Spying, torture, and paranoid power mongers
Nothing is more dangerous than a powerful empire collapsing in on itself (which is why I frequently recommend that Americans under the age of 80 get a passport and explore life in other countries.)
I’ve been meaning to present some historical background on the original Inquisition for a while.
Total surveillance, punishing people for their thoughts, torture…sounds like the US doesn’t it? But we’ve seen this movie before.
Tomorrow, April 19, is Patriot’s Day. On this day in 1775, about 70 men stood armed on Lexington Green as over 800 British troops descended on the town in route to Concord for the purpose of seizing a cache of arms known to be stored there and arresting two outspoken proponents of American independence: John Hancock and Sam Adams. Seeing the Minutemen (as they came to be called) standing on the green with muskets in hand, British officers commanded the men to throw down their arms, which they refused to do. Almost simultaneous to the command to disarm, the British soldiers opened fire upon the colonists, killing eight men instantly. This became known as “the shot heard ’round the world,” as it was the event that ignited America’s Revolutionary War.
The British troops easily marched through Lexington but were met by hundreds of armed and determined patriots at the Concord Bridge. A fierce battle ensued, which resulted in a bruising British defeat and the retreat of the Crown’s troops to Boston. The Colonists were done talking; the brutal killings of the men at Lexington, along with the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the people and to arrest Hancock and Adams, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. From that point onward, the issue would be decided on the battlefield.
Remember that the Colonists had patiently endured the harassment and haranguing of the British Crown for decades. Resentment and righteous indignation were deeply imbedded in the souls of those beleaguered “children of the Pilgrims.” And the killings at Lexington were not the first time innocent Americans were shot down by British troops. Some five years earlier, on March 5, 1770, a squad of British soldiers had opened fire on unarmed American civilians killing seven of them. The Boston Massacre (as it came to be called) was still very fresh in the minds of the Colonists as British troops advanced upon Lexington. And with the massacre of the men of Lexington, the last line in the sand had been crossed.
In my mind, it is no coincidence that a similar line in the sand took place here in the middle of April, 2014, in the Nevada desert at a place strikingly similar in name to a famous Revolutionary War battlefield: a place called Bunkerville.
At this point, I’ll let Paul Joseph Watson report the story:
“Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox News to denounce the federal government’s operation against Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, asserting that BLM agents should have been arrested for seizing his property and that the case represents a ‘line in the sand’ for Americans who have had enough of big government tyranny.
“Napolitano said the feds were forced to back down because they had suffered a public relations nightmare, pointing out that Bundy lost his case in a federal court but that the case should have been tried in a state court.
“‘The federal judiciary should not be deciding what land the federal government owns,’ said Napolitano, adding that the feds should have placed a lien against Bundy’s property to collect grazing fees and not conducted a raid backed up by armed agents to seize his private property.”
The report continued saying, “Napolitano also chastised the BLM’s ludicrous creation of a ‘First Amendment Area’ outside of which free speech was banned. Protesters completely ignored the zone and it was quickly torn down by BLM officials after being widely derided in the media.
“‘They established something utterly repellent in America, a First Amendment Zone….the square was three miles away from where these events were going–this is the federal government emasculating the First Amendment rights of the protesters,’ said the judge.
“Napolitano characterized the resistance shown by Bundy supporters as a clear example of how Americans feel, ‘enough is enough with the federal government, we’re drawing a line in the sand right here–and it drew people from all around the country who basically said “quit your heavy handed theft of property and act like you’re a normal litigant and not God almighty.”’”
See the report at:
Judge Napolitano is right.
No matter what you hear from the likes of Joe Scarborough and Glenn Beck (or your pastor), if the line in the sand at Lexington Green in April of 1775 was righteous, the line in the sand at Bunkerville, Nevada, in April of 2014 was equally righteous.
In fact, the grievances that the “children of the Patriots” have against the federal government today make the grievances that the “children of the Pilgrims” listed in the Declaration of Independence against the British Crown look pale by comparison. We have been tolerating abuse after abuse, encroachment after encroachment, usurpation after usurpation for decades. And one thing those patriots in Nevada were not going to allow to happen was another Waco. As the Boston Massacre burned deeply in the hearts of the American Colonists at Lexington, so, too, the Waco massacre burned deeply in the hearts of the patriots in Nevada last Saturday (April 12–one week to the day from April 19).
Hundreds of patriotic Americans (most of whom were well-armed) looked down the gun barrels of the BLM and fearlessly defied the orders to stand down and physically took back Mr. Bundy’s cattle that had been illegally confiscated by the Feds. Fortunately, BLM agents acted more wisely than did the Crown’s troops at Lexington in 1775. I shudder to think what would be happening right now if they had not.
