America's Enemies

2011-11-06T10:52:00.000-08:00

The purpose of this TOC is to make it easier to get to posts that might be of particular interest to the visitors. To this end, I've added a brief description of what can be found in each post. To get to the post, just click the title in the TOC. No need to use the archives. To return just click the "Return to TOC" label at the end of each post.

When I created this TOC I just followed the order entry, but this just leaves what I feel are the most important posts under the pile. These were the reason I started the blog. It was my intention to make available information not as well known nor so readily available on the internet. What I am doing now is bringing those posts to the front of the TOC. Chronological order is still maintained in the archives. For now, I'm deciding what is the best order. I’m also thinking of just adding the links to the related posts in the description of the main topic. This will be a work in progress.

I'd appreciate it if you'd drop me a comment if you find this useful.

The truth is out there. -- Fox Mulder
The truth is. The problem is getting it out there! -- PhreedomPhan

America's Ruling Party : The Council on Foreign Relations

Founded by Edward Mandel House who was called Woodrow Wilson's alter-ego, this organization is funded by the extremely wealthy and their foundations. It has been working to undermine our national sovereignty at least since the Roosevelt administration. To bring about the World Government they seek, it was first necessary to bring down the standard of living of the American people and other advanced peoples of the world. In the words of former Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker, “The standard of living of the average American must come down.” Our current economic mess is the result of their ongoing efforts to accomplish this.

Rhodes and His Scholars
Cecil Rhodes, diamond magnate and British Imperialist, dedicate his ill gotten fortune to the establishment of a secret society to spread the Empire around the globe and to return the United States to England. In this post, several articles give a general background on Rhodes and his schemes followed by a series of articles that ran in the Chicago Tribune in 1951 about Cecil's Termites gnawing at the foundations of our Republic. In time, I hope to break these down into separate blogs to make them easier reading and facilitate access to individual articles.

----------------------------------------

Below is the regular order of posts.

----------------------------------------
Uncommon Criminals
In earlier posts in this blog, the Department of (in)Justice was shown to be a nest of traitors and enemies of America. This exposes its criminal nature.

Secret Service, Tacoma Police Department, Principal of Truman Middle School, Tacoma School District
The gangsterment is really getting paranoid. In this latest episode of police state thuggery, a 13 year old school boy is interrogated for a half hour without his mother's permission or presence. This teenage "terrorist" is lucky he wasn't water-boarded. His crime? A Facebook post the SS agent who interrogated him said threatened Obama. Is the New World Order running scared?

Banks And Banksters - Part I

The truth being spread about how the banks and banksters manipulate our economy through the money supply and are transferring everything we own to themselves has apparently put the banksters on the defensive. The blatant lies of Citizens Bank show a hint of desperation.

Banks will be on shaky ground as long as Jefferson continues to speak to us from the grave as he does here.

A Litmus Test for Enemies

Our natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms as recognized by the Second Amendment---a test of the loyalty of politicians and bureaucrats to America and its founding principles and to the American people. This test can be used by peoples of other lands to see if they are viewed as citizens or subjects.

Internet Censors

A list of the enemies of liberty who voted for a bill that would likely end in draconian censorship of all on the internet who don't toe the government line with some thoughts on the bill.

Department of Justice -- Part 2

Follow up evidence of the DoJ's bias against the white majority. A case against New Black Panther Party members who intimidated voters in a Philadelphia election district in 2008 was dismissed by the Department after a default judgement had already been rendered against them.

Evidence of the DoJ's bias against whites, blacks, and almost everyone else. A rabid rabbi in Israel has published a book giving justification for killing non-Jews.

Dan Onorato

An enemy of representative government, Onorato wants to reduce the number of representatives in the Pennsylvania State House.

Department of Justice

A report by the Department intended for law enforcement officials attacks patriots and defenders of the Constitution among others. This abomination has earned the DoJ a place among America's most infamous enemies.

Southern Poverty Law Center

A letter from a patriotic American to the racist, un-American SPLC and the Department of Justice concerning lists of pro-America groups to be watched and possibly prosecuted for their patriotic activities.

More Enemies In Congress

A list of 50 members of the House and Senate who have consistently supported immigration, both legal and illegal to the detriment of American workers and our national sovereignty.

Barack Obama

Obama's TV production of him and his family swimming in the Gulf may have been a fraud. If so great danger may lie in wait for those who actually swim in the Gulf or consume Gulf produce.

Early Lives of Some of Our Enemies

Video from the childhoods of some of our present enemies in Washington. Updated 2/09/11 to replace defunct url.

Racist NAACP

NAACP intolerance of political dissent has earned it a listing in this Hall of Shame.

A Note of Appreciation

One person's view of how the "elite" view us worker bugs.

Nothing Changes

William Henry Harrison notes that, from the time of ancient Rome to the time of his inauguration unkept campaign promises have been the rule. He was inaugurated in 1841. Has anyone noted any change in that? Of course not! The first rule of politics is still promise them anything but give them the shaft.

Mexican Bandit Invades America

Last week, Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico, made a state visit to the United States. It was not a friendly visit. He came to attack Arizona and U.S. immigration policies. Although he obviously was not extending the hand of friendship, he was doubtlessly extending the hand with a tin cup. Obama, ever our enemy, sided with this bandit. I'm sure he also filled the cup.

AMERICA'S ENEMIES IN THE SENATE

A list of 59 of the 60 Senators who voted for the healthcare Obamanation despite the wishes of the majority of the American people, and, in many cases, the States that they were originally intended to represent.

AMERICA'S ENEMIES IN THE HOUSE

This is a list of those Congressmen who voted for the healthcare Obamanation despite the wishes of the majority that they are supposed to represent.

INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF - GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE

Graphic depiction of the source of Gorebull Warming.

AMERICA'S CORPORATE ENEMIES

A list of corporate members of the CFR from the CFR. Do you see many surprises there?

RULING PARTY'S MEDIA CONTROL - FOX NEWS
This is an addendum to the media control I showed in "America's Ruling Party." "Conservatives swear by Fox and "liberals" swear at Fox. Both are wasting their breath. Fox is controlled by the Ruling Party and is, therefore, an enemy of America.

I HAD A DREAM
I've always been upset by the willingness of our "leaders" to associate with some of the worst mass murderers on our planet. The visit of Richard Nixon to China and the resumption of trade with the butchers of Beijing while events in Korea were still fairly fresh in my mind inspired a nightmare. At the time we were shaking hands with the Butchers of Beijing, we were imposing sanctions against South Africa for human rights violations. Now we're doing about the same regarding China and Iran. I pointed out the hypocrisy in "New World Order - Death of America in my lostliberty blog. Recent events regarding China, Obama and our State Department might make that dream disturb my sleep once again.

AN APOLOGY
This is an apology for the lousy job I did on the BILDERBERG PLANS post with a link to a great blog with a post that covers the subject thoroughly.

BILDERBERG PLANS

Brief summary of the Bilderberg plans made in this year's meeting as reported in Global Research

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT – DOMESTIC ENEMY NO. 1

Letters written to Contract Engineering Weekly in 1990. The first blames our decline on the decline of the engineer and the second on the government.

BILDERBERG 2009
This is a preliminary list of invitees to the 2009 Bilderberg meeting in Greece. The Bilderberg Group is another elitist enemy of America and all mankind. (Just an aside: Isn't it amazing how the dregs of society are called "elite?")

Did I Offend Anyone?

Obama rated by the Black Agenda Report

Bailouts – The Sinking of the American Ship of State
Bailout money from the American taxpayers will be used by GM to ship the equivalent production of four assembly plants to Mexico, South Korea, and China. From “The Nation.” What's that about “None dare call it treason?”

Rhodes – The Beat Goes On
The efforts of the late Rhodes Scholar Clarence Streit to undermine our national sovereignty continues in the Streit Council

“Uncle Tom” Not In Charge
Who really runs “National Security? Is there a government behind the government?

Obama Continues Web of Treason
When is change not?

Interdependence
Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. – Sir John Harrington (1561 – 1612)

Trilateral Commission : Shock Troops of the Council on Foreign Relations
It matters little who gets elected. Trilateralists in either administration will continue to work for the Council's goal of making these United States a footnote in history.

America's Ruling Party : The Council on Foreign Relations
Founded by Edward Mandel House who was called Woodrow Wilson's alter-ego, this organization is funded by the extremely wealthy and their foundations. It has been working to undermine our national sovereignty at least since the Roosevelt administration. To bring about the World Government they seek, it was first necessary to bring down the standard of living of the American people and other advanced peoples of the world. In the words of former Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker, “The standard of living of the average American must come down.” Our current economic mess is the result of their ongoing efforts to accomplish this.

America's Ruling Party and the Neo-Cons – The “Neo-Con” Project for a New American Century was dominated by the CFR and the TC.

America's Ruling Party and the Neo-MidRoaders – This is the name I gave the gang that wrote “American Agenda: A Report to the Forty-First President of the United States.” They were co- chaired by Gerald Ford (Bilderbergers? and CFR} and Jimmy Carter (CFR and TC). Rhodes Scholars and one or more Club of Rome members were included. No less than four global elitist groups were among those giving advice to the President.

America's Ruling Party and the Neo-Libs – Again, a name I gave those “conservative” businessmen who ported over to the “New Deal” in much the same way the McGovern “liberals” ported to the Republican party to become the “Neo-Cons. No Trilaterals here because the TC didn't come into being until 1973, but all six were or became CFR members.

The Six “Wise” Men- These are the “Neo-Libs” summarized. The are a fine collection of elitists, traitors, Anglophiles (who I've come to hold in loathing and contempt much as I hold Pedophiles), and Bonesmen.

America's Ruling Party and the Media – Shows how a group with a membership that I don't believe has ever exceeded 15 ten thousandths of 1% of the population has remained semi-secret while dominating every administration for three quarters of a century. They've even got Kermit and Cookie Monster doing their dirty work.

America's Ruling Party in the Encyclopedia – As powerful and important this organization is, there is almost no mention of it in the encyclopedias. What is written about it is written with the approval of the CFR.

Rhodes and His ScholarsCecil Rhodes, diamond magnate and British Imperialist, dedicate his ill gotten fortune to the establishment of a secret society to spread the Empire around the globe and to return the United States to England. In this post, several articles give a general background on Rhodes and his schemes followed by a series of articles that ran in the Chicago Tribune in 1951 about Cecil's Termites gnawing at the foundations of our Republic. In time, I hope to break these down into separate blogs to make them easier reading and facilitate access to individual articles.

Uncommon Criminals

2011-11-06T07:34:00.000-08:00

I chose to call the subject of this post “Uncommon Criminals” because I believe “Common Criminals” to be a higher, more honorable class of criminals. The common variety make no pretext that what they are doing is legal nor do they hypocritically send others to jail for what may well be lesser crimes. Betraying the public trust is, in my opinion, among the highest crimes committed.

The Department of (in)Justice is the bureaucracy charged with enforcing the laws of the federal government. It calls Americans who believe in the Constitution and our national sovereignty or who are “anti-authoritarian” domestic terrorists and criminal extremists and those who expose the Federal Reserve and our fraudulent monetary system “unique terrorists” The DO(in)J says the latter represent a “clear and present danger to our economic stability.” All of this has earned the Department dishonorable mention in other posts in this blog. Now it has been exposed as a gang of thieves.

According to reports from Justice Department auditors and the department’s acting inspector general, Cynthia A. Schnedar, members of the Department have been paying outrageous sums for goods and services in connection with a number of “conferences.” These officials call the inexcusable spending by their colleagues, “wasteful and extravagant.” Are these terms euphemisms for corrupt and extortionate?

Some of the items these people squandered the taxpayers' money on are:

$16 muffins at the Capital Hilton in Washington
a $76-per-person lunch at a conference at a Hilton in San Francisco
$8.24 a cup coffee to go with that lunch
platters of Swedish Meatballs costing $5 per meatball

Ten law enforcement conferences that ran through Bush and Obama administrations saw:

cookies and brownies at almost $10 each and beef Wellington hors d'oeuvres at $7.32 per serving

Five conferences cost $600,000 for “event planning” services and a total of $121 million was spent in 2008 and 2009 on 1,832 conferences.

The officials who criticized this outrage were careful to call it “wasteful spending.” Pardon my cynicism, but I have to believe kickbacks, favors, maybe promises of jobs when the government jobs are done, and donations to political war chests were exchanged for this “wasteful spending.” Maybe the person who signed off on the check for $4200 for 250 assorted muffins had “Muffin” as a roommate for the duration of the conference.

Officials in one office had the audacity to say they thought they were saving money by serving muffins and other snacks instead of full meals. Very uncommon criminals indeed.

[If helping these uncommon criminals send common criminals to jail pains your conscience, see: ]

http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/2011/11/jury-nullification.html

Source:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2781415/posts

Return to TOC

Secret Service, Tacoma Police Department, Principal of Truman Middle School, Tacoma School District

2011-05-19T12:00:00.000-07:00

Dana Rebik of Fox News in Tacoma, Washington reported that a 13 year old, Vito LaPinta, a seventh grader from the Tacoma School District is apparently one of our latest “terror” threats.

A Secret Service agent had the boy torn from his fourth period class without his mother's knowledge or permission to interrogate him over a post on his Facebook page.

Vito was called to the principal's office. After sitting in the vice-principal's office for ten minutes without being told why he was there, a man walked in and said he was with the Secret Service. The boy was told his Facebook post indicated he was a threat to the President. What was this “threatening” post? According to Vito, "I was saying how Osama was dead and for Obama to be careful because there could be suicide bombers." In other words, the boy says he was just saying Obama could be targeted for murder by a hit man or squad just as was Bin Laden.

His mother, Timi Robertson, said she'd just finished lunch when she received a call from the school. The principal didn't have the guts to make the call himself but delegated the dirty work to a security guard. The guard told Mrs. Robertson that the boy was already being interrogated by the SS and the Tacoma Police Department.

The school district tried to excuse the inexcusable by saying the principal was on another line. What could have been more important than notifying a parent that his/her child was being interrogated by the SS.

The claim was also made that they didn't think the mother took the call from the guard seriously so they went ahead without her permission or presence. Mrs. Robertson called that a “blatant lie” and said she rushed to Truman Middle School and learned her boy had already been interrogated for half an hour.

This raises a question. Vito's mom took the call seriously, but how many moms and dads would when the call is made by a “security guard?” I would probably take it as someone's idea of a bad joke.

The teenager said the agent finished the interview and told the boy he was not in any trouble when his mom showed up.

Fox News reports that civil-rights attorney John Kinnan said the law has been a little vague since 9/11.

It quotes Kinnan, "Children in a school do have a right to have their parent present during questioning by police or government agents, but it depends on the age of the child and severity of what the charge against the child is."

The U.S. Attorney's office said government agents can interview a minor without a parent’s knowledge or consent, but magnanimously added that doesn't mean the child has to answer.

Again Fox quotes Kinnan, "They could invoke their rights under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent or further invoke their rights under the Sixth Amendment, to have an attorney present during any questioning," Sure, the average thirteen year old child is going to invoke his/her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when being terrorized by federal agents. The teenager would probably then be informed that that only applied in America under the old order. Under the new order they have the right to be water-boarded.

Fox reporter Rebik says, “His mother says she isn't financially able to take legal action but hopes her family's story raises awareness about the treatment she said her son endured.” The sad thing is that, even if she were able to sue, the perpetrators of this crime would not be punished. The taxpayers, who were also victims of these official crimes, whose rights have also been tread on, would be stuck with the bill.

You might wonder how the Fedstapo learned of this child's Facebook post. In a related Fox article, security consultant Mike Andrews is quoted as saying, "In the process of crawling the Facebook web page of this young man, it (a special program) came across the key words that alerted the program and sent a notification. Then an agent got involved, ...”

Furthermore, under Clinton, the National Security Agency started a surveillance network called "Echelon" that monitors electronic communications around the world. Yes, Virginia! Your Big Brother is listening to your phone call.

The Secret Service agent told Vito’s mom that there are teams of people whose only job is to track every text, every post, whether it’s Twitter, Facebook... and cue on specific words.

A couple of afterthoughts. I find it amazing that the Secret Service is so paranoid or so lacks confidence in its ability to protect the President (or both) that they find a Facebook post from a 13 year old schoolboy threatening. It's also obvious that we have gone full circle from government of man by law to government of man by outlaws.

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-secret-service-the-feds-question-a-tacoma-seventh-grader-for-a-facebook-comment-about-president-obama-and-suicide-bombers-20110516,0,5762882.story

Return to TOC

The Banks and Banksters - Part I

2011-03-21T23:17:00.000-07:00

This is what I hope will be the first of many exposing the banks and banksters as the enemies of America and of the world. Unfortunately, I've been having a difficult time knuckling down to write and when I do words don't flow as they once did.

Two things inspired me to write this, or maybe I should say, to put it together because Jefferson wrote most of it.

One was the infuriating commercials that aired during the football season. In particular ads by Citizens Bank featuring Alexander Hamilton as the champion of “good” banking.

Anyone who knows Hamilton's record knows he was an economic royalist, that he either convinced or conspired with Washington to saddle us with our first national bank against the advice of Jefferson, and that he tried to sell us the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.

Without that, it a blueprint for a totalitarian central government of, by, and for his wealthy friends. We also know that he was a liar just by reading his contributions to the Federalist Papers. The claims he made regarding the limitations on the federal government were sustained for awhile, but only by the First Ten Amendments. They have long been ignored and the truth of the tyranny Hamilton gave us is becoming more evident even to some of the slowest thinkers among us.

One good thing about those commercials is that the truth about banking is apparently becoming more widely known and has put the banksters on the defensive. The thrust of the commercials did not even seem to be to sell Citizens Bank. It was a blatant bankster propaganda piece to counter the spreading truth. The big lie in these commercials was their claim of how banking works. We were told that one “citizen” would take his money and put it in the bank. The bank would then loan this money to another “citizen” who wants to build a house, start a business, or to finance some other project (I don't remember the exact examples given).

The illusion was created that “citizens” were the source of loans to “citizens” to build the economy. Nothing was mentioned of how the banks expand that depositor's money many times with simple bookkeeping entries that placed the "money" in the accounts of many borrowers. Citizens Bank didn't bother to mention that they were creating inflation with etherbacks—that they were drawing interest on the deposited money many times over, a system that can ultimately lead only to bank ownership of everything. If Jefferson opposed greenbacks that had nothing of substance behind them, how much more horrified would he have been at the concept of the etherback that hasn't even a physical substance of its own.

This post pertains to banking systems all over the world, and anyone with observational skills should be able to see that this is the cause of the pending collapse of the dollar and the world's financial ills. The rich continue to get richer, the poor poorer, and the independent middle-class wiped out.

Jefferson

BANK (NATIONAL) (INTEREST)

"If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing...it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight to ten per cent on it.

As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which...before we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred millions of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest..."
(Letter to Eppes).

"Here we have a set of people...who have bestowed on us the great blessing of running in our debt about 200 millions of dollars, without our knowing who they are or what they are... And to fill up the measure of blessings, instead of paying, they receive an interest on what they owe...

And they are so ready still to deal out their liberalities to us that they are willing to let themselves run our debt ninety millions more, on our paying them the same premium of six or eight percent interest..."
(Letter to Eppes, November 6, 1813).

"(T)he toleration of banks of paper discount, costs the United States one-half of their war taxes, or, in other words, doubles the expenses of every war."
(Letter to Eppes).

BANK (NATIONAL) (MONOPOLY)

"The monopoly of a single bank is certainly an evil."
(Letter to Gallatin, 1802).

THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY
Book edited by Saul Padover (1953)

"The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things...

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly...

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution."
(Opinion Opposing the Bank, February 15, 1791).

BANK (NATIONAL) (STOCK OWNED BY CONGRESS)

"My wish was to see both Houses of Congress cleansed of all persons interested in the bank or public stocks; and that a pure legislature being given us, I should always be ready to acquiesce under their deliberations, even if contrary to my own opinions; for I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority, honestly expressed, should give law."

BANK (NATIONAL) (THREAT TO GOVERNMENT)

"This institution (Bank of the U.S.) is one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution... an institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government."
(Letter to Gallatin, 1803).

BANK (NATIONAL) (THREAT TO LIBERTY)

"If the American People ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.

The issuing power of money should be taken from the bankers and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs.

I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies."

"We are completely saddled and bridled, and the bank is so firmly mounted on us that we must go where they ill guide."

"The dominion which the banking institutions have obtained over the minds of our citizens...must be broken, or it will break us."
(Letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815).

DEBT (NATIONAL)

"Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unencumbered by their predecessors, who like them, were but tenants for life."
(Letter to John Taylor, Monticello, May 28, 1816).

PAPER MONEY

"The unlimited emission of bank paper has banished all her (Great Britain's) specie, and is now, by depreciation ...carrying her rapidly to bankruptcy as it did France, and as it did us, and... every country permitting paper to be circulated, other than that held by public authority, rigorously limited to the just measure for circulation.

Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of these self-elected money-lenders, and are frustrated by the flood of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us..."

"(P)aper is poverty...it is only the ghost of money and not money itself."
(Letter to Edward Carrington).

"Although all the nations of Europe have tried and trodden every path of force and folly in a fruitless quest of the same object, yet WE still expect to find in juggling tricks and banking dreams, that money can be made out of nothing, and in sufficient quantity to meet the expenses of a heavy war..."
(Letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815).

"There is scarcely a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh--get first the people's money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever."

"(S)pecie is the most perfect medium, because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and is the surest resource of reliance in time of war; that the trifling economy of paper...weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals; that (paper currency) has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it permitted; that it is already at a term of abuse in these States, which has never been reached in any nation, France excepted, whose deadly catastrophe (under John Law) should be a warning against the instrument which produced it; that we are already at ten or twenty times the due quantity of (necessary) medium; insomuch that no man knows what his property is worth...

