in order to implicate you in something.

The usual argument on the other side is something along the lines of "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care."  Uh huh.

You're a rather trusting sort, you know.  After all, there is no evidence that the government would ever turn into something evil at any time in your lifetime and then use that data to ex-post-facto link you to something they don't like -- right?

There's no history of governments doing things like this, is there?  Oh wait -- there is.  There are in fact dozens of such instances through history, and in virtually every single case the citizens who were ultimately murdered as a consequence never saw it coming 5, 10 or 20 years down the road because at the time they "consented" the evil thing wasn't happening -- yet.

The most-obvious of course is the Jews in Nazi Germany, but by no means the only example.  Indeed, the history when it comes to privately-owned arms is that material and serious constraints on their personal ownership tend to come 10 or 20 years before the citizens are murdered by their very own government.
This is much-more-insideous in that these "records" can be -- and will be -- used to link you to a political protest (e.g. "you were at the Washington Mall during the time that xxxx happened") and while today that's considered a protected activity who says it will be tomorrow?

The real error here is that "business records" are not accorded 4th Amendment protections.  Why not?  I give the cell company access to my location not because I want them to have it but because it is necessary for their systems to know where I am for the service I am contracting for to work.

The very premise under which the court ruled is incorrect -- if you and I agree that you may have some piece of information for the purpose of providing me a service or good that does not mean that I am giving you license to use it for whatever other purpose you may cook up later on.

If we cannot get our government to respect the fact that private citizens and private companies have the right to allocate information for specific purposes and that doing so does not give a general level of permission to either entity to then use that data outside of the specific purpose for which it was negotiated then we need a new government that does respect that fact.