There has not been a day in American history like last Saturday since–well–since April 19, 1775.
And make no mistake about it: this is what the Second Amendment has always been about: the ability of the citizenry to defend itself against oppressive, overreaching government. Had we no Second Amendment for the last 200-plus years, had the people’s right to keep and bear arms not been engrained in the very heart and soul of America for the last 200-plus years, Mr. Bundy’s land and cattle would be the property of the federal government, and Mr. Bundy and his family would either be in jail or six feet under right now. In fact, without the Second Amendment, the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would have been thoroughly expunged from this country many decades ago. The only thing standing in between your right to freely do anything and the heel of the tyrant’s boot over your throat is a watchful, determined, and resolute armed citizenry–known to America’s founders as the citizen militia. That’s what British troops encountered at Lexington Green; and that’s what BLM agents encountered at Bunkerville.
Not only did hundreds of armed citizens show up in Bunkerville, so did dozens of local and State officials. There were county commissioners, assemblymen, and State legislators there from several western states, including Nevada. Had BLM agents opened fire on the people assembled in front of them, they, no doubt, would have killed several elected public servants. I don’t think the federal government really wants its agents to murder State and local officials.
And I must hasten to add that among the elected public officials on the front line of that confrontation–along with the hundreds of everyday citizens assembled there–were women. And make no mistake about it: these ladies were there of their own volition; no one asked them to be there. And practically everyone there–men and women–had some sort of camera or recording device. Again, I don’t think the federal government wants its agents on videotape slaughtering ladies and even children. Yes, I know that is exactly what they did at Waco. In fact, most of the citizens killed at Waco were elderly men, women, and children. But there were no cameras present; no cell phones; and no elected officials. The federal government was able to completely cut off the Branch Davidians from the outside world so there would be no recorded testimony as to what happened. At Bunkerville, the combined presence of hundreds of armed militia, hundreds of ladies, dozens of elected officials, and cameras galore helped convince BLM to be civil.
We have turned a page. The rules of engagement have forever changed. And I think the federal government knows it.
Does this mean it’s over? Not on your life. The militia will be on site in Nevada for the foreseeable future. And there are examples of the federal government’s overreach taking place all over America–especially in the western states. As Thomas Jefferson noted, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Indeed.
I arrived in Bunkerville early Monday morning, the 14th. I participated in the press conference conducted by the Bundy family that afternoon. I met with the militia, several elected officials, citizens of Nevada, and the Bundy family. I was even honored to be invited to speak to the militia and their families and supporters at the militia command center. I conducted a prayer service for those folks and delivered a 20-minute Bible message to them. The local ABC affiliate also sent a reporter and cameraman with us; and they filmed the entire service. Here is the video of that service:
There is absolutely no question that there are nefarious backroom deals involving Senator Harry Reid that were in play at the BLM siege against the Bundy ranch. The people of Nevada should demand the truth about these deals and after the truth is put in the sunlight, run Harry Reid out of the State on a rail. Harry Reid is symbolic of everything that is wrong in Washington, D.C.
I caution folks to not believe everything you read about the Nevada situation in the media or on the Internet. There is a lot of exaggeration and misinformation floating around. That is a major problem for those of us in the freedom movement. For example, there is no indication at this point that BLM is planning a violent assault against the ranch. As of the time that I left the ranch, BLM agents had totally withdrawn. If the federal government launched a violent assault against the Bundys, it would escalate resistance a thousand-fold. They don’t want that to happen.
But this war against property and water rights in the west is becoming increasingly onerous. We desperately need a determined and concerted effort to demand that State legislatures and local governments pass ordinances and legislation removing federal control of State lands. These lands do not belong to the federal government; they belong to the States and to the People. If you truly want to do something to help preserve our future liberties, convince your local and State legislators to pass legislation to remove control of State land from the federal government.
We also desperately need legislation disarming federal bureaucracies. Agents of the federal government are not soldiers; and the American people are not the enemy. Except for a very few and specifically enumerated crimes, the Constitution declares that law enforcement is the venue and responsibility of the States and of the People. Federal agents have proven–and continue to prove–that they are not anywhere near trustworthy enough to be given a badge and a gun. As private citizens, they deserve the right to keep and bear arms along with the rest of us. But as agents of the federal government, they have no right to usurp the law enforcement authority of State and local officials.