Instead, then, of yielding to the cries of scarcity of medium... no endeavors should be spared to begin the work of reducing it by such gradual means as may give time to private fortunes to preserve their poise, and settle down with the subsiding medium; and that, for this purpose, the States should be urged to concede to the General Government...the exclusive power of establishing banks" with power to issue currency.

"The Federal Government--I deny their power to make paper money a legal tender."

"We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper.

It is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burthen all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs.

Prudent men must be on their guard in this game of Robin's alive, and take care that the spark does not extinguish in their hands.

I am an enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but coin.

But our whole country is so fascinated by this Jack-lantern wealth, that they will not stop short of its total and fatal explosion."

It's sad, but this last prediction of Jefferson is coming true today. Our children, and our children's children unto the third and fourth generation will have justification to curse us. Let's hope enough truth survives to allow the fifth generation to free itself from bondage.

Return to TOC

A Litmus Test for Enemies

2011-03-15T17:08:00.000-07:00

I found the following article on the website of L. Neil Smith. While many criminal acts, including acts of treason have been committed by the people and groups listed in this blog, Smith provides a true litmus test that can be applied to any local, state, federal, or “world” government official, elected or appointed. Any politician or bureaucrat who wants to take away or infringe in any way upon your natural right to defend yourself, the natural right of all living organisms, recognized not granted by the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, is an enemy of America...is YOUR ENEMY! Peoples from other countries can apply this test to their own government officials. If they don't trust you with the means to protect yourself, you should not trust them with the power of government.

http://www.lneilsmith.org/

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns? by L. Neil Smith

lneil@lneilsmith.org

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

I think it appropriate to follow Mr. Smith's article with this summary of Paul Harvey's death count of disarmed peoples of the world. It offers a good test of the motivation of those seeking to disarm you.

"That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated."

The Harvey count is posted in:
http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/2011/01/go-ahead-tread-on-me.html

Return to TOC

Internet Censors

2010-12-20T16:39:00.000-08:00

The following is a list of Senators who voted for the COICA bill. Sold as a bill to prevent piracy, if passed, it is far more likely to be used to censor the internet. The story, as it arrived in my email, apparently comes from at least two sources, Aletho News and the American Post – Gazette.

There are probably many who have inadvertently violated copyright laws. Their sites and blogs might well be shutdown under this law as was done with wikileaks. In fact, possibly every site on the internet that passes on something they read on another site could be shutdown. Since the Book Burning Act of 1978, it isn't even necessary to register a copyright. Just the act of publishing automatically copyrights it. So says a flyer printed by an office supply store and given to people wanting to have copies made of something that may be protected. If you have no proof that what you want copied is in the public domain or that you have permission from the copyright owner, they won't print it unless it was published prior to 1923, hence, the “Book Burning Act.” Of course, the shutting down will likely be selective with those sites that oppose America's Big Brother government comprising the bulk.

According to the email I received, a number of law professors have explained the unconstitutionality of the bill, but it doesn't matter to those pushing it, including a number of Senators who have been denouncing censorship in other countries.

This is the list. Some are repeat offenders having already supported the healthcare obamanation and/or illegal immigration or “liberalized” immigration laws.

* Patrick J. Leahy – Vermont also “healthcare” and defender of illegals or “liberalized” laws

* Herb Kohl – Wisconsin also “healthcare”

* Jeff Sessions - Alabama

* Dianne Feinstein – California also “healthcare”

* Orrin G. Hatch - Utah

* Russ Feingold – Wisconsin also “healthcare” and defender of illegals or “liberalized” laws

* Chuck Grassley - Iowa

* Arlen Specter – Pennsylvania also “healthcare”

* Jon Kyl - Arizona

* Chuck Schumer - New York also “healthcare”

* Lindsey Graham - South Carolina

* Dick Durbin – Illinois also “healthcare”

* John Cornyn - Texas

* Benjamin L. Cardin – Maryland also “healthcare” and defender of illegals or “liberalized” laws

* Tom Coburn - Oklahoma

* Sheldon Whitehouse - Rhode Island also “healthcare”

* Amy Klobuchar – Minnesota also “healthcare”

* Al Franken – Minnesota also “healthcare”

* Chris Coons – Delaware (This is the clown that thinks part of the First Amendment deals with a “separation of church and state.”)

The list came to me with the following comment: “You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like. We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.”

To be fair, there may be sound reasoning behind the government and its controllers wanting to effectively shutdown the internet. What do you think?

http://rense.com/1.mpicons/deesA1.htm

Return to TOC

Department of Justice -- Part 2

2010-10-12T17:23:00.000-07:00

Here's further evidence supporting my contention that the DoJ's extremist list is biased against the white majority. According to an article in the Washington Times on Friday, September 24, 2010 a Federal prosecutor accused the Justice Dept. of reverse racism saying the Civil Rights Division is 'hostile' to 'race-neutral enforcement.' But is it really black bias or just a part of the old Tyrant's game of divide and conquer?

Included with the posting was Video footage showing two men in front of a polling site for the 4th Division of Philadelphia's Ward 14 on Election Day 2008. One was holding a nightstick. Eventually they were asked by police to leave.

“The Justice Department supervisor who recommended pursuing a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party testified Friday that the department's Civil Rights Division has engaged in reverse racism, refusing to bring charges in voting cases unless the victim is a minority” reports the Times.

The Times says Coates was chief of the DoJ's Voting Rights section when the case was brought in 2009. He is now on an 18-month detail with the U.S. Attorney's office in South Carolina.

Naturally, DoJ officials have denied any wrong-doing when they dismissed the case after winning a default judgment, but Mr. Coates differs with Department officials. He is quoted by the Times,
"Based upon my own personal knowledge of the events surrounding the division's actions in the Panther case and the atmosphere that existed and continues to exist in the division and in the voting section against fair enforcement of certain federal voting laws, I do not believe these representations to this commission accurately reflect what occurred in the Panther case and do not reflect the hostile atmosphere that existed within the division for a long time against race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act."

According to the Times, Mr. Coates said this hostility became clear to him while pursuing a 2005 Mississippi case in which white voters were the victims of intimidation. He said some department employees refused to work on the case, which, according to Mr. Coates, also drew criticism from civil rights groups.

Obama's election allowed those most opposed to "race-neutral enforcement" to move into leadership positions against the Civil Rights Division according to Coates. One of those officials, then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, ordered the dismissal of the New Black Panther case.

The Times article revealed that two New Black Panther Party members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets with military insignias intimidated voters with racial slurs and a nightstick. A third-party member was accused of directing their behavior.

The Times tells us, “Since January, Mr. Coates has been working as an assistant U.S. Attorney in South Carolina. He testified Friday that he volunteered for the post when it became [obvious?] Justice officials were stripping him of his authority and he could not effectively do his job as chief of the voting rights section.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/24/justices-panther-pursuer-testifies-about-reverse-r/

If the Justice Department is going to use the black minority to oppress the white majority, then it appears they are in turn going to use the even smaller Jewish minority to oppress all.

An article by Max Blumenthal in Truthdig dated August 30, 2010 is titled “How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews,”

It exposes “a rabbinical guidebook for killing non-Jews” While the book has generated considerable opposition in Israel, according to Blumenthal it has “exposed the power a bunch of genocidal theocrats wield over the government.”

The book, “Torat Ha'Melech” was described by an Israeli tabloid as "230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew." According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

[Reminiscent of Holocaust I when the Jews slaughtered Canaanite men, women, and children indiscriminately.]

Blumenthal describes a gathering of “top fundamentalist rabbis” at Jerusalem's Ramada Renaissance hotel saying the rabbis “flaunted their political power.” They said they wouldn't submit to attempts by the government “to regulate their political activities,” especially inciting terrorist attacks against non-Jews. The meeting, says Blumenthal, “degenerated into calls for murdering not just non-Jews, but secular Jews as well.”

"The obligation to sacrifice your life is above all others when fighting those who wish to destroy the authority of the Torah," bellowed Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, head of the yeshiva in the Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Gan. "It is not only true against non-Jews who are trying to destroy it but against Jewish people from any side."

I find this mind boggling! We are constantly bombarded with condemnations of Muslims who are ready to sacrifice their lives in a holy war against those who do not believe as they do, but this is the first I'd heard of their Israeli counterparts. It appears that not only the DoJ, but our entire government, in collusion with the media, is intent on keeping this their dirty little secret.

Shapira leads the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in Yitzhar controlling a small army of fanatics intent on attacking peaceful Palastinians as they tend their crops and livestock we are told. Despite what Blumenthal calls “its apparent role” training terrorists, Od Yosef Chai has received around $300,000 from the Israeli Ministries of Social Affairs and of Education. I has also received considerable support from an American tax-exempt non-profit called the Central Fund of Israel located inside the Marcus Brothers Textiles store in Manhattan.

Try as I may, I could not find Od Yosef Chai, nor the Central Fund of Israel, nor Marcus Brothers Textiles in the DoJ's list of terrorists and extremist organizations. Must have been an oversight.

Another murderous thug mentioned in the article as a supporter of the book is Dov Lior. We are told he has his own “eliminationist attitude” toward non-Jews. He told soldiers “There is no such thing a civilians in wartime... A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail.

Despite nominal condemnation of the book and its following, the Israeli government obviously does not intend to take any action against the book, its author, or his followers. I can't help but wonder if the book is subtitled, “The Final Solution to the Gentile Question.”

The DoJ tells us that the Protocols were a forgery by the Tsar's Secret Police. Will future generations “learn” that Torat Ha'Melech was a forgery of the Iranian Secret Police?

Max Blumenthal is the author of Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books, 2009) has just been released. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.

I highly recommend reading the entire article. I'm not sure, but it may be necessary to sign up with Truthdig, if so, that may only be necessary to make comments.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/a_handbook_for_killing_non-jews_20100901/

Return to TOC

Dan Onorato

2010-10-09T13:09:00.000-07:00

I know little of Dan Onorato, the Democratic candidate for governor of PA, that he hasn't told the people of Pennsylvania in his TV ads. That's enough to label him an enemy of republican principles and, therefore, an enemy of America.

In his ads, Onorato, the Democratic candidate for governor, has announced his intention to reduce state spending by reducing the pay of State representatives and by reducing their numbers. That's the last thing we need. We have too little representation as it is. For the most part, the government is left in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one. This is the goal of Regionalism and was the goal of the Fabians in England as early as the turn of the last century. If Onorato is sincere about reducing the State budget, there is the fertile field. Reduce the numbers, pay, and retirement benefits of these parasites who are not answerable to the citizens of Pennsylvania.

This is not to be construed as an endorsement of his opponent or opponents.

Return To TOC

Department of Justice

2010-10-05T12:54:00.000-07:00

The report of the Department of Justice mentioned by Sally O'Boyle in her letter (see previous post on SPLC) has certainly earned the Department a place among America's Enemies. There is so much drivel in this publication that to try to analyze and comment on the whole thing would take a small book. I've just taken some excerpts to illustrate my contentions regarding the DoJ and its report. For the most part, I've just dealt with the domestic end of it, leaving out the Middle East groups cited. Most of my comments are totally serious, but a few I may have made with tongue partially inserted in cheek because the whole report is so absurd.

“Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism—Terms and Concepts is a publication of the Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice Version 1.0 dated September 2005-2009.”

The report cites the source of funds:

“This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-NC-BX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

To me the most interesting thing here is not so much the source, but the number of bureaucracies within the DoJ bureaucracy. If anyone in government is serious about cutting costs, here's a good place to start.

According to the authors, the purpose of this publication is to provide a tool to help criminal justice professionals understand the terms, organizations, and names they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of an [alleged] extremist group.

The following appears to start out as a hedge of some sort, but the example makes no sense at all. “The fact that an entry appears in this publication does not imply a connection to illegal activity. As an example, the location Waco, Texas, appears in the glossary. Investigators may hear reference to this location while working on certain antigovernment cases.” Do “investigators” have to be told that the mention of a city doesn't mean the whole city is connected to illegal activity? What does “certain antigovernment cases” mean? Is opposition to government now a criminal offense? Don't answer that! I think I already know.

Here are the people responsible for this comic book:

“This publication was initially prepared by Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D., in 1998, as a Guide to Common Terms Used by Antigovernment Extremists. Subsequent revisions were expanded to include many terms used by left-wing and international terrorists and special-interest/single-issue extremists. The following individuals have contributed to this Guide: Pete Haskel, Ted Burton, Ralph Brock, Ed Higgins, Suzanne James, Chris Walker, Christine Nordstrom, Walter Wallmark, Bonnie Bergey, Darren Mulloy, Gregory Rosen, Patricia Henshall, George Richards, Michael Reynolds, Brad Whitsel, Ed King, Jerry Kling, Jon Drummond, Jack Plaxe, Richard Holden, Jonathan White, Richard Marquise, David Carter, Charles Tilby, Gary Clyman, Robert Harris, and William Dyson, Jr.”

I first thought that the people above belonged individually in americasenemies, but the more I read the more I think they belong in a school for the intellectually challenged.

“Terrorism and the extremist movement are dynamic and continually changing.”

I chose this sentence to illustrate the tone of the “report.” Throughout terrorism and extremism are closely connected and usually connected to “right-wing” organizations and causes, but “left-wing” organizations are seldom listed as extremist. Left-wing terrorists and anti-Constitutional government extremists are usually called “activists.”

One of the first things “law enforcement agencies” are cautioned against is the “Affinity Group.” This publication defines “Affinity Group” in this way: “a small band of individuals who work clandestinely as a team to perpetrate direct attacks on a targeted enemy.” The small band description is critical here. I guess it permits the federal government, with its targeted attacks on our Constitution, our national sovereignty, and the American people, to avoid arrest by local law enforcement agencies.

Other organizations, movements, and ideas that investigators and prosecuters should be aware of include:

Antiabortion Movement- while pointing out that some who hold this position have assassinated abortion physicians and their employees in the United States, nowhere do the authors mention the extremists of the Abortion Movement that have slaughtered countless unborn or partially born infants while developing a cadre of physicians hardened to the taking of human life. Doctor Mengele I presume?

“Antiauthoritarian: A political position in opposition to capitalism and government control, corporation or group, and supportive of decentralization and autonomy; generally, a libertarian position that is sometimes equated with anarchy.”

I'm not sure just what law enforcement officials are suppose to get from this rather fractured definition of “antiauthoritarian” other than a conclusion that the grant to this organization must have required it to hire the mentally handicapped and the hardcore unemployed to do the writing.

For the record, my dictionary defines authoritarian as: “believing in, relating to, or characterized by unquestioning obedience to authority rather than individual freedom of judgment and action.” Clearly the authoritarian government of the United States must keep a close watch on anti-authoritarian “extremists.”

“Anti-Defamation League (ADL): A Jewish organization founded in 1913, devoted to fighting hate crimes. Its mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike.” The ADL is one of the largest (and most aggressive) groups opposing right-wing extremism.”

Typical of the slant of this DoJ publication, minority racist and bigoted groups are condoned or even praised but majorities who might hold such views are worthy of DoJ investigation. Could it be that minorities, or a pretext of “minority rights,” are being used as an excuse to suppress the majority? I can't help but wonder what “most aggressive” means as applied to the ADL. I also wonder how the Jewish militia known as the JDL escaped mention in the “report.”

“Anti-Shyster: A magazine published in Texas by Alfred Adask, an advocate of the sovereign citizen ideology. The ire of the magazine is directed largely at the legal/judicial system.”

Anti-Shyster magazine and its publisher get mention for attacking the legal/judicial system. If this publication, under the auspices of the Department of Justice, is an example of our legal/judicial system, then Anti-Shyster is likely well justified in its attacks.

“Bilderbergers (Bilderberg Group): Along with the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the three groups targeted by right-wing extremists for conspiring to dominate the world.”

Notice the use of the highly inflammatory “targeted” and, of course, the usual “right-wing extremists.” I wonder how many people on the “left” who have attacked these organizations for their major role in corporate control of America and the world are surprised to learn they are “right-wing extremists.”

“Christian Identity: A hate-filled religious sect descended from British-Israelism that has come to dominate much of the leadership of the extreme right in the United States today. The key belief of Identity adherents is that people of white European descent are actually the descendants of the ancient Israelites of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is a message written expressly for whites, who are “'God’s chosen people.'”

I found this interesting for several reasons. Firstly, I know nothing of this “Christian Identity,” but the “hate-filled” epithet reminded me again of the movie “Revelation” that I mentioned in the post on SPLC and the term “haters” as applied to all who opposed the Devil's One Nation Earth. Just a coincidence?

Secondly, the reference to “British-Israelism” intrigued me. I used to follow the machinations of BI when Herbert Armstrong and the World Wide Church of God was its front. I was predicting the give-away of the Panama Canal when some were still holding out hope that we would keep it. According to biblical prophecy as interpreted by BI, the enemies would control the gates of Israel's (British) cities. Metaphorically, the canal was one of those gates. It had to go. When Armstrong died, BI left the church. I saw a manifestation of it about 10 to 15 years ago in the “Center for Constitutional Studies.” It often moves from one cover to another.

The earliest reference I've seen to BI was in a biography of Washington written shortly after his death. In the appendix was a letter from the former governor of Massachusetts to George III assuring his “majesty” that he still reigned supreme over his kingdom, British-Israel. To fulfill their interpretation of prophecy, one “tribe” had to become a “great nation” (the U.S.) and the other a “nation of nations” (the British Empire). To me, this letter was saying, “Pay no attention to surface appearances. We're still in charge here.”

Regardless of who might be running America, for many years I've believed the one hope for defeat of the globalist Inter-Nazis is their self-destruction from within. It's a hope that, when they see their world government pie coming out of the oven, the many groups who have been promised at least a slice if not the whole pie, will come out of their counting houses and corporate bakeries to try to claim a bigger slice. It's my hope that the infighting will finally expose them to those who, until now, have refused to understand, and they will all be brought down. This report could be the first salvo of the Zionist faction, possibly entrenched in the DoJ, against the BI faction.

“Christian Patriots: A term used, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, to describe people sympathetic to right-wing ideology.”

Wow! Three dirty words in one brief description – “Christian,” “Patriots,” and “right-wing.” Someone's going to censor the Department of Justice.

“Christian Reconstructionism: A theology common among many in the “patriot” movement. It essentially argues that biblical law should be the basis for reconstructing earthly societies—in other words, it espouses an essentially theocratic government.”

No argument! These people must be stopped! They would substitute belief in an Almighty God. Such an extreme belief would weaken the power of God, the Almighty State. It would undermine the First Commandment, I am the Lord Thy State, Thou shalt have no other gods. Also the Second, Thou shalt obey! They would replace them with antiquated, theocratic commandments like: Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not kill. The latter alone could cripple the abortion industry and create a hardship for the doctors and nurses who would have to learn life saving skills to replace their life taking training and conditioning.

“Civil Rights Task Force (CRTF): A “patriot” group headquartered in California (with members in many states) that primarily impersonates law enforcement. CRTF sells nylon jackets (with “Civil Rights Task Force” printed on the back, (just as law enforcement agencies have jackets with their names on the back), gold badges, business cards, and other paraphernalia.”

Other extremist groups also put their names on the backs of jackets just like law enforcement agencies. Some examples: Denver Broncos, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Flyers, Boston Celtics, and many others. May we assume they'll be included in the big DoJ roundup?

“Constitution Party: A minor, right-wing extremist political party, formerly known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party (USTP), which is one of the primary parties that specifically try to appeal to the 'patriot' movement.”

This is just one of the many examples of the “left-wing.” statist bias of the writers of this pathetic joke. “Right-wing” is almost always accompanied by “extremists” and patriots is almost always enclosed in quotation marks. Contrast that with the handling of “left-wing” oriented groups who are generally called “activists” even when they resort to terrorism as do some of the environmental groups mentioned. I think they might have called them terrorists in one or two cases.

To avoid misunderstanding, I'd like to make it clear that I believe the left vs. right Itchy and Scratchy Show is applied Hegelian Dialectic.

“New World Order: A term used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a global conspiracy designed to implement worldwide socialism.”

Would the DoJ's definition of “conspiracy theorists” include Congresswoman Marjorie Holt?

Hon . Marjorie S. Holt of Maryland, in the House of Representatives on Monday, Jan. 19, 1976 :

"Mr. Speaker, many of us recently received a letter from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, inviting Members of Congress to participate in a ceremonial signing of a "Declaration of Interdependence" on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. A number of Members of Congress have been invited to sign this document, lending their prestige to its theme, but I want the record to show my strong opposition to this declaration. It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a 'new world order' that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.

I post this comment made by Congresswoman Holt regarding the proposal of a “Declaration of Independence” to show that the “New World Order” is not “theory,” it is fact. Pushers of this “New World Order” knew full well that the American people and, for that matter, all of the peoples of the developed world would never accept a government that would “redistribute” their wealth to the undevelped countries of the world (minus 20 or 30% for handling). That's the reason for the de-industrialization of our countries and the reduction of our standards of living over a number of decades. The pushers are taking everything we have in advance so we'll have nothing to lose if we accept the world government they propose.

“Wise Use: A term used to refer to a loose collection of antienvironment and property rights groups that oppose government regulation of natural resources and absolute property rights.”

Did you know that groups opposed to the great government land and resources grabs are “antienvironment?”

Zionist: Generally speaking, a term used to refer to the Jewish movement earlier this century to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine or to refer to pro-Israeli groups or organizations today (i.e., Zionist Organization of America). The term is used by many white supremacists to refer to all or any Jews, often in reference to “Jewish conspiracies.”

Disregarding the DoJ's usual anti-white or anti-Christian slurs, what I find interesting is the apparent acceptance of racial separation when sought by the Jews in a “Jewish homeland.”

“New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense: Established by Khallid Adbul Muhammad around 1996 to resurrect the original Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, the New Panthers claim to have 80 chapters across the country, including in the areas of New York, Houston, and Washington, DC. They have shown their resolve by marching with weapons in plain sight in Jasper, Texas (following the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr., in 1998) and at the Texas State Prison in Huntsville, Texas, in 2000 to protest the impending execution of a black man. They continue to organize demonstrations that have been criticized for their racial and anti-Semitic tone.”

By “marching with weapons in plain sight” the DoJ thinks these black racist thugs merely showed “their resolve.” But that's OK. Remember, minorities are permitted a lot of leeway when being used to suppress the rights of the majority. But, that's just my opinion. Well! Maybe not just mine!

Given all of the absurdities and non-sequiters in this publication, doesn't it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know your tax dollars paid for it?

The complete report in PDF can be downloaded at the site below.

http://publicintelligence.net/doj-terrorism-and-criminal-extremism-terms-and-concepts-guide/

Return to TOC

Southern Poverty Law Center

2010-09-21T13:00:00.000-07:00

An internet friend sent me a copy of this letter in an email. It has prompted me to list both the racist Southern Poverty Law Center and the anti-American Department of Justice as America's Enemies. I'm naming the SPLC as our enemy in this post and the DoJ in the next which I hope to publish within the next couple of days.

The letter:

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/dear-southern-poverty-law-center-and.html

Dear Southern Poverty Law Center and Department of Justice
Sally O’Boyle
Activist Post
August 30, 2010
Re: SPLC list of “Active Patriot Groups” and DOJ’s “Criminal Extremist List”

I am wondering if you will start a Patriot Persons list to go along with your Patriot Groups list? If so, I’d like to apply. If your criteria* is the same for People as for Groups, I might be a pretty good fit!

I am definitely against any “New World Order” or “One World Government” scheme. The U.S. must remain a sovereign nation as outlined in our Constitution. (Besides, and I don’t mean to be catty here, but the idea doesn’t seem to be working out so bloody well for the EU.) Do you know if there is an active attempt by the U.S. government to join into a world government? If so, please let me know! I’d like to sign and circulate a petition against that.[1]

I don’t engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing; all the conspiracies about which I theorize have grounds. Do you think you could make an exception? And which conspiracies are the groundless ones? A list somewhere on your site would be helpful.

Also, how do you define “extreme anti-government doctrines”, please? Can you give any examples? I am personally extremely pro-Constitutional governance, something which has been in short supply during the last few administrations, including the current one. I would only be anti-government about a government that was extremely anti-U.S. Constitution. Will this count for or against me?

I am glad to see Oath-Keepers made the list of Patriot Groups! I am a member of Oath-Keepers. They are educating military and law-enforcement personnel about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, encouraging them to keep their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank goodness! Since the Constitution is no longer adequately taught in our schools (having just educated two teenagers, I can attest to that fact), I am thrilled to see that someone has taken on this monumental task!

Could you let me know if I make the list? You can find me at Campaign for Liberty or at Liberty-Candidates.org.

I hope I’m not asking too much, but maybe you could give a plaque or something? Or how about a pin that we could wear all the time identifying us as Patriots who made your list? Then we could easily spot each other. That would be way cool. Thanks!

God bless,
Sally O’Boyle

P.S. Thanks for printing that list of Patriot Groups broken out by state. Now I can find friends no matter where I am. Kind of like an A.A. meeting list! Now, I’m thinking I should join a militia. Don’t mean to be greedy, but would I get extra points for that?

*Criteria: “Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.” (http://tinyurl.com/patriotgroups)

[1] – Sally was obviously playing dumb here. I'm certain she knows full well that “our” government is in full cooperation with the globalist gangsters who are bringing about this “One World Government” of them, by them, and for them. Anyone who doesn't know this yet should take a look at the map and plan developed and published in 1941-42. You can find it in the post "New World Order -- Death of America" in:
http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/
The map and plan are also available at the Library of Congress and the University of San Diego. The URLs can be found in the blog.
Not all has been realized, some has probably changed, but what is amazing is how much has been achieved of the grandiose plan to enslave the world and how much is falling into place now.

Here's a synopsis of the SPLC's “Intelligence Report.” The spirit of Senator Joe McCarthy is alive and well and residing in the Southern Poverty Law Center. The only thing missing is McCarthy's patriotism, but then, his patriotism is probably the primary reason he has been criticized so viciously by the SPLC's ilk. One thing is certain. We don't need the Gestapo or KGB when we have the SPLC and the DoJ.

This is the introduction to the SPLC's “Intelligence” Report:

Intelligence Report, Spring 2010, Issue Number: 137
Active 'Patriot' Groups in the United States in 2009
Stand Strong against hate [What a noble sentiment. It reminds me of the movie, “Revelation.” In it the Devil has set up a world government One Nation Earth (O.N.E.) and billed himself as the Mesiah. The hero of the movie, a counter terrorist agent (from the DoJ?), is investigating a “terrorist” group that is resisting the O.N.E. The group of God fearing Christians is referred to as the “Haters” for resisting the “Messiah” and is marked for extermination. I guess movies aren't always an escape from reality.]

The introduction continues:

The Intelligence Project identified 512 "Patriot" groups that were active in 2009. Of these groups, 127 were militias, marked with an asterisk, and the remainder includes "common-law" courts, publishers, ministries and citizens' groups. Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the "New World Order," engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports. Groups are identified by the city, county or region where they are located.

[I want to make it clear that the listing of the SPLC and the DoJ in americasenemies does not imply that all members of these organizations advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, are racist, traitors, or Devil worshippers.]

Anyone wanting to see the list will find it at the url given by Sally.
(http://tinyurl.com/patriotgroups)

Out of curiosity I did some fooling around with the numbers to see what might be learned.

The 512 figure is a bit overly optimistic. It's probably intended to terrify their cowering “left-wing” followers into some sort of action to chase the Pro-Americans they fear might be hiding under their beds. Many are groups with chapters or branches in a number of towns or counties within a state. They probably should be listed as one for the entire state. In some cases the SPLC does that. It will list the group as statewide, so a statewide group will only show once for the state but one with branches in six or seven counties will count on the “intelligence” report as six or seven groups. So the whole “intelligence” report is distorted and not very intelligent.

Even the “statewides” distort the figures. I found the following listed in most cases as statewide:

I counted 64 “third” parties, but 49 were the Constitution Party or affiliates in that number of States.
There were America First Party organizations in 12 states.

Realistically speaking, that 61 is only two groups.

Again, Oath-Keepers (49 States), We the People (48 States), the John Birch Society (36 States), and We Are Change (33 States) are probably, for all intent and purpose, just four groups. The SPLC counts them as 166. Seeing 166 where there are only four sounds paranoid to me.

I do think some sort of awards or recognition should be given to those States exhibiting the greatest loyalty to the principles on which this country was founded.

Using the numbers given by the SPLC, the following States have the greatest number of patriotic groups:

Texas 52
Michigan 47
California 22
Indiana 21
New York 17

These top five should receive a medal of some sort.

To be fair to some States with small populations, I think patriot awards should also be issued based on groups per million population given a minimum population of 1.5 million. Population figures I have would make these States the top five:

State Groups/M
Idaho 7.33
Michigan 4.70
Nebraska 3.89
Oregon 3.68
Utah 3.57

Michigan took second in both catagories. In the second, only Idaho, which barely qualified with 1.5M to Michigan's 10M, was ahead. In addition, Michigan led the field with 11 militia groups including one with a presence in 20 counties. I think, all things considered, Michigan deserves the title: “The American State.”

Return to TOC

More Enemies In Congress

2010-09-18T12:47:00.000-07:00

Below is an article by Roy Beck exposing Senators and Representatives who have consistently voted against attempts to control immigration, legal and illegal. For their efforts Beck calls them “Deserters of Jobless Americans.” In my opinion he's too nice. These immigrants, especially from Mexico, will form a fifth column to facilitate merger with Mexico into the North American Union. For this reason I believe the actions of these people in Congress are an attack on our sovereignty and are therefore treasonous.

DEFENDERS & DESERTERS of JOBLESS AMERICANS: We name the '50 Worst Deserters' Today

By Roy Beck, Friday, September 3, 2010, 1:47 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

It was a tough job to pick the 50 Members of Congress who over the last two years have shown the most callous indifference to the suffering of unemployed American households, in terms of immigration policies.

As bad as Congress has been on immigration in the past, it seemed to just grow more fond of foreign labor the last two years as jobs prospects for unemployed Americans grew more and more dismal.

Consider the results of NumbersUSA calculating grades based on every vote and co-sponsorship of the last two years:

· 42% of the 535 Members earned a NumbersUSA grade of D+ or LOWER for their actions
· 25% earned an F or F-minus, with most of them getting a 0%.

During the last two years of a virtual jobs depression, these Worst 50 led Congress:

· in allowing the addition of another 75,000 permanent working-age immigrants every MONTH
· and in allowing about 7 million illegal foreign workers to keep their jobs in construction, service, manufacturing and transportation.

Recent government data show that 22 million U.S. workers who want a job can’t find one. But these 50 Members of Congress deserted those Americans in favor of increasing the number of foreign workers competing with them in the hiring line.

All 50 “Deserters” on this list:

· received grades of F-minus and 0%, failing to take a single action to reduce competition for jobless Americans.
· are asking voters to re-elect them to Congress this November
· are in the Senate or in the House where they are leaders with special opportunity to influence policy toward jobless Americans because they either are congressional chairmen, leaders of their Party or on the Judiciary Committee with direct jurisdiction over immigration.
It isn't that these 50 don't have concerns for the unemployed. In fact, most of them have worked hard to provide unemployment benefits and other government assistance to help them while they are out of work.

But they seem to prefer providing unemployment assistance to providing them access to jobs.
When it comes to immigration, these 50 are willing to keep their unemployed constituents out of work.

For whatever variety of reasons, these 50 elected officials favor foreign workers and the employers that hire them over the desires of their own constituents to have a job and support themselves.

I'm sure all of these 50 will be campaigning this fall about their great concern for putting their constituents back to work. Citizens can no longer allow them to perpetuate their charade.

50 WORST DESERTERS of JOBLESS AMERICANS (In the Face of Unfair Foreign-Worker Competition)

In the Senate
· Bennet, Michael (CO)
· Feingold, Russell (WI)
· Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY)
· Inouye, Daniel (HI)
· Leahy, Patrick (VT)
· Mikulski, Barbara (MD)
· Reid, Harry (NV)

In the House
· Ackerman, Gary (NY 05th)
· Baldwin, Tammy (WI - 02nd)
· Becerra, Xavier (CA - 31st)
· Berman, Howard (CA - 28th)
· Chu, Judy (CA - 32nd)
· Clarke, Yvette (NY - 11th)
· Clyburn, James (SC - 06th)
· Conyers, John (MI - 14th)
· Cummings, Elijah (MD - 07th)
· Engel, Eliot (NY - 17th)
· Grijalva, Raul (AZ - 07th)
· Gutierrez, Luis (IL - 04th)
· Hastings, Alcee (FL - 23rd)
· Hoyer, Steny (MD - 05th)
· Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX - 18th)
· Johnson, Hank (GA - 04th)
· Kucinich, Dennis (OH - 10th)
· Lewis, John (GA - 05th)
· Lofgren, Zoe (CA - 16th)
· Markey, Edward (MA - 07th)
· McDermott, Jim (WA 07th)
· Nadler, Jerrold (NY - 08th)
· Napolitano, Grace (CA - 38th)
· Olver, John (MA - 01st)
· Quigley, Mike (IL - 05th)
· Pelosi, Nancy (CA - 8th)
· Rahall, Nick (WV - 03rd)
· Rangel, Charles (NY - 15th)
· Rush, Bobby (IL - 01st)
· Sanchez, Linda (CA - 39th)
· Schakowsky, Janice (IL - 09th)
· Scott, Robert (VA - 03rd)
· Serrano, Jose (NY - 16th)
· Slaughter, Louise (NY - 28th)
· Stark, Pete (CA - 13th)
· Thompson, Bennie (MS - 02nd)
· Towns, Edolphus (NY - 10th)
· Velazquez, Nidia (NY - 12th)
· Tsongas, Niki (MA - 05th)
· Wasserman-Schultz, Debbie (FL - 20th)
· Watt, Melvin (NC - 12th)
· Waxman, Henry (CA - 30th)
· Woolsey, Lynn (CA - 06th)

NumbersUSA is aggressively non-partisan. We do not cherry-pick actions to grade in order to skew the results. Instead, we rate every action in committee or the floor and all co-sponsorships that would change the numerical level of immigration. Our grades reflect the cumulative effect of each Members' actions in terms of increasing or reducing the number of foreign workers (legal and illegal) in the country.

All actions and the computerized grading calculations are displayed in our http://www.congressgrades.org/ section of our website.

Those in Congress who do the most to protect American workers in terms of immigration policies receive an A+, while those doing the least receive an F-minus.

NumbersUSA has more than one million activist members. It was formed in 1996 in part to carry out the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Barbara Jordan) which opposed immigration policies that depress wages and job prospects for the most vulnerable Americans.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/8107?jid=687190&lid=9&rid=5145&tid=8459

Return to TOC

Barack Obama

2010-09-10T13:17:00.000-07:00

The following is taken verbatim from Stephen Lendman's blog. I have found Mr. Lendman to be generally reliable and have no reason to doubt this post other than the fact I'm unfamiliar with the London Independent. I am familiar with what Mr. Lendman calls “US corporate media and have found it difficult to catch them in a truth on any major issue. I should clarify that by saying, I do not classify half-truths, omissions, and/or distortions as truths.

One thing that has been reported recently and which I don't understand is the pool of oil supposedly lying at the bottom of the Gulf. No matter how many times I put oil in a bucket and attempt to cover it with water, the oil rises to the top. The only explanation I can think of as to why the Gulf oil would sink is that the chemical "dispersants" combined with the oil in such a way as to make it, not disperse, but become heavy enough to sink. Out of sight. Out of mind. “Mission Accomplished!”

Mr. Lendman's blog:

Monday, August 16, 2010
Obama's Gulf Swim Was Fake

Obama's Gulf Swim Was Fake - by Stephen Lendman

On August 15, AP reported that Obama gave his "personal assurances of (the) Gulf's safety," saying:

"Beaches all along the Gulf Coast are clean, they are safe, and they are open for business."

He lied.

The same day, Britain's government owned BBC reported:

"Barack Obama has taken a swim in the Gulf of Mexico (to) reassure Americans that the waters are safe despite the recent oil spill."

US corporate media reporters repeated the message, CNN's senior White House correspondent Ed Henry among them, saying "Obama takes (the) plunge, swims in the Gulf (to show it's safe and) open for business."

In fact, area businesses continue to be severely impacted, and the entire region is dangerously unsafe.

As for Obama's swim, on August 16, the London Independent reported that Obama and his daughter, Sasha, swam in a private Panama City Beach, FL beach off Alligator Point in St. Andrew Bay, not part of the Gulf.

Reporters were banned, no TV video permitted. "So....only the White House photographer was allowed to capture proceedings. The official picture was intended to provide evidence that the region's beaches are back to normal."

False. A dangerously toxic oil/dispersant brew contaminates much, perhaps the entire Gulf. It's poisoned and potentially lethal for decades, maybe generations. Nothing in it should be ingested. Millions in the region are at risk. No one should swim in coastal waters or eat any Gulf seafood. Responsible officials should ban it. Instead the all-clear's been given.

Obama, his officials, and BP executives are criminally liable. So are state governors, coastal mayors, and regional health authorities.

Area residents with children should leave. Tourists should avoid the region. A growing catastrophe will continue for decades, including a silent epidemic of cancers and other diseases, as well as lives and livelihoods lost.

That's the major media's unreported reality, worsening, not improving daily.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

posted by Steve Lendman @ 4:37 AM
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/08/obamas-gulf-swim-was-fake.html

This whole thing stinks, not just of crude oil, but of a massive corporate coverup perpetrated with the cooperation of the puppet in the White House. If the Independent's account is true, and if Mr. Lendman's assessment of the dangers to present and future generations is accurate, then in the long term Obama, through his deception, might well earn a place among the most notorious mass murderers of our age.

Return to TOC

Early Lives of Some of Our Enemies

2010-08-18T12:54:00.000-07:00

The following video from mike the mime reveals an episode from the early lives of some of our enemies. It has been removed from U-tube so I'd suggest copying it if you can.

If anyone knows of similar videos about our enemies in the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Carter administrations I'd appreciate it if you let me know. Maybe you can paste the link in the comments section.

The link below has been disconnected. Word probably got back to Washington.
http://www.home.comcast.net/~storedfiles/rascals.wmv

This is the video that was at the former site.

Return to TOC

Racist NAACP

2010-07-13T09:54:00.000-07:00

It wasn’t racism when blacks turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama because he was black, but it is racism for Americans to attack Obama for the Hitler like tactics he uses to ram his projects through over the heads of the people. At least that's what the NAACP is crying.

According to the news streaming across the bottom of the Fox News broadcast this morning, the NAACP has cited signs or banners being carried by Tea Party protesters depicting Obama as Hitler or the Joker. Characteristically, the NAACP, being the biggest racist organization in the country, is screaming racism. I have to wonder what it was when Bush was the brunt of derogatory cartoons and the Hitler name was being hurled at him. Why wasn’t it racism when such tactics are used against a white president? I think it’s obvious. The NAACP, like Obama, is an enemy of the Republic. They reject Republican principles of majority rule for minority rule of highly vocal thugs – themselves. They reject Freedom of Speech for others while demanding it for themselves.

I suspect it was this same rejection of Republican principles in favor of the “Leadership Principle” (Das Fuehrer Prinzip) by Obama and the Congressional lackeys who line up behind him that earned Obama the comparison with Hitler. I don’t know what brought on the Joker idea. Obama is a lot more dangerous than the Joker.

I will admit I don’t like the comparison of Obama to Hitler any more than I liked the comparison of Bush to the man. It should be remembered, for all the faults he may have had, Hitler was a war hero. An Austrian, he fought for his adopted Germany in WWI and was highly decorated. We know Bush dodged combat with Daddy’s help so there's no justification for comparison there. Exactly what did Obama do to be compared to a war hero. True, like Bush he has the courage to send others out to kill and die. But then, it may be unfair to ask Obama to serve. After all, he might have to produce a birth certificate.

Again, I think this attack on the Tea Party has earned the NAACP the designation “America’s Enemy.”

Return to TOC

A Note of Appreciation

2010-06-22T10:33:00.000-07:00

I received this in an email with reference to the blog it came from. I brazenly stole it because I think it's something that should be posted in as many places as possible. Of course, it's a work of fiction but very much based on fact. These people are, as I have said before, not only America's enemies by the enemies of all the peoples of the world. I'll be adding the site to my blog list. I recommend it.

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/a-note-of-appreciation-from-the-elite/

Let’s be honest: you’ll never win the lottery.

On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you’ll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That’s because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let’s face it — you’re a member of the working caste. Sorry!

As a result, you don’t have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you’d probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That’s why we’re so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about “justice” and “equal opportunity” in America.

Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there’s never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it’s already occupied by us — and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there’s usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.

Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!

You also probably don’t have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you’re also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to “break out of the mold”.

Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, democrat against republican, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against…. We continually push your wages down and take your money by invoking “foreign competition,” “the law of supply and demand,” “national security,” “too big to fail” or “the bloated federal deficit.” We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as “elections.” Happily, you haven’t a clue as to what’s really happening — instead, you blame “Aliens,” “Tree-hugging Environmentalists,” “Niggers,” “Homos”, “Wet backs”, “Welfare Queens,” and countless others for your troubled situation.

We’re also very pleased that many of you still embrace the “work ethic,” even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don’t know much about work, but we’re sure glad you do!

Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don’t know that. In fact, you can’t even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that’s probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system — robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.

So we’d truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Our governmental, public education, media mind-control, and financial institutions frame a labyrinthine system of lies that you numbingly support for our advancement and your children’s enslavement.

Thanks so much for “knowing your place” — without even knowing it!

Return to TOC

Nothing Changes

2010-06-17T13:08:00.000-07:00

As I near the close of my life I often reflect at how nothing really changes in politics despite the fact that nearly every politician has recognized the discontent of the people and has promised change. When the election is over, nothing changes, at least that's how it has been for the fifty years or so that I have been following politics. Any “changes” that have taken place have been acceleration of the program to destroy the liberty and well-being of the American people and, in fact, of the peoples of the world.

Yesterday, I was looking over the small collection of the presidential papers of William Henry Harrison. I was surprised, although I probably shouldn't have been, to see that, not only have empty promises been the dominant characteristic of politics in my brief time, but that this hasn't changed in over 2000 years.

Below is the Inaugural Address of Harrison in which he notes that even in Ancient Rome, what politicians did after the election did not conform to promises made before the election. He further notes that the practice continued in his own times.

Harrison leaves it to the people to judge whether he kept his promises or should be “classed
with the mass of those who promised that they might deceive and flattered with the intention to betray.”

Unfortunately, the people never had that opportunity. Harrison was inaugurated on March 4, 1841 and died on April 4, one month after taking office.

I was only going to publish the first few paragraphs, those that had gotten my attention, and, maybe, a condensation. I decided instead to publish the entire address and let any who might be inclined to read it make their own judgment as to the sincerity of Harrison and whether he deserved to be separated from the dirt that has muddied American politics, government, and even our lives for the past century or more and have had such an adverse effect on the entire world.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

Called from a retirement which I had supposed was to continue for the residue of my life to fill the chief executive office of this great and free nation, I appear before you, fellow-citizens, to take the oaths which the Constitution prescribes as a necessary qualification for the performance of its duties; and in obedience to a custom coeval with our Government and what I believe to be your expectations I proceed to present to you a summary of the principles which will govern me in the discharge of the duties which I shall be called upon to perform.

It was the remark of a Roman consul in an early period of that celebrated Republic that a most striking contrast was observable in the conduct of candidates for offices of power and trust before and after obtaining them, they seldom carrying out in the latter case the pledges and promises made in the former. However much the world may have improved in many respects in the lapse of upward of two thousand years since the remark was made by the virtuous and indignant Roman, I fear that a strict examination of the annals of some of the modern elective governments would develop similar instances of violated confidence.