And speaking of State and local officials, the governor of the State of Nevada and the sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, should be absolutely ashamed of themselves! What’s more: the people of Nevada should be ashamed of them–and vote them out of office, if not impeach them before their reelection–for their refusal to assist the citizens of their State during this time of crisis. All we need is for a governor and sheriff to interpose on behalf of the citizens of their State and county and all of this federal abuse of power would come to a screeching halt. Boy, do we need some constitutional governors and sheriffs!
We also need pastors to grow some man-stuff and start taking a stand in the pulpits as did the pastors of Colonial America. As I told the people at Bunkerville, if the pastors of America were doing their jobs on Sunday, all of this would never be taking place. How long will the Christians of America tolerate these spineless preachers?
Tomorrow, the 239th anniversary of Lexington and Concord, I will be speaking at a local Patriot’s Day rally honoring the brave Minutemen of 1775; I will also be honoring the brave patriots of 2014 who fought the Battle of Bunkerville: the shot not fired heard ’round the world.
P.S. This Sunday, I will also celebrate Resurrection Day in my pulpit at Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana. To watch the message online, go to:
Hooper was pressed by Fox News host Megyn Kelly about CAIR’s record of failing to condemn terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizballah and other questionable positions. Hooper tried to deflect, blaming “Internet hate sites” for fueling “hate-filled smears against CAIR, which was founded in 1994.
“Please find something that CAIR has done or said in those 20 years that you find either extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever,” Hooper said.
Don’t mind if we do.
We’ve documented CAIR’s dubious record for years, noting in a 2009 report that the group responds to the very kind of specific examples Hooper demands to see by issuing ad hominem attacks against the messenger.
So, in a decidedly-less funny tribute to Late Show host David Letterman’s pending retirement, here are the IPT’s top 10 examples of “extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever” actions by CAIR. Together, they undermine CAIR’s credibility as a mainstream, reliable arbiter in the debate about terrorism, extremism and the treatment of Muslims in America:
You’ll have to provide your own drumroll.
10. Using civil rights instruction to scare the daylights out of Muslims and drive a wedge between the community and the FBI.
CAIR officials say their “Know Your Rights” seminars simply are meant to educate people that they have a right to have counsel present for questioning if the FBI approaches.
That would be fine if that’s all they were. But CAIR’s message is wrapped in paranoia, casting the FBI as an out-of-control monster whose agents will do everything and anything to set up innocent Muslims.
“They will do anything, anything within their power and oftentimes beyond their power to get you to talk,” CAIR-New York board member Lamis Deek said at a 2011 seminar. “They will threaten you. OK? I’ve had one case where they tried to blackmail my client, I mean blackmail, seriously blackmail; that’s illegal. But they’ll do it.”
This came two months after CAIR’s San Francisco chapter posted a flyer online urging Muslims to “Build a Wall of Resistance. Don’t Talk to the FBI.” In response, Hooper tried to minimize the incident as a misinterpretation. The problem wasn’t the flyer and its message. Instead, he told Fox News – surprise! – it was an “attack by the Islamophobic hate machine.”
9. False Accusations of FBI Shootings
It has not happened often, but FBI agents have shot and killed Muslim suspects in separate episodes. In each case, CAIR immediately cast the shooting as unjustified, and demanded independent investigations. In each case, those wishes were granted. But when the reviews reached the opposite conclusion, that the shootings were justified based upon the suspect’s actions, CAIR refused to accept that the suspect may have escalated the situation. This emphasis on blaming law enforcement no matter what should be viewed in the context of CAIR’s campaign against the FBI illustrated in #10 above.
In 2009, agents shot and killed Detroit Imam Luqman Abdullah. Abdullah fired first as agents moved in to arrest him for conspiracy and weapons charges. A Justice Department Civil Rights Division investigation concluded that agents opened fire “only after Imam Abdullah brandished a concealed handgun and shot toward them and that they legitimately feared that Imam Abdullah was in a position to cause death or significant injury to another.”
Even though the report made a point of showing that audio recordings, ballistics and other evidence all corroborated the agents’ accounts, and even though “[a] Glock 9mm handgun was found next to Imam Abdullah after the shooting and it had been fired,” CAIR officials continued to cast the shooting as “an overblown military type raid.” CAIR dismissed the findings, along with similar conclusions from the Dearborn Police Department and Michigan attorney general, as “superficial and incomplete.”
Last month, CAIR again took issue with an independent investigation for failing to agree with their spin. Ibragim Todashev, a friend of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was shot and killed by an FBI agent after hours of questioning in his Florida apartment. Todashev, a “skilled mixed-martial arts fighter,” implicated himself in a triple murder in Massachusetts. Witnesses say he grew anxious and agitated before heaving a coffee table at the FBI agent, hitting him in the head. He grabbed a five-foot-long metal pole over his head “with the end of the pole pointed toward [the FBI agent] as if intended to be used to impale rather than strike,” the investigation found.