Although the fiat of the people has gone forth proclaiming me the Chief Magistrate of this glorious Union, nothing upon their part remaining to be done, it may be thought that a motive may exist to keep up the delusion under which they may be supposed to have acted in relation to my principles and opinions; and perhaps there may be some in this assembly who have come here either prepared to condemn those I shall now deliver, or, approving them, to doubt the sincerity with which they are now uttered. But the lapse of a few months will confirm or dispel their fears. The outline of principles to govern and measures to be adopted by an Administration not yet begun will soon be exchanged for immutable history, and I shall stand either exonerated by my countrymen or classed with the mass of those who promised that they might deceive and flattered with the intention to betray. However strong may be my present purpose to realize the expectations of a magnanimous and confiding people, I too well understand the dangerous temptations to which I shall be exposed from the magnitude of the power which it has been the pleasure of the people to commit to my hands not to place my chief confidence upon the aid of that Almighty Power which has hitherto protected me and enabled me to bring to favorable issues other important but still greatly inferior trusts heretofore confided to me by my country.

The broad foundation upon which our Constitution rests being the people--a breath of theirs having made, as a breath can unmake, change, or modify it--it can be assigned to none of the great divisions of government but to that of democracy. If such is its theory, those who are called upon to administer it must recognize as its leading principle the duty of shaping their measures so as to produce the greatest good to the greatest number. But with these broad admissions, if we would compare the sovereignty acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference. All others lay claim to power limited only by their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond. We admit of no government by divine right, believing that so far as power is concerned the Beneficent Creator has made no distinction amongst men; that all are upon an equality, and that the only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed. The Constitution of the United States is the instrument containing this grant of power to the several departments composing the Government. On an examination of that instrument it will be found to contain declarations of power granted and of power withheld. The latter is also susceptible of division into power which the majority had the right to grant, but which they did not think proper to intrust to their agents, and that which they could not have granted, not being possessed by themselves. In other words, there are certain rights possessed by each individual American citizen which in his compact with the others he has never surrendered. Some of them, indeed, he is unable to surrender, being, in the language of our system, unalienable. The boasted privilege of a Roman citizen was to him a shield only against a petty provincial ruler, whilst the proud democrat of Athens would console himself under a sentence of death for a supposed violation of the national faith--which no one understood and which at times was the subject of the mockery of all--or the banishment from his home, his family, and his country with or without an alleged cause, that it was the act not of a single tyrant or hated aristocracy, but of his assembled countrymen. Far different is the power of our sovereignty. It can interfere with no one's faith, prescribe forms of worship for no one's observance, inflict no punishment but after well-ascertained guilt, the result of investigation under rules prescribed by the Constitution itself. These precious privileges, and those scarcely less important of giving expression to his thoughts and opinions, either by writing or speaking, unrestrained but by the liability for injury to others, and that of a full participation in all the advantages which flow from the Government, the acknowledged property of all, the American citizen derives from no charter granted by his fellow-man. He claims them because he is himself a man, fashioned by the same Almighty hand as the rest of his species and entitled to a full share of the blessings with which He has endowed them. Notwithstanding the limited sovereignty possessed by the people of the United States and the restricted grant of power to the Government which they have adopted, enough has been given to accomplish all the objects for which it was created. It has been found powerful in war, and hitherto justice has been administered, an intimate union effected, domestic tranquillity preserved, and personal liberty secured to the citizen. As was to be expected, however, from the defect of language and the necessarily sententious manner in which the Constitution is written, disputes have arisen as to the amount of power which it has actually granted or was intended to grant.

This is more particularly the case in relation to that part of the instrument which treats of the legislative branch, and not only as regards the exercise of powers claimed under a general clause giving that body the authority to pass all laws necessary to carry into effect the specified powers, but in relation to the latter also. It is, however, consolatory to reflect that _most_ of the instances ofalleged departure from the letter or spirit of the Constitution have ultimately received the sanction of a majority of the people. And the fact that many of our statesmen most distinguished for talent and patriotism have been at one time or other of their political career on both sides of each of the most warmly disputed questions forces upon us the inference that the errors, if errors there were, are attributable to the intrinsic difficulty in many instances of ascertaining the intentions of the framers of the Constitution rather than the influence of any sinister or unpatriotic motive. But the great danger to our institutions does not appear to me to be in a usurpation by the Government of power not granted by the people, but by the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others. Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of the departments. This danger is greatly heightened, as it has been always observable that men are less jealous of encroachments of one department upon another than upon their own reserved rights. When the Constitution of the United States first came from the hands of the Convention which formed it, many of the sternest republicans of the day were alarmed at the extent of the power which had been granted to the Federal Government, and more particularly of that portion which had been assigned to the executive branch. There were in it features which appeared not to be in harmony with their ideas of a simple representative democracy or republic, and knowing the tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual, predictions were made that at no very remote period the Government would terminate in virtual monarchy. It would not become me to say that the fears of these patriots have been already realized; but as I sincerely believe that the tendency of measures and of men's opinions for some years past has been in that direction, it is, I conceive, strictly proper that I should take this occasion to repeat the assurances I have heretofore given of my determination to arrest the progress of that tendency if it really exists and restore the Government to its pristine health and vigor, as far as this can be effected by any legitimate exercise of the power placed in my hands.

I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution; others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction. As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the love of power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust. Nothing can be more corrupting, nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term.

But if there is danger to public liberty from the acknowledged defects of the Constitution in the want of limit to the continuance of the Executive power in the same hands, there is, I apprehend, not much less from a misconstruction of that instrument as it regards the powers actually given. I can not conceive that by a fair construction any or either of its provisions would be found to constitute the President a part of the legislative power. It can not be claimed from the power to recommend, since, although enjoined as a duty upon him, it is a privilege which he holds in common with every other citizen; and although there may be something more of confidence in the propriety of the measures recommended in the one case than in the other, in the obligations of ultimate decision there can be no difference. In the language of the Constitution, "all the legislative powers" which it grants "are vested in the Congress of the United States." It would be a solecism in language to say that any portion of these is not included in the whole.

It may be said, indeed, that the Constitution has given to the Executive the power to annul the acts of the legislative body by refusing to them his assent. So a similar power has necessarily resulted from that instrument to the judiciary, and yet the judiciary forms no part of the Legislature. There is, it is true, this difference between these grants of power: The Executive can put his negative upon the acts of the Legislature for other cause than that of want of conformity to the Constitution, whilst the judiciary can only declare void those which violate that instrument. But the decision of the judiciary is final in such a case, whereas in every instance where the veto of the Executive is applied it may be overcome by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress. The negative upon the acts of the legislative by the executive authority, and that in the hands of one individual, would seem to be an incongruity in our system. Like some others of a similar character, however, it appears to be highly expedient, and if used only with the forbearance and in the spirit which was intended by its authors it may be productive of great good and be found one of the best safeguards to the Union. At the period of the formation of the Constitution the principle does not appear to have enjoyed much favor in the State governments. It existed but in two, and in one of these there was a plural executive. If we would search for the motives which operated upon the purely patriotic and enlightened assembly which framed the Constitution for the adoption of a provision so apparently repugnant to the leading democratic principle that the majority should govern, we must reject the idea that they anticipated from it any benefit to the ordinary course of legislation. They knew too well the high degree of intelligence which existed among the people and the enlightened character of the State legislatures not to have the fullest confidence that the two bodies elected by them would be worthy representatives of such constituents, and, of course, that they would require no aid in conceiving and maturing the measures which the circumstances of the country might require. And it is preposterous to suppose that a thought could for a moment have been entertained that the President, placed at the capital, in the center of the country, could better understand the wants and wishes of the people than their own immediate representatives, who spend a part of every year among them, living with them, often laboring with them, and bound to them by the triple tie of interest, duty, and affection. To assist or control Congress, then, in its ordinary legislation could not, I conceive, have been the motive for conferring the veto power on the President. This argument acquires additional force from the fact of its never having been thus used by the first six Presidents--and two of them were members of the Convention, one presiding over its deliberations and the other bearing a larger share in consummating the labors of that august body than any other person. But if bills were never returned to Congress by either of the Presidents above referred to upon the ground of their being inexpedient or not as well adapted as they might be to the wants of the people, the veto was applied upon that of want of conformity to the Constitution or because errors had been committed from a too hasty enactment.

There is another ground for the adoption of the veto principle, which had probably more influence in recommending it to the Convention than any other. I refer to the security which it gives to the just and equitable action of the Legislature upon all parts of the Union. It could not but have occurred to the Convention that in a country so extensive, embracing so great a variety of soil and climate, and consequently of products, and which from the same causes must ever exhibit a great difference in the amount of the population of its various sections, calling for a great diversity in the employments of the people, that the legislation of the majority might not always justly regard the rights and interests of the minority, and that acts of this character might be passed under an express grant by the words of the Constitution, and therefore not within the competency of the judiciary to declare void; that however enlightened and patriotic they might suppose from past experience the members of Congress might be, and however largely partaking, in the general, of the liberal feelings of the people, it was impossible to expect that bodies so constituted should not sometimes be controlled by local interests and sectional feelings. It was proper, therefore, to provide some umpire from whose situation and mode of appointment more independence and freedom from such influences might be expected. Such a one was afforded by the executive department constituted by the Constitution. A person elected to that high office, having his constituents in every section, State, and subdivision of the Union, must consider himself bound by the most solemn sanctions to guard, protect, and defend the rights of all and of every portion, great or small, from the injustice and oppression of the rest. I consider the veto power, therefore, given by the Constitution to the Executive of the United States solely as a conservative power, to be used only, first, to protect the Constitution from violation; Secondly, the people from the effects of hasty legislation where their will has been probably disregarded or not well understood, and, thirdly, to prevent the effects of combinations violative of the rights of minorities. In reference to the second of these objects I may observe that I consider it the right and privilege of the people to decide disputed points of the Constitution arising from the general grant of power to Congress to carry into effect the powers expressly given; and I believe with Mr. Madison that "repeated recognitions under varied circumstances in acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Government, accompanied by indications in different modes of the concurrence of the general will of the nation," as affording to the President sufficient authority for his considering such disputed points as settled.

Upward of half a century has elapsed since the adoption of the present form of government. It would be an object more highly desirable than the gratification of the curiosity of speculative statesmen if its precise situation could be ascertained, a fair exhibit made of the operations of each of its departments, of the powers which they respectively claim and exercise, of the collisions which have occurred between them or between the whole Government and those of the States or either of them. We could then compare our actual condition after fifty years' trial of our system with what it was in the commencement of its operations and ascertain whether the predictions of the patriots who opposed its adoption or the confident hopes of its advocates have been best realized. The great dread of the former seems to have been that the reserved powers of the States would be absorbed by those of the Federal Government and a consolidated power established, leaving to the States the shadow only of that independent action for which they had so zealously contended and on the preservation of which they relied as the last hope of liberty. Without denying that the result to which they looked with so much apprehension is in the way of being realized, it is obvious that they did not clearly see the mode of its accomplishment. The General Government has seized upon none of the reserved rights of the States. As far as any open warfare may have gone, the State authorities have amply maintained their rights. To a casual observer our system presents no appearance of discord between the different members which compose it. Even the addition of many new ones has produced no jarring. They move in their respective orbits in perfect harmony with the central head and with each other. But there is still an undercurrent at work by which, if not seasonably checked, the worst apprehensions of our anti-federal patriots will be realized, and not only will the State authorities be overshadowed by the great increase of power in the executive department of the General Government, but the character of that Government, if not its designation, be essentially and radically changed. This state of things has been in part effected by causes inherent in the Constitution and in part by the never-failing tendency of political power to increase itself. By making the President the sole distributer of all the patronage of the Government the framers of the Constitution do not appear to have anticipated at how short a period it would become a formidable instrument to control the free operations of the State governments. Of trifling importance at first, it had early in Mr. Jefferson's Administration become so powerful as to create great alarm in the mind of that patriot from the potent influence it might exert in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise. If such could have then been the effects of its influence, how much greater must be the danger at this time, quadrupled in amount as it certainly is and more completely under the control of the Executive will than their construction of their powers allowed or the forbearing characters of all the early Presidents permitted them to make. But it is not by the extent of its patronage alone that the executive department has become dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the appointing power to bring under its control the whole revenues of the country. The Constitution has declared it to be the duty of the President to see that the laws are executed, and it makes him the Commander in Chief of the Armies and Navy of the United States. If the opinion of the most approved writers upon that species of mixed government which in modern Europe is termed _monarchy_ in contradistinction to _despotism_ is correct, there was wanting no other addition to the powers of our Chief Magistrate to stamp a monarchical character on our Government but the control of the public finances; and to me it appears strange indeed that anyone should doubt that the entire control which the President possesses over the officers who have the custody of the public money, by the power of removal with or without cause, does, for all mischievous purposes at least, virtually subject the treasure also to his disposal. The first Roman Emperor, in his attempt to seize the sacred treasure, silenced the opposition of the officer to whose charge it had been committed by a significant allusion to his sword. By a selection of political instruments for the care of the public money a reference to their commissions by a President would be quite as effectual an argument as that of Caesar to the Roman knight. I am not insensible of the great difficulty that exists in drawing a proper plan for the safe-keeping and disbursement of the public revenues, and I know the importance which has been attached by men of great abilities and patriotism to the divorce, as it is called, of the Treasury from the banking institutions. It is not the divorce which is complained of, but the unhallowed union of the Treasury with the executive department, which has created such extensive alarm. To this danger to our republican institutions and that created by the influence given to the Executive through the instrumentality of the Federal officers I propose to apply all the remedies which may be at my command. It was certainly a great error in the framers of the Constitution not to have made the officer at the head of the Treasury Department entirely independent of the Executive. He should at least have been removable only upon the demand of the popular branch of the Legislature. I have determined never to remove a Secretary of the Treasury without communicating all the circumstances attending such removal to both Houses of Congress.

The influence of the Executive in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise through the medium of the public officers can be effectually checked by renewing the prohibition published by Mr. Jefferson forbidding their interference in elections further than giving their own votes, and their own independence secured by an assurance of perfect immunity in exercising this sacred privilege of freemen under the dictates of their own unbiased judgments. Never with my consent shall an officer of the people, compensated for his services out of their pockets, become the pliant instrument of Executive will.

There is no part of the means placed in the hands of the Executive which might be used with greater effect for unhallowed purposes than the control of the public press. The maxim which our ancestors derived from the mother country that "the freedom of the press is the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty" is one of the most precious legacies which they have left us. We have learned, too, from our own as well as the experience of other countries, that golden shackles, by whomsoever or by whatever pretense imposed, are as fatal to it as the iron bonds of despotism. The presses in the necessary employment of the Government should never be used "to clear the guilty or to varnish crime." A decent and manly examination of the acts of the Government should be not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Upon another occasion I have given my opinion at some length upon the impropriety of Executive interference in the legislation of Congress--that the article in the Constitution making it the duty of the President to communicate information and authorizing him to recommend measures was not intended to make him the source in legislation, and, in particular, that he should never be looked to for schemes of finance. It would be very strange, indeed, that the Constitution should have strictly forbidden one branch of the Legislature from interfering in the origination of such bills and that it should be considered proper that an altogether different department of the Government should be permitted to do so. Some of our best political maxims and opinions have been drawn from our parent isle. There are others, however, which can not be introduced in our system without singular incongruity and the production of much mischief, and this I conceive to be one. No matter in which of the houses of Parliament a bill may originate nor by whom introduced—a minister or a member of the opposition--by the fiction of law, or rather of constitutional principle, the sovereign is supposed to have prepared it agreeably to his will and then submitted it to Parliament for their advice and consent. Now the very reverse is the case here, not only with regard to the principle, but the forms prescribed by the Constitution. The principle certainly assigns to the only body constituted by the Constitution (the legislative body) the power to make laws, and the forms even direct that the enactment should be ascribed to them. The Senate, in relation to revenue bills, have the right to propose amendments, and so has the Executive by the power given him to return them to the House of Representatives with his objections. It is in his power also to propose amendments in the existing revenue laws, suggested by his observations upon their defective or injurious operation. But the delicate duty of devising schemes of revenue should be left where the Constitution has placed it--with the immediate representatives of the people. For similar reasons the mode of keeping the public treasure should be prescribed by them, and the further removed it may be from the control of the Executive the more wholesome the arrangement and the more in accordance with republican principle.

Connected with this subject is the character of the currency. The idea of making it exclusively metallic, however well intended, appears to me to be fraught with more fatal consequences than any other scheme having no relation to the personal rights of the citizens that has ever been devised. If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting at once that mutation of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow-citizens by their industry and enterprise are raised to the possession of wealth, that is the one. If there is one measure better calculated than another to produce that state of things so much deprecated by all true republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards and the poor sinking deeper into penury, it is an exclusive metallic currency. Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for generosity and nobleness of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase and necessary toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency.

Amongst the other duties of a delicate character which the President is called upon to perform is the supervision of the government of the Territories of the United States. Those of them which are destined to become members of our great political family are compensated by their rapid progress from infancy to manhood for the partial and temporary deprivation of their political rights. It is in this District only where American citizens are to be found who under a settled policy are deprived of many important political privileges without any inspiring hope as to the future. Their only consolation under circumstances of such deprivation is that of the devoted exterior guards of a camp—that their sufferings secure tranquillity and safety within. Are there any of their countrymen who would subject them to greater sacrifices, to any other humiliations than those essentially necessary to the security of the object for which they were thus separated from their fellow-citizens? Are their rights alone not to be guaranteed by the application of those great principles upon which all our constitutions are founded? We are told by the greatest of British orators and statesmen that at the commencement of the War of the Revolution the most stupid men in England spoke of "their American subjects." Are there, indeed, citizens of any of our States who have dreamed _of their subjects_ in the District of Columbia? Such dreams can never be realized by any agency of mine. The people of the District of Columbia are not the subjects of the people of the States, but free American citizens. Being in the latter condition when the Constitution was formed, no words used in that instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that character. If there is anything in the great principle of unalienable rights so emphatically insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence, they could neither make nor the United States accept a surrender of their liberties and become the_subjects_--in other words, the slaves--of their former fellow-citizens. If this be true--and it will scarcely be denied by anyone who has a correct idea of his own rights as an American citizen--the grant to Congress of exclusive jurisdiction in the District of Columbia can be interpreted, so far as respects the aggregate people of the United States, as meaning nothing more than to allow to Congress the controlling power necessary to afford a free and safe exercise of the functions assigned to the General Government by the Constitution. In all other respects the legislation of Congress should be adapted to their peculiar position and wants and be conformable with their deliberate opinions of their own interests.

I have spoken of the necessity of keeping the respective departments of the Government, as well as all the other authorities of our country, within their appropriate orbits. This is a matter of difficulty, in some cases, as the powers which they respectively claim are often not defined by any distinct lines. Mischievous, however, in their tendencies as collisions of this kind may be, those which arise between the respective communities which for certain purposes compose one nation are much more so, for no such nation can long exist without the careful culture of those feelings of confidence and affection which are the effective bonds to union between free and confederated states. Strong as is the tie of interest, it has been often found ineffectual. Men blinded by their passions have been known to adopt measures for their country in direct opposition to all the suggestions of policy. The alternative, then, is to destroy or keep down a bad passion by creating and fostering a good one, and this seems to be the corner stone upon which our American political architects have reared the fabric of our Government. The cement which was to bind it and perpetuate its existence was the affectionate attachment between all its members, To insure the continuance of this feeling, produced at first by a community of dangers, of sufferings, and of interests, the advantages of each were made accessible to all. No participation in any good possessed by any member of our extensive Confederacy, except in domestic government, was withheld from the citizen of any other member. By a process attended with no difficulty, no delay, no expense but that of removal, the citizen of one might become the citizen of any other, and successively of the whole. The lines, too, separating powers to be exercised by the citizens of one State from those of another seem to be so distinctly drawn as to leave no room for misunderstanding. The citizens of each State unite in their persons all the privileges which that character confers and all that they may claim as citizens of the United States, but in no case can the same persons at the same time act as the citizen of two separate States, and _he is therefore positively precluded from any interference with the reserved powers of any State but that of which he is for the time being a citizen_. He may, indeed, offer to the citizens of other States his advice as to their management, and the form in which it is tendered is left to his own discretion and sense of propriety. It may be observed, however, that organized associations of citizens requiring compliance with their wishes too much resemble the _recommendations_ of Athens to her allies, supported by an armed and powerful fleet. It was, indeed, to the ambition of the leading States of Greece to control the domestic concerns of the others that the destruction of that celebrated Confederacy, and subsequently of all its members, is mainly to be attributed, and it is owing to the absence of that spirit that the Helvetic Confederacy has for so many years been preserved. Never has there been seen in the institutions of the separate members of any confederacy more elements of discord. In the principles and forms of government and religion, as well as in the circumstances of the several Cantons, so marked a discrepancy was observable as to promise anything but harmony in their intercourse or permanency in their alliance, and yet for ages neither has been interrupted. Content with the positive benefits which their union produced, with the independence
and safety from foreign aggression which it secured, these sagacious people respected the institutions of each other, however repugnant to their own principles and prejudices.

Our Confederacy, fellow-citizens, can only be preserved by the same forbearance. Our citizens must be content with the exercise of the powers with which the Constitution clothes them. The attempt of those of one State to control the domestic institutions of another can only result in feelings of distrust and jealousy, the certain harbingers of disunion, violence, and civil war, and the ultimate destruction of our free institutions. Our Confederacy is perfectly illustrated by the terms and principles governing a common copartnership. There is a fund of power to be exercised under the direction of the joint councils of the allied members, but that which has been reserved by the individual members is intangible by the common Government or the individual members composing it. To attempt it finds no support in the principles of our Constitution.

It should be our constant and earnest endeavor mutually to cultivate a spirit of concord and harmony among the various parts of our Confederacy. Experience has abundantly taught us that the agitation by citizens of one part of the Union of a subject not confided to the General Government, but exclusively under the guardianship of the local authorities, is productive of no other consequences than bitterness, alienation, discord, and injury to the very cause which is intended to be advanced. Of all the great interests which appertain to our country, that of union--cordial, confiding, fraternal union--is by far the most important, since it is the only true and sure guaranty of all others.

In consequence of the embarrassed state of business and the currency, some of the States may meet with difficulty in their financial concerns. However deeply we may regret anything imprudent or excessive in the engagements into which States have entered for purposes of their own, it does not become us to disparage the State governments, nor to discourage them from making proper efforts for their own relief. On the contrary, it is our duty to encourage them to the extent of our constitutional authority to apply their best means and cheerfully to make all necessary sacrifices and submit to all necessary burdens to fulfill their engagements and maintain their credit, for the character and credit of the several States form a part of the character and credit of the whole country. The resources of the country are abundant, the enterprise and activity of our people proverbial, and we may well hope that wise legislation and prudent administration by the respective governments, each acting within its own sphere, will restore former prosperity.

Unpleasant and even dangerous as collisions may sometimes be between the constituted authorities of the citizens of our country in relation to the lines which separate their respective jurisdictions, the results can be of no vital injury to our institutions if that ardent patriotism, that devoted attachment to liberty, that spirit of moderation and forbearance for which our countrymen were once distinguished, continue to be cherished. If this continues to be the ruling passion of our souls, the weaker feeling of the mistaken enthusiast will be corrected, the Utopian dreams of the scheming politician dissipated, and the complicated intrigues of the demagogue rendered harmless. The spirit of liberty is the sovereign balm for every injury which our institutions may receive. On the contrary, no care that can be used in the construction of our Government, no division of powers, no distribution of checks in its several departments, will prove effectual to keep us a free people if this spirit is suffered to decay; and decay it will without constant nurture. To the neglect of this duty the best historians agree in attributing the ruin of all the republics with whose existence and fall their writings have made us acquainted. The same causes will ever produce the same effects, and as long as the love of power is a dominant passion of the human bosom, and as long as the understandings of men can be warped and their affections changed by operations upon their passions and prejudices, so long will the liberties of a people depend on their own constant attention to its preservation. The danger to all well-established free governments arises from the unwillingness of the people to believe in its existence or from the influence of designing men diverting their attention from the quarter whence it approaches to a source from which it can never come. This is the old trick of those who would usurp the government of their country. In the name of democracy they speak, warning the people against the influence of wealth and the danger of aristocracy. History, ancient and modern, is full of such examples. Caesar became the master of the Roman people and the senate under the pretense of supporting the democratic claims of the former against the aristocracy of the latter; Cromwell, in the character of protector of the liberties of the people, became the dictator of England, and Bolivar possessed himself of unlimited power with the title of his country's liberator. There is, on the contrary, no instance on record of an extensive and well-established republic being changed into an aristocracy. The tendencies of all such governments in their decline is to monarchy, and the antagonist principle to liberty there is the spirit of faction--a spirit which assumes the character and in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior, seeks to, and were it possible would, impose upon the true and most faithful disciples of liberty. It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to whom they have intrusted power. And although there is at times much difficulty in distinguishing the false from the true spirit, a calm and dispassionate investigation will detect the counterfeit, as well by the character of its operations as the results that are produced. The true spirit of liberty, although devoted, persevering, bold, and uncompromising in principle, that secured is mild and tolerant and scrupulous as to the means it employs, whilst the spirit of party, assuming to be that of liberty, is harsh, vindictive, and intolerant, and totally reckless as to the character of the allies which it brings to the aid of its cause. When the genuine spirit of liberty animates the body of a people to a thorough examination of their affairs, it leads to the excision of every excrescence which may have fastened itself upon any of the departments of the government, and restores the system to its pristine health and beauty. But the reign of an intolerant spirit of party amongst a free people seldom fails to result in a dangerous accession to the executive power introduced and established amidst unusual professions of devotion to democracy.

The foregoing remarks relate almost exclusively to matters connected with our domestic concerns. It may be proper, however, that I should give some indications to my fellow-citizens of my proposed course of conduct in the management of our foreign relations. I assure them, therefore, that it is my intention to use every means in my power to preserve the friendly intercourse which now so happily subsists with every foreign nation, and that although, of course, not well informed as to the state of pending negotiations with any of them, I see in the personal characters of the sovereigns, as well as in the mutual interests of our own and of the governments with which our relations are most intimate, a pleasing guaranty that the harmony so important to the interests of their subjects as well as of our citizens will not be interrupted by the advancement of any claim or pretension upon their part to which our honor would not permit us to yield. Long the defender of my country's rights in the field, I trust that my fellow-citizens will not see in my earnest desire to preserve peace with foreign powers any indication that their rights will ever be sacrificed or the honor of the nation tarnished by any admission on the part of their Chief Magistrate unworthy of their former glory. In our intercourse with our aboriginal neighbors the same liberality and justice which marked the course prescribed to me by two of my illustrious predecessors when acting under their direction in the discharge of the duties of superintendent and commissioner shall be strictly observed. I can conceive of no more sublime spectacle, none more likely to propitiate an impartial and common Creator, than a rigid adherence to the principles of justice on the part of a powerful nation in its transactions with a weaker and uncivilized people whom circumstances have placed at its disposal.

Before concluding, fellow-citizens, I must say something to you on the subject of the parties at this time existing in our country. To me it appears perfectly clear that the interest of that country requires that the violence of the spirit by which those parties are at this time governed must be greatly mitigated, if not entirely extinguished, or consequences will ensue which are appalling to be thought of.

If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror. We have examples of republics where the love of country and of liberty at one time were the dominant passions of the whole mass of citizens, and yet, with the continuance of the name and forms of free government, not a vestige of these qualities remaining in the bosoms of any one of its citizens. It was the beautiful remark of a distinguished English writer that "in the Roman senate Octavius had a party and Antony a party, but the Commonwealth had none." Yet the senate continued to meet in the temple of liberty to talk of the sacredness and beauty of the Commonwealth and gaze at the statues of the elder Brutus and of the Curtii and Decii, and the people assembled in the forum, not, as in the days of Camillus and the Scipios, to cast their free votes for annual magistrates or pass upon the acts of the senate, but to receive from the hands of the leaders of the respective parties their share of the spoils and to shout for one or the other, as those collected in Gaul or Egypt and the lesser Asia would furnish the larger dividend. The spirit of liberty had fled, and, avoiding the abodes of civilized man, had sought protection in the wilds of Scythia or Scandinavia; and so under the operation of the same causes and influences it will fly from our Capitol and our forums. A calamity so awful, not only to our country, but to the world, must be deprecated by every patriot and every tendency to a state of things likely to produce it immediately checked. Such a tendency has existed--does exist. Always the friend of my countrymen, never their flatterer, it becomes my duty to say to them from this high place to which their partiality has exalted me that there exists in the land a spirit hostile to their best interests--hostile to liberty itself. It is a spirit contracted in its views, selfish in its objects. It looks to the aggrandizement of a few even to the destruction of the interests of the whole. The entire remedy is with the people. Something, however, may be effected by the means which they have placed in my hands. It is union that we want, not of a party for the sake of that party, but a union of the whole country for the sake of the whole country, for the defense of its interests and its honor against foreign aggression, for the defense of those principles for which our ancestors so gloriously contended. As far as it depends upon me it shall be accomplished. All the influence that I possess shall be exerted to prevent the formation at least of an Executive party in the halls of the legislative body. I wish for the support of no member of that body to any measure of mine that does not satisfy his judgment and his sense of duty to those from whom he holds his appointment, nor any confidence in advance from the people but that asked for by Mr. Jefferson, "to give firmness and effect to the legal administration of their affairs."

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time.

Fellow-citizens, being fully invested with that high office to which the partiality of my countrymen has called me, I now take an affectionate leave of you. You will bear with you to your homes the remembrance of the pledge I have this day given to discharge all the high duties of my exalted station according to the best of my ability, and I shall enter upon their performance with entire confidence in the support of a just and generous people.

MARCH 4, 1841.

This was taken from the collection of presidential papers at www.gutenberg.net

Return to TOC

Mexican Bandit Attacks the United States

2010-05-25T14:26:00.000-07:00

Filipe “Pancho Villa” Calderon has invaded the U.S. and found an ally in America's enemy Obama Bandito.

Ostensibly here to discuss a number of issues, he launched almost immediately into an attack on our immigration policies in general and Arizona's in particular. Arizona is the one state with the gumption to act to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into this country. Naturally, Arizona is under attack from America's enemies within and without our borders.

Calderon, as might be expected, immediately deals the “discrimination” card. Obama, our enemy in the White House, in keeping with his tendency to bow to the wishes of anyone but the American people, backs him up and threatens to seek legal action to block the Arizona law. This he does immediately after a closed door meeting with the Mexican bandit. Both claim the Arizona law might lead to “racial profiling.” That's absurd! Why would local police only stop Mexicans when trying to stop the flow of illegal Mexican aliens? Doesn't it make more sense to stop whites, blacks, orientals, Indians (Hindu), and Arabs? Well...those opposing Arizona's law seem to think so. But then, are they really opposing the immigration law or are they supporting the undermining of our national sovereignty with a flood of aliens who have no loyalty to the U.S.?

While saying the Arizona law “ignores reality” and “introduces racial profiling,” Calderon very graciously acknowledges the right of any country to “enact and enforce its own laws.” Presumably this means laws that don't “ignore reality” and give Calderon what he wants. After this concession he talks of “fixing” the broken system and calls for laws “that work and work well for all.” Is he talking about our laws only or does he include Mexico's. Maybe he's talking about joint laws that apply to both. You don't think that likely? I do. I'll explain why later.

Reaction to Calderon's visit and his attacks on Arizona and U.S. policy has been mixed. As might be expected, the media in general sides with the banditos and parrots the “racial profiling” and “discrimination” charges. So do many well funded “activist” organizations.

On the other hand, most of the letters to the editor and various comments on internet blogs and newsletters seem to indicate, as many reports bear out, that the majority of the people support Arizona and tougher immigration laws and enforcement. Some in Congress feel the same way.

Representative Michael McCaul summed it up well when he told Fox News, “I think it's inappropriate for him to come in and criticize our law. When we go down to Mexico, we don't do that to the Mexicans. The Arizona law is not the problem. The problem is the growing violence down the border and securing the border and the Obama administration enforcing federal law.”

Congressman Lamar Smith expressed disappointment that Calderon didn't talk more about what Mexico will do to curb illegal immigration and improve conditions in Mexico so its citizens will want to stay home. Fox reports that he said, in a written statement, “Instead, President Calderon continues to mischaracterize and criticize domestic policies of the United States. It is not right for the president of another country to come here and criticize our nation or our states for wanting to stop human smuggling and drug trafficking, or secure our border.” I would add that it's certainly not right for a president of the United States to acquiesce to such high-handedness.

Not surprisingly, Calderon claims demand for drugs in the U.S. is the cause of border problems and blames the U.S. for not stopping the flow of weapons to Mexico to arm the drug cartels. I guess it hasn't occurred to him that stopping the drug traffickers in Arizona might stop them from selling the drugs to buy weapons to send south. Or maybe he's just looking for another $1.3B in U.S. taxpayers money to “fight” the cartels. According to one correspondent, he'll get it. He said more money is expected to be made available by the U.S. [Taxpayer] to stop the drug trade.

Just before the meeting of Obama and Calderon, reporter Howard LaFranchi may have inadvertently hit on the crux of the matter. He lamented that the atmosphere for this meeting was darker than that for the meeting in 2001 between Vincenti Fox and Bush. He bemoans the lack of “big ideas.” Mr. Franchi says, “One of the 'big ideas' that Mr. Fox brought north with him in September 2001 was that of a North American community that would eventually include the free movement of people.”

We can excuse Franchi for not knowing that the idea wasn't brought here by Fox. Most people are unaware that the seed of this “big idea” was planted in Philadelphia in 1941-42. It was the plan to create a “North American Union” even more comprehensive than that discussed by the heads of state of Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. behind the backs of the people. Called the “United States of America,” it was embedded in an even more grandiose map and plan to create a “New World Moral Order.”

I said earlier I'd explain why Calderon may have been talking of creating laws that apply to both the Mexican and American people. It also explains why illegal immigration can't (won't) be stopped and why America's enemy, Barack Obama, wants to grant amnesty to the over 11 million fifth-columnists (some say over 25 million) already in the U.S.

Calderon lets the cat out of the bag with these comments. "We can do so if we create a safer border, a border that will unite us instead of dividing us, uniting our people. We can do so with a community that will promote a dignified life in an orderly way for both our countries." Many are wondering who this guy is to come here and tell the President of the United States and our Congress how to conduct our internal affairs. Make no mistake. Calderon was not making suggestions. He was giving orders. Where does he get such authority? Not from Mexico, but from America's ruling party – the Council on Foreign Relations. He speaks with the power of international finance. Calderon appears in a 2003 membership list of the Trilateral Commission as a former member in public service. This globalist cabal was created by the CFR as an elite corps of shock troops to spread globalist ideas throughout North America, Europe, and Japan. Since its creation it has expanded to cover much of the Orient.

The task of Trilateral Members is to promote various aspects of globalism with government and businesses in their respective countries, but they are asked to resign membership when they actually enter the government – probably a cover as they certainly don't give up their goals. When he resigned, Calderon was Mexico's Minister of Energy. If you didn't before, maybe now you understand why I call Calderon and Obama bandits. They are out to steal our liberty and the sovereignty of our States and of our respective countries.

Boycott Mexico! Build a “Border Fence” around Washington, D.C. to keep the criminal elements out of our States!

As an aside in reference to Calderon's comment about Arizona's law "ignoring reality." I've found that, generally speaking, those accusing others of "ignoring" or being "out-of-touch" with reality are not unlike hemorrhoids on a bull's rectum. They accept what passes by them every day as the truth, and they use that to form their concepts of reality.

For more, visit:
http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com/2008/08/americas-ruling-party.html

http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com/2008/10/trilateral-commission.html

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5892277-la-raza-racism-and-revolution

Return to TOC

AMERICA'S ENEMIES IN THE SENATE

2010-04-23T07:55:00.000-07:00

This is a list of 59 of the 60 Senators who voted for the Healthcare Obamanation and, in so doing, gave aid and comfort to the corporate enemies of America – Treason.

I had a bit of difficulty finding a list of those who voted for the atrocity. I do know that 58 Democrats voted for it as did two “independents.” I finally settled for a list of members of the Democratic caucus which apparently has a missing senator.

All of the Republicans voted against it. Don't be fooled. We still have one party and that is the Council on Foreign Relations which is dedicated to the destruction of our national sovereignty and with it our Constitution. If the people are able to carry their outrage at this betrayal into the next election, they will vote out many of the people who voted “yes.” It will make no difference. Try then to get the law repealed. It will not be. The Republican half of the Ruling Party will continue the same program of destruction carried on by the Democratic half. Like Obama, they will talk change but we will get none, or, if any, it will be for the worse. We are already seeing this in the 8th District where Mike Fitzpatrick is trying to get back his House seat from Patrick Murphy. When Fitzpatrick was last in office, he did little to inspire confidence that he will stand up for American principles and for her sovereignty. I'm looking forward to a candidates night where I can ask him if he wants to be a "leader" like Murphy.

Akaka, Daniel - (D - HI)
Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
Bayh, Evan - (D - IN)
Begich, Mark (D - AK)
Bennet, Michael - (D - CO)
Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM)
Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)
Brown, Sherrod - (D - OH)
Burris, Roland - (D - IL)
Byrd, Robert - (D - WV)
Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)
Cardin, Ben - (D - MD)
Carper, Thomas - (D - DE)
Casey, Robert P., Jr. - (D - PA)
Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)
Dodd, Christopher - (D – CT)
Dorgan, Byron - (D - ND)
Durbin, Richard - (D - IL)
Feingold, Russell - (D - WI)
Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
Franken, Al - (D - MN)
Gillibrand, Kirsten - (D - NY)
Hagan, Kay - (D - NC)
Harkin, Tom - (D – IA)
Inouye, Daniel - (D - HI)
Johnson, Tim - (D - SD)
Kaufman, Ted - (D - DE)
Kerry, John - (D - MA)
Kohl, Herb - (D - WI)
Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN)
Landrieu, Mary - (D - LA)
Lautenberg, Frank - (D – NJ)
Leahy, Patrick - (D - VT)
Levin, Carl - (D - MI)
Lieberman, Joseph - (I - CT)
Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR)
McCaskill, Claire - (D - MO)
Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ)
Merkley, Jeff - (D – OR)
Mikulski, Barbara - (D – MD)
Murray, Patty - (D - WA)
Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE)
Pryor, Mark - (D - AR)
Reed, Jack - (D - RI)
Reid, Harry - (D - NV)
Rockefeller, John - (D - WV)
Sanders, Bernie - (I - VT)
Schumer, Charles - (D - NY)
Shaheen, Jeanne - (D - NH)
Specter, Arlen - (D - PA)
Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI)
Tester, Jon - (D - MT)
Udall, Mark - (D - CO)
Udall, Tom - (D - NM)
Warner, Mark - (D - VA)
Webb, Jim - (D - VA)
Whitehouse, Sheldon - (D - RI)
Wyden, Ron - (D – OR)

Return To TOC

America's Enemies in the House

2010-04-19T12:39:00.000-07:00

Below is a list of Members of Congress who voted for the healthcare Obamanation despite polls that showed a substantial majority of Americans opposed it. It should be understood that a few may represent districts in which a majority favored the bill. In that case, they voted as they should have as representatives of the people of their district. Their votes would not catagorize them as America's enemies, as traitors to the American people and the Republic. However, since these would likely be in a very small minority, I'm willing to accept the possibility of a 5 or 10% error and classify them all as traitors to, and enemies of, the American republic.

I have no qualms about so classing 8th District Congressman Patrick Murphy as an enemy of America and of the American people and, yes, as a traitor. In a “Town Meeting” in which Murphy was promoting the bill, it was pointed out that the majority of the people were opposed. The Congressman [Gauleiter] made it plain that even if the majority of his constituents opposed a bill, if he thought it was a good bill, it was his duty as a “leader” to vote for it. He also applied that philosophy to his votes for cap and trade and the bail outs. Murphy has rejected republican principles of representative government for the leadership principle of Nazi Germany. We elected him to represent us and he has arrogated to himself the role of leader (Fuehrer). I'm sure that applies to most in this list.

Yea : 219 Members
Vic Snyder (D-AR)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
Harry Mitchell (D-AZ)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Joe Baca (D-CA)
Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Lois Capps (D-CA)
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
Judy Chu (D-CA)
Jim Costa (D-CA)
Susan Davis (D-CA)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
John Garamendi (D-CA)
Jane Harman (D-CA)
Michael Honda (D-CA)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Jerry McNerney (D-CA)
George Miller (D-CA)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Fortney Stark (D-CA)
Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Diane Watson (D-CA)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Betsy Markey (D-CO)
Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
John Salazar (D-CO)
Joe Courtney (D-CT)
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Jim Himes (D-CT)
John Larson (D-CT)
Christopher Murphy (D-CT)
F. Allen Boyd (D-FL)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Kathy Castor (D-FL)
Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Ron Klein (D-FL)
Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)
Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
Henry Johnson (D-GA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
David Scott (D-GA)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
Bruce Braley (D-IA)
David Loebsack (D-IA)
Melissa Bean (D-IL)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Danny Davis (D-IL)
Bill Foster (D-IL)
Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Deborah Halvorson (D-IL)
Phil Hare (D-IL)
Jesse Jackson (D-IL)
Mike Quigley (D-IL)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
Andre Carson (D-IN)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Baron Hill (D-IN)
Peter Visclosky (D-IN)
Dennis Moore (D-KS)
John Yarmuth (D-KY)
Michael Capuano (D-MA)
William Delahunt (D-MA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Edward Markey (D-MA)
James McGovern (D-MA)
Richard Neal (D-MA)
John Olver (D-MA)
John Tierney (D-MA)
Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
C.A. Ruppersberger (D-MD)
John Sarbanes (D-MD)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Michael Michaud (D-ME)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
John Conyers (D-MI)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Mark Schauer (D-MI)
Bart Stupak (D-MI)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
James Oberstar (D-MN)
Tim Walz (D-MN)
Russ Carnahan (D-MO)
Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO)
Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
Bob Etheridge (D-NC)
Brad Miller (D-NC)
David Price (D-NC)
Melvin Watt (D-NC)
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
Paul Hodes (D-NH)
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
Robert Andrews (D-NJ)
Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Ben Lujan (D-NM)
Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Dina Titus (D-NV)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Tim Bishop (D-NY)
Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
John Hall (D-NY)
Brian Higgins (D-NY)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Steve Israel (D-NY)
Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Dan Maffei (D-NY)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
Scott Murphy (D-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Bill Owens (D-NY)
Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
John Boccieri (D-OH)
Steve Driehaus (D-OH)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Betty Sutton (D-OH)
Charlie Wilson (D-OH)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
David Wu (D-OR)
Robert Brady (D-PA)
Christopher Carney (D-PA)
Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Patrick Murphy (D-PA)
Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Joe Sestak (D-PA)
Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
James Langevin (D-RI)
James Clyburn (D-SC)
John Spratt (D-SC)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Bart Gordon (D-TN)
Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Charles Gonzalez (D-TX)
Al Green (D-TX)
Gene Green (D-TX)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX)
Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
James Moran (D-VA)
Tom Perriello (D-VA)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Brian Baird (D-WA)
Norman Dicks (D-WA)
Jay Inslee (D-WA)
Rick Larsen (D-WA)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Adam Smith (D-WA)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Steve Kagen (D-WI)
Ron Kind (D-WI)
Gwen Moore (D-WI)
David Obey (D-WI)
Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)

Return To TOC

Incontrovertible Proof -- Global Warming is Man Made

2010-03-28T05:12:00.000-07:00

Return to TOC

AMERICA'S CORPORATE ENEMIES

2009-09-23T13:16:00.000-07:00

The following is a list of corporate members of the Council On Foreign Relations: America's Ruling Party.