CAIR’s Tampa director said the report raised “several concerns and key inconsistencies and … many important unanswered questions.” The failure to bring charges hurts the FBI’s credibility, he wrote on Twitter.
Court opinion exposes BLM’s true intent against Cliven Bundy
For over 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management engaged in a “literal, intentional conspiracy” against Nevada ranchers to force them out of business, according to a federal judge whose court opinion exposes the BLM’s true intent against rancher Cliven Bundy.
In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.
“Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”
And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.
“The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.
Judge Jones continued:
In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.
By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages. The Government also explicitly solicited and granted temporary grazing rights to parties who had no preferences under the TGA [Taylor Grazing Act of 1934], such as Mr. Snow, in areas where the Hages had preferences under the TGA.
It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.
So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.
And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”
“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”
“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”
So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.
And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.
“Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No,” William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote on the subject. “Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.”
“With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.”
Former managing director of Goldman Sachs – and head of the international analytics group at Bear Stearns in London (Nomi Prins) - notes:
Throughout the century that I examined, which began with the Panic of 1907 … what I found by accessing the archives of each president is that through many events and periods, particular bankers were in constant communication [with the White House] — not just about financial and economic policy, and by extension trade policy, but also about aspects of World War I, or World War II, or the Cold War, in terms of the expansion that America was undergoing as a superpower in the world, politically, buoyed by the financial expansion of the banking community.
In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.
Now, on the other side of that war, for example, was the National City Bank, which, though they worked with Morgan in financing the French and the British, they also didn’t have a problem working with financing some things on the German side, as did Chase …
When Eisenhower became president … the U.S. was undergoing this expansion by providing, under his doctrine, military aid and support to countries [under] the so-called threat of being taken over by communism … What bankers did was they opened up hubs, in areas such as Cuba, in areas such as Beirut and Lebanon, where the U.S. also wanted to gain a stronghold in their Cold War fight against the Soviet Union. And so the juxtaposition of finance and foreign policy were very much aligned.
So in the ‘70s, it became less aligned, because though America was pursuing foreign policy initiatives in terms of expansion, the bankers found oil, and they made an extreme effort to activate relationships in the Middle East, that then the U.S. government followed. For example, in Saudi Arabia and so forth, they get access to oil money, and then recycle it into Latin American debt and other forms of lending throughout the globe. So that situation led the U.S. government.
Indeed, JP Morgan also purchased control over America’s leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in favor of US entry into World War 1.
And many big banks did, in fact, fund the Nazis.
The BBC reported in 1998:
Barclays Bank has agreed to pay $3.6m to Jews whose assets were seized from French branches of the British-based bank during World War II.
Chase Manhattan Bank, which has acknowledged seizing about 100 accounts held by Jews in its Paris branch during World War II ….”Recently unclassified reports from the US Treasury about the activities of Chase in Paris in the 1940s indicate that the local branch worked “in close collaboration with the German authorities” in freezing Jewish assets.
The New York Daily News noted the same year:
The relationship between Chase and the Nazis apparently was so cozy that Carlos Niedermann, the Chase branch chief in Paris, wrote his supervisor in Manhattan that the bank enjoyed “very special esteem” with top German officials and “a rapid expansion of deposits,” according to Newsweek.
Niedermann’s letter was written in May 1942 five months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. also went to war with Germany.
The BBC reported in 1999:
A French government commission, investigating the seizure of Jewish bank accounts during the Second World War, says five American banks Chase Manhattan, J.P Morgan, Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, Bank of the City of New York and American Express had taken part.
It says their Paris branches handed over to the Nazi occupiers about one-hundred such accounts.
One of Britain’s main newspapers – the Guardian – reported in 2004:
George Bush’s grandfather [and George H.W. Bush's father], the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings … continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act
The documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.
Bush was a founding member of the bank [UBC] … The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush’s father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany’s most powerful industrial family.
By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war.
Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.
UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler’s rise to power.
Indeed, banks often finance both sides of wars:
(The San Francisco Chronicle also documents that leading financiers Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman also funded Nazi eugenics programs … but that’s a story for another day.)
The Federal Reserve and other central banks also help to start wars by financing them .
Let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers.
The big banks have also been laundering money for terrorists. The big bank employee who blew the whistle on the banks’ money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels says that the giant bank is still aiding terrorists, saying:
The public needs to know that money is still being funneled through HSBC to directly buy guns and bullets to kill our soldiers …. Banks financing … terrorists affects every single American.