The Council has, since its inception, promoted world government at the expense of national sovereignty. With funding coming from big foundations, wealthy individuals, and these corporate members, it's easy to understand why. Those who dominate the economy have always sought to pull government to that level on which they are operating where it can best protect and promote their interests.

When these United States were founded, the Articles of Confederation best served the interests of the farmers, plantation owners, craftsmen, and small tradesmen, in other words, probably the majority of the people in most of the new States. But the banking and interstate commerce interest of a few of the northern States were not happy with that. They didn't want to have to deal with 13 separate governments. They wanted one, so, led by economic royalists like Hamilton they set out to create a strong national government under their control. This was the intent of the Constitution. Fortunately, their were enough men who understood what these people were trying to do and delayed the power grab for awhile with the First Ten Amendments.

Unfortunately, the delay was only temporary and the power was eventually seized by the agents of wealth in Washington. You can see the program for the destruction of our State and local governments in the “Regionalism-Death of the American System post in my lostliberty blog.

Sadly, the power shift hasn't ended with the great usurpation by Washington on behalf of the interstate commerce interests. The largest of those entities are now international, and they have been working toward the destruction of national sovereignty throughout the world. This bodes ill, not only for the American people, but for all of the peoples of the world who will be uniformly reduced to serfdom.

It's entirely possible that the regionalism being promoted here has nothing to do with interstate commerce. It may have been a globalist (international finance and business) program to prepare America for merger into the planned world government. It would be difficult for a world government to deal with all of the State and local governments we have. In fact, the plan laid out in the early 1940's shows that, initially, it won't even deal with all of the countries. They will first be incorporated into regional superstates such as the European Union and the planned North American Union as a step toward the eventual merger into one. Seeing the difficulties they are having with dissatisfaction in the EU, it is clear that the planners were wise not to try to grab everything at once. Don't be fooled into thinking that is not still the plan. You can see the 1940's map and plan in the New World Order-Death of America post in my lostliberty blog.

Anyone who wants to console themselves with the wishful thinking that such conglomerations of Nations will be “democratic” should read the “NEW VOICE” post in lostliberty which is an analysis of a UK Financial Times article.

Here is the list that I like to think of as the Corporate Traitors List. Many individual members of the CFR may well not be totally familiar with its plans and might balk if they realized what they were contributing to, but I don't believe there is any chance that the same holds true for corporations. I'm certain that they must know what they are doing, at least those within the corporation who are promoting membership in the Council know.

Here's the list and url.

"Corporate Roster - Council On Foreign Relations"

www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

Corporate Membership
(as of September 22, 2009)

Founders
Bank of America / Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Hess Corporation
McKinsey & Company, Inc.
The Nasdaq OMX Group

President's Circle
American Express Company
Barclays Capital
Bennett Jones LLP
BP p.l.c.
Bridgewater Associates, Inc.
CA
Chevron Corporation
Citi
Credit Suisse
Eni S.p.A.
Fortress Investment Group LLC
Guardsmark LLC
Investcorp International, Inc.
Kingdon Capital Management
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Korn/Ferry International
Lazard
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Mars, Inc.
McGraw-Hill Companies, The
Moody's Investors Service
Morgan Stanley
New Media Investments
Nike, Inc.
Reliance Industries Limited
Rio Tinto
Rockefeller Group International, Inc.
Rohatyn Group, The
Soros Fund Management
Standard Chartered Bank
Strategic Real Estate Advisors
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
UBS AG
Veritas Capital LLC
Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisors, LLC

Premium
Access Industries, Inc.
ACE Limited
AEA Investors Inc.
Alcoa, Inc.
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd.
Apollo Management, LP
ARAMARK Corporation
Aramco Services Company
Archer Daniels Midland Company
AREVA Inc.
Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder Holdings, Inc.
Arnold & Porter LLP
Baker Capital Corp.
Baker, Nye Advisers, Inc.
Baldwin-Gottschalk Group, The
Banco Mercantil
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The
BASF Corporation
BGR International
Blackstone Group L.P., The
Bloomberg
BNP Paribas
Boeing Company, The
Booz & Co.
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
Bunge Limited
CALYON Corporate and Investment Bank
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
Canon, Inc.
Caxton Associates
Chrysler LLC
Cisneros Group of Companies
CIT Group Inc.
Clarium Capital Management, LLC
CNA Corporation, The
Coca-Cola Company, The
ConocoPhillips Company
Continental Properties
Corsair Capital
Covington & Burling
Craig Drill Capital Corporation
De Beers
Deere & Company
Deloitte
Deutsche Bank AG
Duke Energy Corporation
DynCorp International
Enel North America
Energy Intelligence Group, Inc.
Equinox Partners, L.P.
Estee Lauder Companies Inc.
Federal Express Corporation
Ford Motor Company
Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc.
Future Pipe Industries, Inc.
General Atlantic LLC
General Electric Company
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
GlaxoSmithKline
Google, Inc.
Granite Associates LP
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Hitachi, Ltd.
Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin
IBM Corporation
Indus Capital Partners, LLC
Invus Group, LLC
ITOCHU International
J.E. Robert Companies
Jacobs Asset Management, LLC
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Kailix Investment Advisors
KBR
Kometal GMBH Austria
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc.
Mannheim LLC
Marathon Oil Company
Mark Partners
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
Marubeni America Corporation
MBIA Insurance Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medley Capital
Medley Global Advisors
Merck & Co., Inc.
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.
Mitsubishi International Corporation
Mitsui USA Foundation
Moore Capital Management LLC
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Munich Re America Corporation
National Interest Security Company
New York Life International, Inc.
News Corporation, The
NYSE Euronext
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Olayan Group, The
PepsiCo, Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Prudential Life Insurance Co.
Raytheon Company
Resource Holdings, Ltd.
Rho Capital Partners
Rothschild North America, Inc.
Sandalwood Securities, Inc.
Shell Oil Company
Silver Lake Partners
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Sony Corporation of America
Standard & Poor's
Starwood Capital Group
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Tata Group, The
Thomson Reuters
Time Warner Inc.
Tishman Speyer Properties, Inc.
TOTAL S.A.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
United Technologies Corporation
Verizon Communications Inc.
Visa Inc.
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Vornado Realty Trust
Warburg Pincus LLC
Wyoming Investment Corporation
Xerox Corporation
Zephyr Management, L.P.
Ziff Brothers Investments LLC

Associates
AARP
Airbus North America
Baker & Hostetler LLP
Banca d'Italia
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Control Risks Group
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
French-American Chamber of Commerce
Hemispheric Partners
Idemitsu Apollo Corporation
Intellispace, Inc.
Intesa Sanpaolo
Japan Bank for International Cooperation
JETRO New York
Joukowsky Family Foundation
Oxford Analytica Inc.
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association
Weber Shandwick Worldwide

A couple of names on the list gave me a chuckle. Long ago I turned down a job offer from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when I first investigated them and thought them to be a tool for the destruction of small, local businesses. The man who offered me the job was stunned when I declined. His attitude seemed to radiate disbelief. Nobody turns down the U.S. C. of C.

The other that caused a chuckle was AARP. I was briefly a member until I started getting propaganda from them about their lobbying efforts to get more from the taxpayers. I quickly realized that they were an organization of socialist gimmee gangsters. Now I see from their Council membership that they are international socialists, or, as I like to call them, Internazis.

Return To TOC

Ruling Party's Media Control - Fox News

2009-08-22T09:40:00.000-07:00

In my post on America's Ruling Party, I attempted to show the tremendous influence the CFR had over the media. I think at the time the list I used was made, Fox News was relatively new and not much had been developed about it. I just did a little research and with minimal effort found these CFR connections to "conservative" Fox.

Monica Crowley - “conservative” commentator on Fox News. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Linda Vester - Fox talk show host. Former co-host of MSNBC's Coast to Coast. She was a Fulbright Scholar, probably the next closest thing to a Rhodes Scholar. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Dennis Ross - a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel. Member of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the PNAC (Neo-Con Project for a New American Century). He served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. He is a noted supporter of the Iraq war. As of June, he was a National Security Advisor to Obama. He, along with a number of other CFR and TC members, was a foreign policy advisor for candidate Obama. McCain also had a stack of CFR/TC advisors. As someone so beautifully put it, we didn't have a choice of the “lesser of two evils,” we had a choice of the “evil of two lessers.”

Then there's the Boss, Rupert Murdoch, member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The British born Murdoch only became an American citizen to satisfy the requirement that you must be an American to own a TV station in the U.S.

Although he's a naturalized citizen, he is far more interested in courting the Communist Chinese. The New York Times did an article about Murdoch helping his Red Chinese buddies set up a website. It's only fair. They gave him a young, attractive wife and he gave them a website and maybe a few other things.

According to the Times, few companies have been as ardent in their attempts to break into the Chinese market as Murdoch. The Times says he:

has flattered Party leaders
done business with their children
joined with the Communist Youth League in a television venture
co-operates closely with China's censors and state broadcasters
cultivates ties with political leaders in an attempt to insulate his ventures from regulation
often supports the policies of Chinese leaders and attacks their critics

According to the Times, Murdoch is building a house in Beijing. A neighbor to be, former Prime Minister Zhu, has invited Ruppert to become Chinese.

Yeah! Fox News! Real “conservative!”

But Fox isn't alone in selling its soul to the Red Devils. According to the Times:

"As a local venture, MySpace China, which began operations in the spring, abides by domestic censorship laws and the “self discipline” regime that governs proprietors of Chinese Web sites. Every page on the site has a link allowing users or monitors to “report inappropriate information” to the authorities. Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have made similar accommodations for their Web sites in China." [Maybe in the U.S. too.]

I feel a recurrent nightmare coming on.

Read the Times article at the link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/world/asia/26murdoch.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Return To TOC

I HAD A DREAM

2009-07-30T18:48:00.000-07:00

Recent news told of Obama's visit to China and the visit of a number of U.S. businessmen. Now we read that we have signed a “memorandum” with the Chinese about global warming. There is little doubt in my mind that we will be transferring more U.S. technology to China in return for their “cooperation.” They will, of course, be laughing at us for making concessions in return for agreement to fight the non-existent man made global warming. I suspect my sleep will soon be disturbed by a recurrent dream – really a nightmare.

In the words so often used on TV, I was about to post this when I received “breaking news” from The August Review edited by Patrick Wood*. Obama has nominated Robert Hormats, vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, to be an Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agriculture. Expected to be confirmed by the Senate, Hormats will be the twelfth Trilateral Commission member in the Obama administration and the sixth in the State Department where they will be best able to further the anti-American globalist plans of the Commission and its money bosses. Wood says, “It is expected that Hormats will be the lead diplomat in economic negotiations with China and India. Goldman Sachs' commercial relationship with China and India is huge, and has been instrumental in turning both countries into world economic powers.” I would add that Goldman Sachs has also been instrumental in turning America into a third world economy. Sorry, Sir John! Treason doth prosper.

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/trilateral_commission/hormats_nominated_to_state_department_20090730125/

On to my dream. It's even more appropriate in light of this new information. I first had this dream many years ago. Whenever I bought something then, I tried to avoid products made with pure slave labor such as those from Red China. That year I inadvertently bought a gift for someone that was made there. I was upset when I discovered it, but it was too late to do anything about it. That night, a strange sobbing invaded my dreams. It seemed to come from everywhere and yet from nowhere. I had to find out who was crying and why. My other dreams faded and I found myself at the bottom of a snow covered hill. The crying seemed to be coming from above, so I climbed to the top. There I saw a young boy. He couldn't have been more than eighteen. He knelt before a ditch. His tears froze instantly on his cheeks in the bitter cold of what I somehow sensed was Korea. Suddenly, the boy's image faded and I could see only his hands. Odd! They were tied behind his back.

As quickly as the boy had faded, his hands faded and were replaced by a single yellow hand. The hand held an ominous object. I couldn't make it out, but I remember feeling a chill. Suddenly, an explosion almost tore me from my sleep. The boy toppled into the ditch. Several more explosions and a line of boys that I hadn't noticed before did the same. The yellow hand appeared again, and with it, the grinning face of a young Red Chinese soldier.

The images yielded to total darkness, but the sobbing continued. At least now I knew why. The boy was feeling sorry for himself, for his life lost so senselessly, lost so young. For a moment I felt a deep pity for him, but the mood was broken as the yellow hand appeared again. It was older, but I recognized it immediately. It was reaching out for something. It was reaching out for, and grasped, a white hand. The sobbing became louder. I could see the grinning faces of a Red Chinese official – and – an American president, Richard Nixon.

Again the yellow hand, older still, but unmistakably the same hand, reached out and grasped many hands in succession. There was the same familiar grinning face greeting the many grinning faces of a U.S. trade delegation. The incessant sobbing continued to fill the background, but now it was joined by a hideous laughter. The laughter, interspersed with shouts of "hypocrites!, hypocrites!," came from a row of swollen, bloated faces – faces I'd seen before. I woke and reached immediately for a book on my shelf. There they were. Not yet swollen and bloated, but there they were. I put my copy of "The Nuremberg Trials" back on the shelf. Now I understood. What a fool I'd been! How small I felt! That boy wasn't crying because he felt sorry for himself and for the life he'd lost. He was crying because he felt sorry for us! For the principles we've lost. For what we've become. The sobbing started again, but this time it was in the room.

I couldn't decide where to put this post. Certainly, it pertains to our loss of liberty, but I finally decided it belonged here. Those international financiers and multinational corporations who have financed and run America for at least a century also financed the murderers of Tibet, the butchers of Beijing as we see in Woods article. It was they who financed the Bolshevik Revolution and were, therefore, responsible for the millions murdered by them. It was they who financed both sides in WWII and were, again, responsible for tens of millions of deaths. They have proven themselves not only enemies of America, but of all Mankind.

*Patrick Wood co-authored Trilaterals Over Washington with Antony Sutton. He is offering an ebook version for anyone who signs up for a free subscription to his newsletter.

Return to TOC

AN APOLOGY

2009-06-02T07:49:00.000-07:00

This brief post is both an apology and an attempt to make amends. I apologize for the "BILDERBERG PLANS" post. When I wrote it I was tired and in a hurry. I'm by no means a professional writer, but that post was lousy even for me. I didn't do the article justice. I only hope some readers followed the link.

To try to make amends, I'm posting this link to the blog of Stephen Lendman. It will become my favorite. I believe Mr. Lendman is a professional writer. He certainly writes better than I. He has a comprehensive article on the Bilderbergers. If you want to know what's being done to you and by whom, read his blog.

Some sleaze has been tampering with my blogs and changing links. The lendman link was connected to an entirely different site. This link (unless someone changes it again) connects directly to the relevant blog post. The blog link can be found on my blog list.

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/06/daniel-estulins-true-story-of.html

Plan to spend a lot of time there.

Return to TOC

BILDERBERG PLANS

2009-05-29T18:21:00.000-07:00

Andrew G. Marshall wrote an article on this year's Bilderberg meeting in Greece for Global Research. He reports that the information came from inside sources. This first paragraph says a lot.

“From May 14-17, the global elite met in secret in Greece for the yearly Bilderberg conference, amid scattered and limited global media attention. Roughly 130 of the world’s most powerful individuals came together to discuss the pressing issues of today, and to chart a course for the next year. The main topic of discussion at this years meeting was the global financial crisis, which is no surprise, considering the list of conference attendees includes many of the primary architects of the crisis, as well as those poised to “solve” it.”

Apparently the “elite” were meeting to decide whether to give us a prolonged depression with decades of stagnation, decline and poverty...or an intense but shorter one that would result in a new “economic order” with less sovereignty. I'm sure the “less sovereignty” part will come with either plan.

According to Williams or his sources, a fleecing of the sheople who believe the “up-turn” propaganda is planned. Also planned is a push for the Lisbon Treaty which, says Willams, will result in a more 'provincial status' for the member states of the EU.” This is apparently dependent on the Irish being suckered into a “YES” vote. I don't know if the Irish people will decide, or whether it will be decided over their heads. Remember that, as the UK's Financial Times pointed out, the EU gets its agenda through more easily when the people aren't consulted. [See a summary and link to the article in the “New Voice” post of my lostliberty blog.]

Also reported is a planned global department of health and a global treasury and the likelihood that a shorter depression will be opted for because a long one will cost the financial barons too much money. Furthermore, it is reported that there is concern among some of the attendees that they might lose control of the chaos they create which will result in loss of control of us.

Considerably more is covered in the article including many end notes with links. If you want to know what the monied aristocracy plans for us, its serfs, read it, and then watch carefully for fulfillment or attempts to fulfill these plans. That will confirm or disprove the accuracy of this report.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13738

Return to TOC

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--DOMESTIC ENEMY NO. 1

2009-05-29T10:58:00.000-07:00

In writing of the enemies of America it would be gross negligence to omit the greatest domestic enemy of our Constitution and our Republic—the federal government.

The following letters assigning blame for America's decline appeared in Contract Employment Weekly in 1990. The first names the decline in American engineering as the cause and the reply points the finger at the government and those behind it. I'll refer to the writer of the first as Larry D. and of the second as Rick L.

=================================================================================

Trade, Deficits, and Blame. WHY DOES THE TRUTH REMAIN SUPPRESSED? DIMWITTED ECONOMISTS WHO ALWAYS MISS THEIR MARK!

By far the most consistent whining (not a very winning strategy) about the deteriorating state of affairs pertaining to the sputtering American industrial machine, comes from the incredible array of so-called learned economists, who are looked upon as experts by our sometimes ignorant press corps. These ivy towered academics are continually being quoted by the astute members of the 4th estate as to the standard reasons for the demise of our economy. The standard excuses are:

Japanese trade policies, 2) High interest rates, 3) Budget deficits, 4)? other excuses.

The above are merely symptoms not the cause! Why do these people ALWAYS miss their mark? Are they really stupid? How could this be as they are graduates of the nation's most prestigious colleges?

Did you ever have somebody look through you and talk to somebody behind you, like you didn't exist? How does it feel to be a non-person? These learned economic "experts" talk about everything else. Do they think manufactured goods just fall from the sky like manna from heaven? Hearing panels of economic "experts" try to explain the demise of our economy is like listening to a bunch of tropical birds mimicking human voices, all form no substance, quacking away at a high volume.

The reason they are off so much is that they can't say the E word. What is the E word? It stands for ENGINEER They simply cannot get themselves to admit that an industrial-based economy is 100%, not 90%, not 50%, but I repeat myself again, 100% dependent upon the American working Engineer!!!!

Since the zenith of 1969 (moon landing, top economy in world), the American Working Engineer has been treated terribly at an increasing rate! Low wages, massive importation of foreign engineers at ridiculously low wages, and finally the piece de'resistance, Senator Moynihan's 1706, have made the practice of engineering as lucrative as Uranian mining. We seem to have forgotten that manufactured goods don't grow on trees. They are designed by Engineers, the manufacturing technology is done by Engineers, and the distribution means and software is implemented by Engineers. In the economic pecking order this fact is completely ignored. There is no special interest group or union that can effectively take care of the welfare of technical workers and professionals. Engineers are the only engine of our industries.

The old adage... "you get what you pay for" is the real story behind our economic downfall. The quality of our products has been deteriorating steadily simply because our best brains go in to other fields of endeavor, namely, medicine, law and business. We have seen a steady erosion of American brainpower leave the engineering business for greener pastures. This has had a direct impact on our manufactured products on the average. We simply design and manufacture inferior products because we have inferior people designing them today more than twenty years ago.

Top pay attracts top people period! Exploited people also care less about innovation. Most engineers in this country don't get apenny for their patents unlike Japanese and European practices.

The quality of our engineering education has also fallen significantly in two decades. Greedy academia, eager to fill up campuses, actively recruited masses of foreign engineering students. In most cases at publicly supported state schools where out-of-state native Americans must pay full tuition, but alien students get free state tuition (including tens of thousands of Japanese graduate students who merrily steal taxpayer supported research). Thus in one stroke they get masses of students to support their salaries and perks. At the same time they worked hand in hand with greedy industrialists and government officials crying about fictitious shortages of Engineers in this country (there never has been such a shortage ever!) Thus in one stroke this alliance broke the back of the American working engineer. The department of labor would always let these graduating students stay in the country since they were sponsored by companies claiming they could hire no Americans for the job openings. This was true only in the context that these 'reserved for alien" jobs were usually at about one-third or half the then going rate for an American.

Not to be outdone in avarice, college professors, the chaps who had good salaries, perks and tenure, would turn around and fill the numerous instructor slots with low paid aliens. These instructors (I know from first hand experience) would do the bulk of the mundane teaching, freeing the professors to compete on government research projects staffed by free student labor under the guise of "thesis projects." However this cozy scheme had one major drawback. Most of these alien instructors' verbal English communication skills are so poor that to a typical American student all they could hear in class was garbled rubbish. Now there is no way that rigorous subjects such as advanced mathematics, physics or chemistry can be adequately taught to a large number of students in this manner. Sure there are always geniuses who learn completely by themselves, but for the majority of students this is not enough unless they form self-teaching groups. This could work for, let's say, law students, but most engineers have poor interpersonal skills, so this was out. What to do? Fortunately (unfortunately in a way) to the rescue came computer technology (primarily developed by industry, not academia).

Thus came to pass the primacy of "computer science" on most engineering campuses. This was followed by the degree in "engineering technology" (to get around the embarrassment of not receiving academic accreditation). Thus the schools could rely upon software programs to supply interactive computer prompts, rather than on actually teaching! Gone by the wayside were fundamental subjects that required rigorous analytical skills. In their place was a proliferation of programming languages and wire wrapping courses. Thus the phenomena of student as computer hacker. Gone was a massive loss of problem solving and communication skills plus major core subjects such as power engineering and analog electrical theory (and, yes, unfortunately, courses in English literature). Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in computer technology having been in the field for over twenty-five years. But I could never practice it without a rigorous fundamental engineering education. This made it easy to design hardware or write software without any special training (which is absolutely necessary for most "engineering technology graduates"). The use of specific computers and languages or semiconductor devices is not the primary job of a college or university. Any well-trained engineer can pick these skills up quickly when on the job. However, that's the emphasis at too many schools today.