He also said:
It is disgusting that our banks are STILL financing terror on 9/11 2013.
And see this.
According to the BBC and other sources, Prescott Bush, JP Morgan and other leading financiers also funded a coup against President Franklin Roosevelt in an attempt – basically – to implement fascism in the U.S. See this, this, this and this.
Kevin Zeese writes:
Americans are recognizing the link between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street oligarchs—a connection that goes back to the beginning of the modern U.S. empire. Banks have always profited from war because the debt created by banks results in ongoing war profit for big finance; and because wars have been used to open countries to U.S. corporate and banking interests. Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan wrote: “the large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large profits.”
Many historians now recognize that a hidden history for U.S. entry into World War I was to protect U.S. investors. U.S. commercial interests had invested heavily in European allies before the war: “By 1915, American neutrality was being criticized as bankers and merchants began to loan money and offer credits to the warring parties, although the Central Powers received far less. Between 1915 and April 1917, the Allies received 85 times the amount loaned to Germany.” The total dollars loaned to all Allied borrowers during this period was $2,581,300,000. The bankers saw that if Germany won, their loans to European allies would not be repaid. The leading U.S. banker of the era, J.P. Morgan and his associates did everything they could to push the United States into the war on the side of England and France. Morgan said: “We agreed that we should do all that was lawfully in our power to help the Allies win the war as soon as possible.” President Woodrow Wilson, who campaigned saying he would keep the United States out of war, seems to have entered the war to protect U.S. banks’ investments in Europe.
The most decorated Marine in history, Smedley Butler, described fighting for U.S. banks in many of the wars he fought in. He said: “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
In Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins describes how World Bank and IMF loans are used to generate profits for U.S. business and saddle countries with huge debts that allow the United States to control them. It is not surprising that former civilian military leaders like Robert McNamara and Paul Wolfowitz went on to head the World Bank. These nations’ debt to international banks ensures they are controlled by the United States, which pressures them into joining the “coalition of the willing” that helped invade Iraq or allowing U.S. military bases on their land. If countries refuse to “honor” their debts, the CIA or Department of Defense enforces U.S. political will through coups or military action.
More and more people are indeed seeing the connection between corporate banksterism and militarism ….
Indeed, all wars are bankers’ wars.
For the purpose of this article the Baby is the Constitution and the Bath Water (which is usually pretty dirty) is the ConCon, Convention of the States or whatever name you want to give it. I have written about my feeling on this several times before and now I’m angry.
We have hard hitting Americans who influence the people of this country pushing for this monster – Mark Levin, George Soros, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, David Barton, Michael Farris, Mark Meckler and others and THEN we have organizations that are portraying themselves as Constitutional supportive Americans that are also supporting a ConCon. All of these people have an AGENDA as to why they want YOU to BELIEVE this is the thing to do.
To begin with, all these hard hitters in support of the ConCon might do well to actually learn what the Constitution says especially those like Michael Farris who calls himself a Constitutional lawyer. I would remind the readers so does Obama!
Have they ever told you there is a NEW Constitution sitting on the sidelines for them to vote on if they choose to? Have they told you that behind closed doors some of them refer to our country as a Democracy and not a Republic? The president and legislators may be acting like we are a democracy – even stating so, however according to the Constitution of the United States we are still a REPUBLIC and there is an order of the way things should be done. To call some of these people liars is a gentle word.
Let’s start with “Move To Amend” an online website gathering signatures to push for their support of a ConCon. They have a great deal of organizations that are supporting their efforts and they claim they have 330,178 signatures to prove it. Look at their national leaders – do you really want these Occupy, Liberal Democrats and the likes of George Soros leading the pack FOR a ConCon?
The web page also states “End Corporate Rule, Legalize Democracy.” That should get your attention. They claim their organization was founded because of a Supreme Court ruling on January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
It goes on to say, “The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.”
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.
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.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each INDIVUAL person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the GROUP. (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.)
When you read it this way you can better understand why SOME want to get rid of our flag and show no respect for it stating it’s just a piece of fabric, but when you say the Pledge of Allegiance you are not only pledging to the flag, but is the representation of the Republic.
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.” Remember, some of these supporters of a ConCon also want to rid our country of God.
Who are the people (BOD) behind this Move To Amend group? Ashley Sanders, long-time community activist, works for Peaceful Uprising a climate justice organization and helped organize Occupy Freedom DC and Salt Lake City; David Cobb, a lawyer who devotes himself to full time activism to achieve real democracy in the United States; Daniel Lee, is an active member of Occupy Los Angeles and Inter Occupy. He participated in Occupy encampments across the country as well as done community organizing locally in Los Angeles; and George Friday who has a degree in political science, is a community organizer and works on social justice change. There are 6 more with similar backgrounds but I am not going to bore you – you get the picture!
So this group wants to use a ConCon to make the world a better place by becoming a democracy on the Progressive, social justice side.
Here comes the right side – or those who tell us they are Conservative and believe in the Republic.
Mark Levin– I was a follower of Mark Levin however I cannot find a rational reason he is supporting/pushing the ConCon other than to back up what he stated in his book. My personal observation tells me that he has NOT done his homework. He also does not believe in Nullification – hum!
Levin’s reason for a ConCon is a “balanced budget” amendment of which makes no sense. We have laws on the books that require a budget every year to be submitted and passed – anyone know how long it has been since we even had a budget let alone a balanced one? If legislators cannot follow the laws we already have what makes the supporters of the ConCon think another amendment would change that?
What Mark Levin said in his book “The Liberty Amendments” is simply not true. His reasoning of a “balanced budget” amendment actually would legalize Congress’ unconstitutional spending and it does absolutely nothing to control the debt. The original writings of our Framers actually told the states what to do when the government violates the Constitution – Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of the recommended remedies – not one of which is an “amendment of the Constitution”.States should nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government yet most of the 50 states are refusing to do that! Why?
In Federalist No.44 (12th paragraph from end), Madison says elect more faithful representatives!But we keep reelecting the same sorry people because we know their names and they are in our party. So then you go read Washington’s Farewell address and he tells you the political parties will be the ruination of the country because of the egos of men – those very same men who are trying to tell us we need a ConCon so they can change whatever they want into whatever they want.
Those of us who respect our Constitution don’t want to change it but require Federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we have or elect ones who will. The Oath of Office in Art. VI, last clause, requires federal and state officials to support the Constitution. This requires them to refuse to submit to acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution. The Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone. The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any federal court.
David Barton – My spiritual self cannot get a handle on his support of this ConCon venture of which even his explanation is not clear – it’s like walking endlessly in a fog continually asking yourself ‘where did I miss the signs’, or ‘can I believe anything he has said’ and better still ‘can I still trust my gut instincts”? I have always had very good discernment – sometimes to a fault as people think I am “stuck-up” and it’s not that at all. I love people, but I never walk into a room until I have scoped it out entirely and find the best place to put myself. Actually this used to drive my kids nuts when they were growing up especially when it came to some of their choices in friends.
Michael Farris – He is referred to as a Constitutional Attorney (although this writer has found following Kris Anne Hall to be more truthful when it comes to constitutional law). He is the Executive Director of ParentalRights.org; founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Patrick Henry College. Home Schooler’s parents all over the country look to Farris almost as their protector and savior from the big bad wolves and he could be. But his total distortion in regards to the Parental Rights Act (PRA) is leading all parents down a path of parental rights destruction.
The Declaration of Independence tells us our Rights come from God not the government; they are unalienable. The very purpose of the government is to SECURE the rights God gave to us and when the government seeks to take away our rights it is time to throw them out with the “bath water.” The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights enumerates 30 + rights and states they come from “man” (constitution or laws). Not God but Man! Wrong!
Now to take a look at Michael Farris web site parentalrights.org and see what he says about our Rights. If you take the time to go to the web site you will see that once again it is being stated parental rights are coming from the Constitution and not God. That they are fundamental rights not unalienable rights. So now from what I read on the PR website they state:
Today the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is approaching a possible ratification by the United States Senate. This treaty, as harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with the long arm of government supervision within the home.
I will take Mr. Farris’ own words and turn them back on him. Yes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a very dangerous document and must never be agreed to by the United States; however, Mr. Farris uses that as an example to his followers as the very reason to support his PRA when they are no different. Both state parental rights are coming from the government not GOD. I wonder if some of the very religious Home School families realize this.
Now Mr. Farris, for unclear reasons, has decided we should put our entire Constitution on the line in aiding those who wish to firm up our country as a Democracy or even worse Tyranny by government.
From Publius Hildah Parental rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? 7/2-/13) Farris uses Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000) using this to support his own theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can’t enforce it, and the right can’t be protected. Scalia’s stated in part: parental rights are “unalienable and come from God and are from the 9th Amendment; the Declaration of Independence does NOT delegate power to the federal courts – only the federal constitution; It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights]; the federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what “rights” people have; and the federal Constitution does not mention “parental rights” so the federal courts have no “judicial power” over these types of cases.
In his closing, Scalia warned against turning family law over to the federal government:
“…If we embrace this un-enumerated right … we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.”