Thus, except for a handful of elite schools peopled by students with excellent high school or prep school educations, the average engineer employed by industry today is INFERIOR to his or her counterpart of 20 years ago! Now please note the term I used... "average." This statement is statistically true since there has been a fourfold increase in the number of practicing engineers than there was 20 years ago. Unfortunately probably more than half these engineers have graduated with inferior educations. As long as these individuals were willing to work significantly cheaper than Americans, our greedy industrialists were happy to hire them over Americans. Just like the old economist adage of cheap money driving good money out of the marketplace, so has the effect in driving many of our best brains out of what's become a low paying occupation relative to the others. This short-sighted policy was codified by the passage of 1706 of the TRA of 1986 by Senator Moynihan. Thus the blatant discrimination against engineers in our tax code as pertaining to working as an independent businessman.

To fill this gap many industrial firms rely heavily on computer aided engineering software. This software conceptually designed 20-30 years ago to run on the old mainframe IBM and Control Data computers, with an operating system and compiler developed by the telephone company 25 years ago has been ported over to the new table top workstation microcomputers. Excellent as this stuff is, it can in no way compensate for analytical thought processes and engineering fundamentals. There is no way that a superior tool with an inferior engineer can design a superior product. The resultant product will be inferior. However the reverse is always true. A superior engineer with an inferior tool can always produce a superior product...it just takes longer.

So please, learned bean counters, economists and government policy makers, take note and face the truth. — Larry D., B.I.E. 1956, M.S.E.E. 1968, Working Engineer (sometimes), San Diego, California

==============================================================================

This letter is long overdue. My excuse is that I have been floating on the air of self-importance since Larry D's letter on July 25 and it's taken me this long to get down to reality.

As an engineer, it would certainly be gratifying to think I was as important as Mr. D says, but I can't. The reason I can't accept his theory on the cause of America's demise is that I have been fighting the cause, with varying vigor, for the last twenty years. Personal experience, extensive reading and contact I've had with very knowledgeable people make me conclude that Mr. D has missed the mark, both in his assessment of the effect of the engineer's decline on America's economy and of the cause (motive?) of the economists' inaccurate assessments.

We hear a lot about the trade deficit and the deplorable state of American manufacturing, but as Mr. D points out, the real causes of America's decline are rarely mentioned—never by the "recognized expert" economists. Actually, the American economy isn't declining. As anyone who went through the last twenty years or so with their eyes open should be able to see — it's being systematically dismantled. The reasons are many — and they are one.

From the end of WWII to around 1971 or 1972 our industry had maintained a favorable trade balance, yet our balance of payments was consistently unfavorable. The difference was U.S. Government handouts and expenditures all over the world. Say what you will about the brilliance of Japanese management, it would have been in vain if the Japanese government had embarked on a program to bleed their economy dry, and that is exactly what has happened here. Through the twin jugular incisions of "Foreign Aid" and Militarism, our government has been bleeding capital, the life-blood of any modern economy, from our land.

At the same time, our government began destroying the independent middle class with crippling regulation, crushing taxation, and the all-consuming three-headed monster, inflation. Regulation weakened and demoralized the middle class. The three heads of inflation—government deficit spending, the Federal Reserve, and the Fractional Reserve Banking System—began swallowing its wealth (and the wealth of most Americans) and, together with taxation, began transferring it to the financiers and big corporations that finance the national debt. Many small businessmen, especially manufacturers, couldn't afford to comply with the regulations; others began thinking, "If I can't run it myself and I can't enjoy the fruits of my own labor, what's the point in owning a business." One by one independent manufacturers folded or were absorbed by the giant corporations. The courage, drive, individualistic spirit, and innovation of these entrepreneurs was lost to America. The spiritless collective mentality of the corporate 'manager" replaced it. To compound the loss, most of the giant corporations are multi-national and they frequently transfer production to other countries where they have a cheap labor supply and no need for government regulation to destroy competition: there is none.

Finally, as the Federal Government grew into an all powerful centralized National Government through gradual usurpation of the rights and powers of the States, local governments, and the people themselves, the citizen inevitably shrank. The individualistic (dirty word), innovative spirit of the average American was replaced by the collectivist, regimented spirit? of the bureaucrat. The plans for their own economic well-being that were made by tens of millions of free Americans were replaced by the plans of tens of thousands of self-aggrandizing government "planners". Thus, the most thoroughly planned and prosperous economy in history, one that had had input from millions of planners (the people) degenerated into the "planned" chaos created by politically appointed "experts".

There are other contributing factors, but they are all part of the same cause I've been writing about. As I said earlier, "the causes are many, and they are one." They can be summed up in one word, the word the establishment economists won't say. It is the G word — Government. Even the decline in the quality of college education has been caused in part by the desire to increase head count to increase government subsidy.

The big question is, why is all this happening? Why don't the "bean counters", economists and government policy makers "take note and face the truth?" Is it stupidity, poor judgment, or are we all being driven by events beyond our control? I have my own ideas, but before I relate them, I want to warn you. I'm one of those "kooks" that believe in the "Conspiracy Theory of History" (as opposed to the "fools" who believe in the "Accidental Theory"). Anyone who has difficulty planning what they're going to do this weekend and feels uncomfortable with the idea that there may be people who plan decades ahead, even for things that will not come to pass in their own lifetimes, had better skip the rest of this letter.

As to our being driven by events, I believe that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes are typical of events beyond man's control (but with weather control, underground nuclear testing, etc., I'm not too sure about this anymore). On the other hand, booms and busts, inflation and deflation, war and peace, although they are beyond the control of most men, they themselves are driven by men. Why? For personal gain, of course!

If you analyze history instead of just accepting it as a series of dates and unrelated events that drove the human race along, I think you'll find a characteristic generally common to all times and places; those who dominate the wealth of an area and time usually dominate the politics and vice-versa. That's not really a difficult concept to grasp. I think most people will agree that politics and economics are inextricably intertwined and, like matter and energy, each can be converted into the other. Not so obvious is that, as a rule, those who are able attempt to pull power to the level of their economic interests. Sociological studies in the U.S. show that when a business is local, the businessman is active in local affairs. When it is operating over a wider area, perhaps in several cities within a state, the businessman stays out of local affairs because the locals would deem his activity interference. However, it's reasonable to assume that he has still not lost interest in those local issues that affect his business. Since he doesn't want to appear to be interfering in local affairs, but still wants to protect and advance his economic interests, his best move is to draw those government functions that affect his business to the state level where he is now influential.

That tendency of economic dominants to pull government power with them to their new level of economic interests is evident in America. As the geographic scope of business has expanded, power has shifted in great proportion from the local and state governments to the Federal Government (see Strohm, CEW-818/90, "But state laws conform to federal laws"). It is the continuance of that trend into the international sphere that provides the motive for the systematic destruction of the American economy.

Today, Mega-Corp and Daddy Big Bucks no longer see themselves as Americans. They are, and they see themselves as, internationalists. They call themselves and their henchmen, "The New World Order". It is in their interests to promote world government to further and protect their global economic interests, and they don't give a damn what the cost is to the rest of us — and the cost is high. After WWII no country on earth could touch our standard of living and its potential was almost limitless. There was no way the American people could have been persuaded to give up all they had for a world government. It became necessary to take it away bit by bit. That's the reason for what has been and is happening to America. If you think times are bad now, just wait until 2000, the year these guys plan to have "Service" America completed. Engineers know what a service economy means. It means we'll be at the arrivals gate of the international airport fighting each other for the right to shine the rich tourist's shoes or to sell him our "sister" (she very nice girl — big fun).

If you don't believe our de-industrialization is planned, get a copy of long time 'think tank" member Vincent P. Rock's, "A Strategy for Interdependence", Scribner's, 1964. Also, try to get a copy of, The Declaration of Interdependence", another "think tank" developed document. You'll believe!

For those not aware, "think tanks" are gaggles of intellectual whores who have sold their minds to the highest bidders. They are charged with developing and implementing plans for the 'One World' scam and couching them in idealistic terms for the appeasement of the victims. This brings us to the question, "Why don't the economists see this and expose it?" Some have, but they are not "recognized experts" and aren't likely to be. It's also unlikely they or their schools will get grants from government or the big foundations to continue their work, and you won't see them quoted often by the media. For funding, credibility, and publicity, you must be "recognized." To become "recognized" an economist must prostitute himself to the moguls of the New World Order. Like the witchdoctor of old, he must mesmerize the people with tricks, incoherent chants, and smoke—lots of smoke. He must convince them that he and he alone possesses esoteric wisdom that permits him to speak to the great god, Economindexus. Above all, HE MUST NEVER TELL THE TRUTH! – Rick L. Ind./Mfg. Engr. [aka PhreedomPhan]

Return To TOC

BILDERBERG 2009

2009-05-21T07:07:00.000-07:00

I have listed the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Rhodes Scholars as America's enemies. Also belonging to that list is the Bilderberg Group and the Club of Rome. I haven't mentioned them because they are international equivalents of the CFR and the TC so their membership in our government is relatively small. They are, never-the-less, continuing the dirty work of our domestic Treason Clubs. Many high level American low lifes are invited to attend the Bilderberg meetings.

I admit that I am being insular in calling these groups “America's enemies.” They are, in fact, enemies of the entire human race. They pit us one against the other in wars, revolutions, terrorism, economic upheavals, and all sorts of managed crises of their making. They are immune to the chaos they create and sit back and rake in the profits and power.

Below is a preliminary listing of invitees to the 2009 Bilderberg meeting in Greece. The list was taken from a Greek newspaper, Vima, and translated into German by Freeman the blogger at:
http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/liste-der-teilnehmer-bilderberg-2009.html
(everything noise and smoke)(the blog is in German)

Some of the names he said were derived phonetically, probably from an insider phone call, so the spelling may not be correct. Compound this by my having to reach back 40 years to translate from German.

Freeman says not all the invitees attended, but points out that the significant thing is the fact they received an invitation.

He doesn't certify that the list is accurate, only that it is the list given by the Greek newspaper (to) Vima. To the skeptics who insist that the source be the mainstream press, he says ... “here it is, a serious, nationwide, Greek daily newspaper.”

He notes that there is nobody from Russia or China. Bilderberg is strictly a European and North American “Club.”

The blog's author points out the clear conflict of interest. “Heads of business concerns are meeting with heads of ministries and bureaus that are supposed to control them and with secret service and military people, and with national leaders and politicians, and, at the same time with media bosses, who should control it all. That's absurd. Where is the separation of powers. A Gemauschel (joke?) and a farce. They apparently stick everything under one cover. We are clearly 'verarscht' from all sides.” (I couldn't find this word in my dictionary, but Arsch means butt so I assume it means we're being made asses of or simply shown only the butt end.) He continues, “No wonder the media reports nothing and is dead silent on the meetings. They are part of it.” (See the media and encyclopedia sections of the America's Ruling Party Post in this blog. Sound familiar?)

Freeman asks that anyone who uses this list in their website include a backlink. I've already posted his site link above. He may mean to the Greek newspaper. Not many will be able to read it. I certainly can't, but here it is:
http://www.tovima.gr/

Where I could, I tried to identify CFR and TC members. I used an 1996 CFR list, so there are a lot of TC members from a 2009 TC list who do not show as CFR. There's usually a close correlation as the larger TC fish are usually drawn from the CFR cesspool so it's likely most of them are also CFR. I've also added BB next to some of the names. These are people who showed up on my CFR list as having attended at least one previous meeting. I also found what I thought a major anomoly. Peter Denis Southerland is the European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission and is also listed as CFR. I had never known that anyone other than Americans and maybe some Canadians belonged to the CFR, and I have some partial lists buried somewhere in my files from the 70's. Anyway, for better or for worse, here is the list:

Beatrix – Queen of the Netherlands (Holland)
Sofia – Queen of Spain
Konstantin – former King of Greece
Philipp – Prince of Belgium, member of the Club of Rome
Joseph Ackerman – Chairman of the Deutsche (German) Bank
Keith Alexander - Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), which the blogger calls the largest security service in the world (take that Gestapo and KGB).
Georgios Alogoskoufis – former Economic and Finance Minister of Greece
Roger Altman – Deputy Treasury Secretary under Rhodes Scholar President Clinton CFR
Efstratios-Georgios A. Arapoglou – head of the Central Bank of Greece
Ali Babacan – Turkish Foreign Minister, Coordinator for Turkish trade with the EU
Dora Bakoyannis – Foreign Minister of Greece
Francisco Pinto Balsemão – Portugese Ministerpräsident (Prime Minister?)
Nicolas Baverez – Editor or Publisher of the French “Le Point.”
Franco Bernabè - Chief of Telecom Italy, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Rothschild Europe
Xavier Bertrand – General Secretary of the UMP Party of France
Nils Daniel Carl Bildt – Foreign Minister of Sweden TC
Jan Arne Björklund – Cultural? Minister, Party Chairman of the Folkpartiet liberalerna Sweden
Christoph Blocher - former Bundesrat member and former Party boss of the SVP
Alexandre Bompard - Journalist for Radio Europe 1 France
Ana Botín – Daughter of the Chairman of the Bank of Santander Emilio Botín TC
Juan Luis Cebrián – Chief of the PRISA Group of Media Spain
W. Edmund Clark – Head of the Toronto-Dominion Bank of Canada
Kenneth Harry Clarke – ex-Finance Minister of Britain
Luc Coene – head of the Belgian Nationalbank TC
George David - President of CocaCola Greece
Sir Richard Billing Dearlove - ex-Chief of the british security service MI6
Anna Diamantopoulou - PASOK parliament member, Greece
Mario Draghi – Head of the Italian Central Bank
Anders Eldrup - Head und President of DONG Energy Denmark
John Jacob Philip Elkann – Vice president of Fiat- Konzerns? (Corporation?)
Thomas Enders – head of Airbus
José Manuel Entrecanales – Head of Baukonzerns Acciona Spain
Isidro Fainé Casas - President of Caixa Bank and SEAT advisor
Niall Ferguson - Professor of Economics at Havard Business School
Timothy Franz Geithner – Treasury Secretary of the USA CFR, TC
Dermot Gleeson – Advisor to the Irish government and businessman (Chrmn AIB Group, Dublin?) TC
Donald E. Graham – CEO and Chairman of the board of the Washinton Post TC
Alfred Gusenbauer – ex-Chancellor of Austria
Victor Halberstadt - Professor of economic sciences at the University of Leiden
Ernst Hirsch Ballin – Justice Minister of the Netherlands (Holland)
Richard Holbrooke – Special Envoy for Pakistan und Afghanistan for Obama CFR, TC BB
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer – NATO-General Secretary
James Logan Jones Jr. - National Security Advisor for President Obama TC
Vernon Eulion Jordan – former security advisor for Clinton CFR BB
Robert Kagan – US-Security Advisor for Security, Terrorism, and the Balkans CFR, TC
Jyrki Katainen – Finance Minister of Finnland
Henry Alfred Kissinger – ex-US-Security Advisor and US-Secretary of State CFR, TC BB
Mustafa Koç – Chairman of the Koç Holding of the great Turkish Mischkonzern
Roland Koch – Hessian Minister President
Sami Kohen – Foreign Political Columnist for the Turkish newspaper Milliyet
Henry Kravis - Hudson Institute CFR BB
Marie-Josee Kravis - Hudson Institute CFR
Neelie Kroes – EU-Commissioner of Commerce
Odysseas Kyriakopoulos - President of the Combined? Greek Industries
Manuela Ferreira Leite – Economist and Politician
Bernardino León – Spanish Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Jessica Tuchman Mathews – President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace CFR
Philippe Maystadt - President of the European Investment Bank (EIB)
Frank McKenna – Vice-Chairman of the TD Bank Financial Group
John Micklethwait – Economics Editor of The Economist
Thierry Montbrial - President of the French Institute of International Relations
Mario Monti – President, Bocconi University, member of the EU Reflection Group on the Future TC
Miguel Ángel Moratinos – Spanish Foreign Minister
Craig Mundie – Chief Research and Strategy officer for Microsoft
Egil Myklebust – ex-Chairman of SAS, Norwegian Hydro ASA, Member of the World Economic Advisors for sustained development
Matthias Nass – Assistant Editor (Publisher?) "Die Zeit"
Denis Olivennes - Director of the New Observer of France
Frederic Oudea – Head of the Societe General Bank of France
Cem Özdemir – Chairman of the Bündnis 90 Party/The Greens
Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa – ex-Finance Minister of Italy
Dimitris Papalexopoulos – Head of Titan Cement Company S.A. Greece
Jannos Papathanasiou – Greek Economics and Finance Minister
Richard Perle – Security Advisor under George W. Bush CFR
David Petraeus – US-Four-Star General, Commander of the US Central Command, responsible for the Near East and Central Asia CFR
Manuel Pinho – Portugese Minister for Economics and Innovation?
Robert Prichard - Head of the Toronto Star Newspaper, Canada
Romano Prodi – ex-Prime Minister of Italy, ex-President of the European Commission
Olli Rehn – EU-Progress Commissioner of Finnland
Heather Reisman – Head of Indigo Books & Music Inc Canada
Eivind Reiten – General Director of Petroleum Operations? Norsk Hydro
Michael Ringier – Administrative Board President of Ringier Holding AG, largest publisher? in Switzerland
David Rockefeller – Banker (an understatement), founder of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, Capo di tutti Capi (I don't know what that means, but I suspect it corrects the understatement. Maybe “Godfather?”) CFR, TC (Founder and Honorary Chairman) BB
Dennis B. Ross – Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Thinktank (Idea Factory)
Special Middle East Coordinator for Clinton CFR, TC
Robert Edward Rubin – Treasury Secretary under Clinton, Economic Advisor for Obama
Alberto Ruiz-Gallardòn – Mayor of Madrid
Suzan Sabancı Dinçer – Head of the Akbank of Turkey
Indira Samarasekera – President of the University of Alberta
Rudolf Scholten – Board Member of the Austrian Kontrollbank AG
Jürgen Schrempp – ex-Chairman of DaimlerChrysler AG
Pedro Solbes Mira - ex-Economic- and Finance Minister of Spain (This from a 1-23-09 TC list: Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Economy and Finances, Spain; former Member of the European Commission) TC
Sampatzi Saraz - Turkish Banker
Sanata Seketa - Canada
Dominique Strauss-Kahn – Head of the International Currency Exchange?
Lawrence Summers – ex-President of the Worldbank, ex-Treasury Secretary under Clinton, Economic Advisor to Obama CFR, TC BB
Peter Denis Sutherland – ex-EU-Trade? Commissioner, Chairman of the Board of BP and Goldman Sachs International CFR, TC European Chairman
Martin Taylor – ex-Head of Barclays Bank, Chairman of Syngenta, ex-Generalsecretary of the Bilderberg Group
Peter Thiel – ex-head of PayPal
Jean-Claude Trichet – Head of the European Centralbank
Agan Ourgkout - Turkey
Matti Vanhanen – Prime Minister Finnland
Daniel Vasella – Head of Novartis
Jeroen van der Veer – Head of Royal Dutch Shell TC
Guy Verhofstadt – former Prime Minister of Belgium
Paul Volcker – former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Economic Advisor to Barack Obama CFR, TC BB
Jacob Wallenberg - Banker and powerful industrialist from Sweden
Marcus Wallenberg - Banker and powerful industrialist from Sweden TC
Nout Wellink – Head of the Netherlands Centralbank, Member of the European Centralbank
Gerardus Johannes Wijers – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, AkzoNobel, ex-Economics Minister of the Netherlands (Holland) TC
Martin Wolf - Journalist for the Financial Times
James David Wolfensohn – former President of the World Bank CFR BB
Paul Wolfowitz - ex-President of the World Bank, advisor to George W. Bush, and former deputy Secretary of Defense of the USA, High Level-Neocon CFR, TC BB
Fareed Zakaria – Chief Editor of Newsweek International and political Commentator for ABC News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New Yorker und CNN CFR, TC
Robert Zoellick - President of the World Bank CFR, TC BB

Are you as shocked as I that this group of people who are working so diligently to give us a global “democracy” for “all” the people failed to include invitations to factory workers, office workers, restaurant employees, low and middle management, farmers, repairmen, your local party committee people, etc.? Maybe it was an oversight.... or maybe this is just a partial list.

Again:
http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/liste-der-teilnehmer-bilderberg-2009.html

Return to TOC

Did I Offend Anyone?

2009-05-17T20:43:00.000-07:00

I wonder if anyone who read this blog took offense at my calling Obama “Uncle Tom.” Anyone who did might be interested in this summary statement from Bruce Dixon in his report card for Obama's first 100 days published in Black Agenda Report.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obamas-first-100-days-black-agenda-report-card

"A hundred days is far too early for anyone to score a hundred points on a list of concerns like these. 55 would have been passing, and 45 a sign of hopes being actually redeemed on some fronts. But at under 25 out of a possible 100 our First Black President is at best a chronic underacheiver, as far as the real needs of African Americans go. "

Understand I don't exactly sympathize with Dixon. I don't want to see Obama do anything for the blacks nor do I want to see him do anything for whites, hispanics, nor asians. The more the government does for us, the less freedom we have to do for ourselves. It's that very loss of freedom that has put us in the mess we're in today. My point was that Obama is serving the very tiny financial elite that put him in office.