Parental Rights are a state issue so again, maybe Mr. Farris should go back to law school. When he says: “4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary’s exercise of its existing power” his words are false. The PRA expressly delegates power to the federal and state governments to infringe on God-given parental rights.
Do you want this man being in charge of any part of a ConCon or even believe his arguments?
Mark Meckler – Last but certainly not least is Mark Meckler the former co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) who at the time was drawing a monthly salary of $12K from grassroots donators to the TPP as well as Jennie Beth Martin and her husband. Meckler has moved on to forming Citizens for Self-Governance where he is the President. He states “their focus is on broadening the philosophical reach of the idea of ‘self-governance’ outside of the Tea Party movement.” So much for the former support of the grassroots guys! Now he is trying to play with the big boys!
His simple and mis-guided reasoning for the support of a ConCon is “By calling a convention of states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use.”The actual solution is nullification not reframing the Constitution.
This is interesting as we already have laws and the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in place with a feeding of the Federalist Papers to oversee all of what he mentions. The problem is the Politicians refuse to abide by any of them – so what is the point of adding more amendments?
Just what is the point gentlemen? Since you prescribe yourselves as Conservatives, what the hell are you doing lying in bed with George Soros!
Regardless of how people feel about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch.
They shouldn’t have been. Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces.
“Law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier,” journalist Radley Balko writes in his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop. “The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”
The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations.
Take the case of Kenneth Wright of Stockton, Calif., who was “visited” by a SWAT team from the U.S. Department of Education in June 2011. Agents battered down the door of his home at 6 a.m., dragged him outside in his boxer shorts, and handcuffed him as they put his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a police car for two hours while they searched his home. The raid was allegedly intended to uncover information on Wright’s estranged wife, Michelle, who hadn’t been living with him and was suspected of college financial-aid fraud.
The year before the raid on Wright, a SWAT team from the Food and Drug Administration raided the farm of Dan Allgyer of Lancaster, Pa. His crime was shipping unpasteurized milk across state lines to a cooperative of young women with children in Washington, D.C., called Grass Fed on the Hill. Raw milk can be sold in Pennsylvania, but it is illegal to transport it across state lines. The raid forced Allgyer to close down his business.
Brian Walsh, a senior legal analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says it is inexplicable why so many federal agencies need to be battle-ready: “If these agencies occasionally have a legitimate need for force to execute a warrant, they should be required to call a real law-enforcement agency, one that has a better sense of perspective. The FBI, for example, can draw upon its vast experience to determine whether there is an actual need for a dozen SWAT agents.”
Since 9/11, the feds have issued a plethora of homeland-security grants that encourage local police departments to buy surplus military hardware and form their own SWAT units. By 2005, at least 80 percent of towns with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 people had their own SWAT team. The number of raids conducted by local police SWAT teams has gone from 3,000 a year in the 1980s to over 50,000 a year today.
Once SWAT teams are created, they will be used. Nationwide, they are used for standoffs, often serious ones, with bad guys. But at other times they’ve been used for crimes that hardly warrant military-style raids. Examples include angry dogs, domestic disputes, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. In 2010, a Phoenix, Ariz., sheriff’s SWAT team that included a tank and several armored vehicles raided the home of Jesus Llovera. The tank, driven by the newly deputized action-film star Steven Seagal, plowed right into Llovera’s house. The incident was filmed and, together with footage of Seagal-accompanied immigration raids, was later used for Seagal’s A&E TV law-enforcement reality show.
The crime committed by Jesus Llovera was staging cockfights. During the sheriff’s raid, his dog was killed, and later all of his chickens were put to sleep.
Many veteran law-enforcement figures have severe qualms about the turn police work is taking. One retired veteran of a large metropolitan police force told me: “I was recently down at police headquarters for a meeting. Coincidently, there was a promotion ceremony going on and the SWAT guys looked just like members of the Army, except for the police shoulder patches. Not an image I would cultivate. It leads to a bad mindset.”
Indeed, the U.S. Constitution’s Third Amendment, against the quartering of troops in private homes, was part of an overall reaction against the excesses of Britain’s colonial law enforcement. “It wasn’t the stationing of British troops in the colonies that irked patriots in Boston and Virginia,” Balko writes. “It was England’s decision to use the troops for everyday law enforcement.”
There are things that can be done to curb the abuses without taking on the politically impossible job of disbanding SWAT units. The feds should stop shipping military vehicles to local police forces. Federal SWAT teams shouldn’t be used to enforce regulations, but should focus instead on potentially violent criminals. Cameras mounted on the dashboards of police cars have both brought police abuses to light and exonerated officers who were falsely accused of abuse. SWAT-team members could be similarly equipped with helmet cameras.
After all, if taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill and cede ground on their Fourth Amendment rights, they have the right to a transparent, accountable record of just what is being done in their name.
Questions over the “legacy” of Virginia son and Confederate General Robert E. Lee are emerging once again on the campus of the university named for him and George Washington in Lexington.
A group of law students want Washington & Lee to remove Confederate flags from the grounds, “acknowledge and apologize for participating in chattel slavery,” officially recognize Martin Luther King Day and ban a neo-Confederate march on campus during Lee-Jackson Day.
Their demands, of course, are not sitting well in a town where some would prefer the Stars and Bars flying in place of the American flag on streets.
Calling the students involved in the demands part of “a hotbed of these kinds” and claiming they “are not entitled to be offended,” the “commander” of the Lexington-based Stonewall Brigade of the Sons of Confederate Veterans told Luanne Rife of The Roanoke Times the students “would be better off in Communist China than in the United States.”
Strong words by Brandon Dorsey, the so-called “commander” who still thinks celebrating a war fought to protect “states’ rights” that included the “right” to own and use slaves is a source of pride.
As a native-born Southerner, I have long been bothered by the questionable practice of honoring those who, by most measures of patriotism, abandoned their country and became traitors by fighting against it.
When Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the United States Army and signed on to command the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, he became — under the Uniform Code of Military Justice — a traitor of the United States.
Is such an action worthy of honor? History has varying opinions on the matter but Virginia’s insistence of keeping a state holiday that honors both Lee and another Confederate general — Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson — for their actions raises questions about whether or not the hatred that sparked the Civil War is buried or still alive and well in the Commonwealth.
Confederate flags still fly in front of some homes (usually trailers with tires on the roofs) in our area or drape the back windows of pickup trucks that are also adorned with bumper stickers that say “Forget Hell!” or proclaim other beliefs that the reasons for the war were valid.
Anjelica Hendricks and Dominik Taylor are two Virginians among the seven students protesting W&L’s continuing “tradition” of honoring a sordid past.
Hendricks told The Roanoke Times that W&L ignores Lee’s failures as both an American and a human being when it asks students to “sign an honor contract to uphold our honor according to the honor of Robert E. Lee. Signing that contract in the shadow of a slave owner, and beneath plaques honoring Confederate soldiers, and battle flags bowing to a movement to keep black people enslaved is hurtful.”
“I’m a native of Virginia. I know what it’s like to remember the past,” she said in her interview with the Times. “However, I didn’t feel the racism and disrespect as I did in being asked to uphold an honor that aligns with the views of Lee.”
Taylor says the university’s practice of allowing neo-Confederates, costumed as soldiers of the South, to march across the campus and hold a ceremony on Lee-Jackson Day hurts students and faculty and dishonors the school.
Proponents of the right to honor Lee claim that he and his wife inherited slaves from her father and immediately set about to free them. History, however, sasy otherwise, noting that freedom for the slaves was part of Lee’s father-in-law’s will and that Lee fought in court to delay that freedom before Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation forced him and other slave owners to comply.
Which, once again, raises the question:
Was Robert E. Lee a patriot or a traitor?
- In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
- In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
- In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
- In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
- In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
- In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
- In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
- In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
- In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.
- In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
- In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
- In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
- In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
- In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
- In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
- In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
- In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
- In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
- As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, nor Republican conservative was involved in these shootings and murders.
ONLY SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
According to FOX News, two Long Island, New York high school students have been suspended from school for displaying a Confederate flag to a school sporting event.
Brother Gary Cregan, the principal at St. Anthony’s High School in South Huntington, told WCBS-TV the boys walked into the after-hours sporting event with the flag draped around their shoulders.
“The African-American students who immediately saw it really exercised heroic restraint and fortunately a teacher immediately confiscated the flag and took the students out of the gym,” Cregan said.
While everyone can agree that the Confederate flag may represent hate to many, the flag is also a symbol of heritage in the “Deep South.”
But what about free speech? Isn’t it the rights of these two men, as well as every other American, to express themselves however they please?
If the Confederate flag is considered so racist, and should not be banned from being displayed in public, then how about banning the Nation of Islam flag, as well as the Black Panther flag?
Back in the 1900′s when the Confederate flag proudly flew throughout the southern United States, it wasn’t displayed to call attention the slavery of blacks that was occurring, but to represent those southern states.
There is a very big difference here between the Confederate flag and those flags from the Black Panther Party, Nation of Islam, and the KKK, which all convey outright hatred.