Here are a few more items from the home page of the Black Agenda Report.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/

Freedom Rider: Af-Pak Is Obama's War
Submitted by Margaret Kimberley on Wed, 05/13/2009 - 06:58

* Af-Pak War
* Department of Broken Promises
* Department of War

Af-Pak War by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
President Obama, who campaigned behind a thin veil of peace, dragged two heads of client states into the White House to demand “that both Afghanistan and Pakistan allow their citizens to be murdered and or displaced in the thousands” – or else. Obama read Presidents Zardari and Karzai “the riot act” to let them know who is boss in the military theater called “AfPak.” Obama claims to “want to respect their sovereignty, but” – there’s always the imperial ‘but’ – America has “huge national security interests” in the region. Afghanistan’s Karzai later wondered, “How can you expect a people who keep losing their children to remain friendly?”

----------------------------------------------------------

Obama Shows His True Katrina Colors
Submitted by Glen Ford on Wed, 05/13/2009 - 06:48

* Department of Broken Promises
* post-Katrina

The line between Bush and Obama has not simply blurred in New Orleans: it has disappeared." President Obama has adopted, in whole, the Bush approach to rebuilding the city - minus the Black Diaspora that was scattered to the winds in 2005. Notices of eviction have been served on the mostly elderly and Black inhabitants of 3,000 FEMA trailers. The Obama Department of Housing and Urban Development is putting the finishing touches on public housing demolition in the city. Not a single "Katrina Cottage" has been made ready for occupancy. Obama no more favors the "right to return" to - or remain in - New Orleans, than Bush did.

----------------- ------------------------------

U.S. Economy: The Cancer is Still There
Submitted by Glen Ford on Wed, 05/13/2009 - 06:37

* debt crisis
* the American disease
* Wall Street Bailout

"In the cold assessment of history, Barack Obama will be remembered more for his massive transfers of national wealth to the finance capitalist class, than as the first Black president of the United States." Mostly under his administration, $12.8 trillion dollars has been committed to prop up the Wall Street oligarchy. Yet the five banks that are the biggest recipients of federal largess continue to hold $195 trillion in fatally toxic derivatives - a notional value more than three times the planetary domestic product! "There is nothing rational to do but to wipe the obligations, and their holders, off the face of the Earth, in order to save the real economy."

----------------------------- -----------------------------

Sort of off subject, but a passing thought. I wonder what would happen to anyone who published a “White Agenda Report?”

Return to TOC

Bailouts -- The Sinking of the American Ship of State

2009-05-14T10:04:00.000-07:00

“So this is how the auto bailout will work. American taxpayers pump tens of billions into rescuing General Motors from bankruptcy. Then GM pays us back by shipping more jobs overseas--the equivalent of four assembly plants. The federal money will directly subsidize more imports from abroad, enabling GM to double its car production in Mexico, South Korea and China and selling the cars into the US market.”

This is how William Greider opens his May 8 article in The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/greider3?rel=hpbox

He then asks, “Can someone explain how this is in our national interest?”

Of course, that's a rhetorical question. Mr. Greider already knows the answer. It isn't! As he suggests, it's “Better to settle for bankruptcy court than provide public financing to further the destruction of US manufacturing.” That's the game! That's the aim! The destruction of U.S. manufacturing. I've been trying to tell people that for over 35 years. As long as the U.S. had a standard of living so much higher than the rest of the world, the American people would never have been foolish enough to accept a world government with its inevitable “redistribution” of their wealth. First our wealth had to be “redistributed.” Then we would have less to lose. More than likely, they will create, (and are creating), an economic situation in which we will have to accept a globalist ultimatum just to eat.

Although obviously astute, Greider then commits a series of errors that I can only attribute to mental laziness or an acute hangover. He calls Obama an “orthodox free trader” (Obama is a “free trader” or a protectionist according to the orders from his handlers) and says his administration “has stumbled into the middle of the political train wreck known as globalization.” He should know that Obama, with Trilateral “guidance,” leaped nimbly into the wreck with orders to pile on more cars.

He says, “It begins to look like another sly victory for the old order that has failed.” No, Mr. G.! It's the “New Order” and it has not failed. (See my post quoting Garet Garrett in my lostliberty blog). If I, a purely amateur writer, may be so audacious as to correct an error on his timetable and on his cause of our debtor nation status, the seed of this “free-trade” model, which he says was a product of the “Clintonistas” in the 90's, was planted during the Kennedy administration. That's when the law was passed that permitted U.S. corporations that build or invest overseas to escape income tax on earnings there. Furthermore, America became a debtor nation because of government handouts and expense of running a global empire. We had a favorable trade balance until around 1971, but our balance of payments was unfavorable since WWII. That means that our industry was holding up its end until too much of our economic life blood had been leeched by federal expenditures abroad to build the economies of other nations. After that the blood gushed from a thousand government inflicted wounds.

The author suggests that Obama was “probably hoping to evade the fight on globalization.” No doubt! Like Bush he's probably hoping to sneak it by in the darkness of the looming depression. Somehow I find it hard to sympathize with a President who has a lot of “large matters” on his plate when it's just a matter of time before we have nothing on ours.

“But the unfolding facts demand full-throated debate and political resistance in Congress” says Greider. “The United Auto Workers sent a letter to Capitol Hill the other day that revealed the terms. GM's restructuring plan envisions a doubling of the vehicles it will import from overseas factories, from 372,000 to 737,000, in the next four years. GM's imported cars--already 15.5 percent of its domestic sales--will rise to 23.5 percent.”

I agree that the “facts demand full-throated debate and political resistance in Congress,” but not the usual carefully choreographed professional wrestling matches designed to convince the people that our imaginary “democracy” works.

I have to wonder if the sheeple will listen more attentively to Alan Reuther or Steelworkers pres. Leo Gerard than they listened to John L. Lewis. He reversed his pro New Deal position in 1940 and told union workers that if they elected FDR he would make cannon fodder of their sons.

Speaking of cannon fodder, most of us are aware of the damage being done to our economy and the jobs lost as our basic steel and heavy manufacturing plants are being systematically shutdown, but how many consider this? As “our” government continues to manufacture enemies all over the world, we are being methodically disarmed. If we are attacked, where will we get our tanks and planes and missiles when we can no longer make them? Yeah! I know! That's a stupid question! We and our enemies will be supplied by the same international bankers and munitions makers as in any other war.

Greider offers this ray of “hope,” but then realism sets in. “President Obama has taken an important step toward changing this system with his recent proposals for taxing US multinationals more aggressively. That could be the start of something big--a more effective strategy that defends the national interest in the global system. Or it could be just more good talk. The outlines of the auto deal suggest the president is sticking with Rubinomics. Will other Democrats be brave enough to stand in his way?”

You've got that right, William. Just more good talk. More Obama hope-nosis to mesmerize the people.

Be sure to read the whole article at the link above.

Oh, yes! Let's remind ourselves once more of the words of Sir John Harrington. "Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." As another sage put it, "We have met the enemy and it is our leaders."

Return to TOC

Rhodes – The Beat Goes On

2009-04-18T13:04:00.000-07:00

I'm afraid I've been dormant for several months. Both of my computers went down and I was unable to get them fixed, so I've been using the library computers. I really couldn't get that much done there since I didn't have access to my files. I'm back in business again, but I'm afraid it'll take me a good while to catch up on all of the things I have to do.

The first thing I want to do is bring anyone who's interested a little more up to date on the Rhodies and their part in the ongoing treason against these United States and the people.

Scholar Clarence Streit, author of “Union Now” advocating a union of the western “democracies” and later, after most of Europe had been overrun, of “Union Now with Britain,” was a big promoter of the Atlantic Charter. Like the other minions of international finance and the multi-nationals he was more than willing to see our sovereignty and our liberty vanish into the murky mist of the regional super-state and eventually world government. There is little doubt in my mind that, given the Rhodie love for Mutha England, the U.S. and England would have dominated any union of the Atlantic powers.

Streit is dead now, but his legacy of treason continues in the Streit Council. This global elitist gang continues the work of destroying our country and the other countries of the world. Their projects and plans to betray their countries can be found at:

http://www.streitcouncil.org/

Those who want to follow the schemes of those planning the murder of our country and liberty will find this site essential.

Return to TOC

"Uncle Tom" Not In Charge

2009-03-03T09:28:00.000-08:00

Go back and take a look at some of the news I posted earlier regarding Obama and his "Advisors," then take a look at this first paragraph from a speech delived in Munich from "National Security Advisor" General James Jones. There is some other interesting things along with much high sounding rhetoric in his speech, but the most important message to Americans, in fact, to all of the peoples of the world is in this first paragraph. "Obama's" National Security Advisor gets his orders indirectly from Henry Kissinger.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BRIEFING ROOM

Monday, February 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am

Remarks By National Security Adviser Jones At 45th Munich Conference On Security Policy
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release February 9,2009
Hotel Bayerischer Hof, Munich, Germany February 8, 2009

Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.
-----------------------------------------------------

Here's the link to the entire White House press release.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/RemarksByNationalSecurityAdviserJonesAt45thMunichConferenceOnSecurityPolicy/

Return to TOC

Obama Continues Web of Treason

2009-02-07T13:24:00.000-08:00

I regret I haven't been able to do much with these blogs. My computers are both down and I haven't had chance to do anything about it. I'm forced to work on limited time at the library without access to much of my data. Still, I thought this important.

Patrick Wood who, with Antony Sutton, co-authored Trilaterals Over Washington, has been following the grooming of Barack Obama by the Trilaterals and the inclusion of 11 of the Commission's members in key administration posts. Add to that Hillary Clinton who's not a member but whose husband is. Things do not bode well for the United States nor for the rest of the world as the globalists continue to dominate Washington. The sovereignty of all is in dire jeopardy.

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/trilateral_commission/obama%3a_trilateral_commission_endgame_20090127110/

Return to TOC

INTERDEPENDENCE

2008-10-21T21:18:00.000-07:00

I had planned to follow my last post with one on the Trilaterals in the Carter administration, but this came up Sunday and I thought it important.

Parade Magazine, Oct. 19, 2008, reports a "discussion" between Republican national-security "expert" Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It isn't clear who is posing the questions nor who is saying what, but here are significant excerpts.

"What is our next President's most pressing foreign-policy challenge?"

"Addressing the worldwide crisis of confidence in our leadership. The U.S. must seriously consult with its allies, not act unilaterally. The President also must credibly convey that the era of American self-indulgence is over and that we will recognize global interdependence."

Absolutely! "Our" government must place a priority on what other countries want regardless of the wishes and well-being of the American people. To make clear that our "self-indulgence" is over, the average American must be prepared to abandon his hovel for the steam grate. Of course, we cannot ask the wealthy and their political puppets to give up their mansions, country clubs, and generally profligate lifestyles. That would be inhumane.

What does "recognize global interdependence" mean? We must realize that this has a totally different meaning to the elite than it does to most of us. We tend to think in terms of the need to buy the products of another nation that we may not be able to produce as readily and to sell them that which we can manufacture more efficiently. But in those terms, we have always been "interdependent." To the elite then, interdependence must have a different meaning. It does! To them it means merging much of our national sovereignty into global agencies. It means overriding our laws and our Constitution with international laws that will best protect and further, not the interests of the American people, but of the international financiers and multi-national mega-corporations. Of course, taxing powers to support these laws and agencies in a supra-national entity will be necessary.

"A Strategy of Interdependence" by Vincent P. Rock* lays out what is (or was), ostensibly, a plan to reduce tension between the Soviet Union and the U.S. But it went beyond that. It went as far as to not so subtly attack the very concept of the nation state; that is, sovereignty:

"A flaw in both the Western alliance system and the Soviet bloc arrangements is that, while within their area of influence they attempt to curtail the chaos of the multistate system**, in regard to each other the Soviet Union and the United States have been content for relations to remain largely in a state of nature governed ultimately by force. Thus as soon as an ally has the power, it seeks to reassert its sovereignty in the brutish world of nation-states."

How's that for a rational, unbiased, intellectual argument against national sovereignty: "...the chaos of the multistate system,..." and "...the brutish world of nation-states." What would this mean if, after our government has accepted the latest push at North American "interdependence," after the United States melts into the North American Union, we seek to "reassert our sovereignty?" Will we see U.N. troops marching through our streets? Absurd? Maybe. But don't discount it too smugly.

"What should the next President do to ensure change?"

"General Scowcroft and I recommend reviving bipartisanship. The President should appoint respected people from the other party to top national-security posts."

How can we have bipartisanship when we have only one party with two faces? When Brzezinski talks of "reviving bipartisanship" does he mean "continue two-faced politics?" I do think it highly likely that no matter who is elected, McCain or Obama, "respected " will translate into CFR and/or Trilateral membership. I would not be too surprised if McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Henry Kissinger and Obama's top man, Brzezinski both get top level security jobs regardless of the election outcome.

A vote for Obama or McCain is a vote to keep our children in bondage. Yes! I said "keep."

*Rock's book was on the recommended reading list of the Council on Foreign Relations.

**This same attitude toward Nations within alliances is paralleled in the attitude toward the States within the United States and toward our local governments. Here the plan to eliminate our States and locals is called regionalism. There's an article on that in:

http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com

Return to TOC

The Trilateral Commission

2008-10-18T09:20:00.000-07:00

The Trilateral Commission
Shock Troops of the Council On Foreign Relations

The Candidates of 2008 -- Brought to You by the Trilateral Commission

I pointed out in an earlier entry, America's Ruling Party, the Council On Foreign Relations has been promoting world government and pushing us in that direction for almost a century. It has done this by capturing key positions in every administration, at least since FDR.

To a large extent, the CFR has been a "think tank" developing the philosophies, goals, and strategies of the globalists and working to implement them in the United States. In 1973, CFR kingpin David Rockefeller recognized the need to promote its goals among other countries and to gain the support of their governments through influencial people in those lands. The countries and governments targeted included those of North America, Europe, and Japan. To achieve this, Rockefeller enlisted the aid of Zbigniew Brzezinski and together with Henry Owen (Brookings Institution), George S. Franklin, Robert Bowie (Foreign Policy Association, Harvard Center for International Affairs), Gerard Smith (Salt I negotiator, Rockefeller in-law), Marshall Hornblower, William Scranton (former Governor of Pennsylvania), Edwin Reischauer (Harvard), Max Kohnstamm (European Policy Centre) formed the Trilateral Commission.

Commission members are the Shock Troops for the Council on Foreign Relations. They are charged with promoting and coordinating its efforts to create a world government of the "elite," by the "elite," and for the "elite." It's assignment is to bring the three regions above closer together in areas of economic, government, and business matters in order to further the interests of the economic royalty of those areas at the expense of the people.

The First Trilateral President

In November of 1976, James Earl Carter was elected President of the United States. Carter had been widely billed in the mass media as the "conservative" or the "progressive" Georgia Democrat with no connection to the eastern liberal establishment. The truth is, Carter had been hand picked by Rockefeller and Brzezinski to be a member of the Trilateral Commission. Almost from the beginning, Brzezinski and the Trilaterals began grooming Carter for the presidency.

To prepare his first major foreign policy speech, Carter got a little help from his friends in the Trilateral Commission and the CFR. Helping Carter with his speech were: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Cooper, Richard Gardner, Henry Owen, Edwin O. Reischauer, Averell Harriman, Anthony Lake, Robert Bowie, George Ball, Cyrus Vance, Milton Katz, Abram Chayes. I've found sources confirming the TC membership of the first ten.

Trilateral Control of the 2008 Election

I plan to get into Trilateral control of our government through the Carter administration and others in subsequent posts, but I wanted to write this little background on Jimmy Carter now because of the urgency with the upcoming election. History is about to repeat itself--again!

It was Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood who first exposed the Trilaterals to the light in their book, "Trilaterals Over Washington," Copyright 1978. Now Wood has done it again in his newsletter, August Review. He has revealed the Trilateralists backing the campaigns of both candidates.

Wood identifies four Trilaterals backing each campaign:

"In Obama's case, Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Commission in 1973) is emerging as his principal advisor on foreign policy. Ex-Fed Chairman Paul Volker has made a once-in-a-lifetime, glowing endorsement of Obama. Madelyn Albright is seen sitting next to Obama in several conferences. Shoot, even Jimmy Carter himself endorses Obama. All are top members of the Commission.

John McCain is being supported by several Trilateral Commission giants including: Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig. All of these are ex-Secretaries of State who issued a joint endorsement of McCain early-on in his campaign."

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/u.s._elections/obama_and_mccain%3a_pawns_of_the_global_elite?_2008080597/

Wood is offering a free ebook copy of Trilaterals Over Washington to anyone who subscribes to his free newsletter.

Mr. Wood seems to see Obama as the annointed of the power elite. Certainly that would explain the McCain TV commercials I've seen that look like they were designed to assure Obama's election.

But it doesn't really matter. Regardless of who wins, we lose. Our government will continue to be under the control of those working to bring an end to our national sovereignty, our liberty, and our Constitution.

Wood has promised to never again vote for the lesser of two evils. I stopped some time ago when I realized that he who votes for the lesser of two evils is consciously voting for evil. I recently read an interesting view on the "evil" of this election. The writer felt that the major parties are giving us a choice of "the evil of two lessers." I liked that. I thought it very appropriate. I regret I don't remember where I read it to give credit.

Sources:
The Modern History Project
Trilaterals Over Washington
August Review

Return to TOC

AMERICA'S RULING PARTY

2008-08-02T14:26:00.000-07:00

America’s Ruling Party--The Council on Foreign Relations

America’s Ruling Party and the Neo-Cons

When a link to the “Project for a New American Century,” was posted in a political discussion group several years ago, I was impressed by the list of participants so I ran a check of their names against a 1996 list of Council on Foreign Relations members. I didn’t have anything to confirm that the names on the CFR list are the same people as on this list, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that there’s at least an 85% correlation. There are also several whose names appear on the list of contributors to Foreign Affairs, a publication of the CFR. Again, dollars to donuts, 85%. Family connections appear to exist in a couple of cases, and there are a couple others that may be linked that way, but I couldn’t make a connection. Given the nepotism and incest that has characterized ruling elites of the past, there’s probably a good chance that connections exist.

Here’s a summary: 8 probable CFR members--of those, two are also members of the Bilderbergers* and one of those two also Trilateral Commission; 5 others are probable contributors to Foreign Affairs; 2 are probable family connections--one likely the father and one the brother of the same probable member; 4 that I did not put in any of the above, have possible family connections. There are several who have overlapping probable and possible connections. I only counted them once. In other words, 15 of 27 have probable CFR connections--55.6%. Add to that another 4 possibles.

*Since originally writing this, I’ve learned that many who appear as Bilderberg members on various lists may have been people whose globalist leanings are strong enough to warrant an invitation to a Bilderberg meeting. They may not be members.

Roger Barnett not cfr but a Roger and Michael N. are contributors to Foreign Affairs andMichael N. & Robert Warren are membersU.S.

Naval War College

Alvin Bernstein not cfr but an Alvin is a contributor to Foreign Affairs and David S., Edward M., Peter W., Robert L., Tom A. are members.

National Defense University

Stephen Cambone

National Defense University

Eliot Cohen Eliot A. Cohen cfr and 15 other Cohens--didn’t try to link family

Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Devon Gaffney Cross Devon Cross cfr, bb

Donors' Forum for International Affairs

Thomas Donnelly not cfr but a Thomas Donnelly is a contributor to Foreign Affairs

Project for the New American Century

David Epstein not cfr but Jason, Jeffrey E., Joshua M. are members.

Office of Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment

David Fautua

Lt. Col., U.S. Army

Dan Goure

Center for Strategic and International Studies

Donald Kagan cfr (2001 list) father of a Robert Kagan

Yale University

Fred Kagan another son of Donald Kagan

U. S. Military Academy at West Point

Robert Kagan Robert W. Kagan cfr confirmed

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Robert Killebrew

Col., USA (Ret.)

William Kristol not cfr but an Irving Kristol is and an Irving Kristol is father to a William Kristol

The Weekly Standard

Mark Lagon Mark P. Lagon cfr

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

James Lasswell not a member but a Harold D. is.

GAMA Corporation

I. Lewis Libby I. Lewis Libby cfr

Dechert Price & Rhoads

Robert Martinage

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment

Phil Meilinger

U.S. Naval War College

Mackubin Owens

U.S. Naval War College

Steve Rosen Steven P. Rosen cfr

Harvard University

Gary Schmitt not cfr but listed as a co-author with Shulsky a Foreign Affairs contributor also a Bernadotte Everly Schmitt is cfr

Project for the New American Century

Abram Shulsky not cfr but an Abram N. Shulsky is a contributor to Foreign Affairs

The RAND Corporation

Michael Vickers

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment

Barry Watts not cfr but a Barry D. Watts is a contributor to Foreign Affairs and Glenn E., John H., and William are members.

Northrop Grumman Corporation

Paul Wolfowitz Paul Wolfowitz Bilderbergers, CFR, Trilateral Commision

Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Dov Zakheim Dov S. Zakheim cfr

System Planning Corporation

Later I went through the exercise with listed directors and project staff and found these:

Bruce P. Jackson - Bruce P. Jackson cfr membership confirmed in the Project’s biographies - there are 7 other Jacksons, interestingly, one is a Jesse L. Jackson.

Lewis E. Lehrman - cfr and a Hal is also a member.

Mark Gerson – not cfr but an Allen and a Ralph are members.

Randy Scheunemann - no, poor Randy seems to have been left out. Of course the cfr list is from 1996

Ellen Bork - cfr confirmed

Reuel Marc Gerecht – not cfr but Project biography says a contributor to Foreign Affairs.

I didn’t check the others for Foreign Affairs contributions.

America’s ruling party and the Neo-MidRoaders

I have a book titled, “American Agenda: Report to the Forty-First President of the United States of America.” The book is a compendium of articles giving advice to the President- Elect on various aspects of government policy. You might be tempted to call it, “The Four Year Plan for George H. W. Bush.” I did a membership analysis of the 400 “volunteers” that were part of the project, as well as the project leaders similar to that I did with the PNAC. Again, I can’t guarantee 100% correlation between names in the group and the names appearing in the CFR membership list from 1996, but I still believe there is no less than an 85% correlation.

Most interesting are the two chairmen, President Gerald R. Ford, member of the BilderBergers (or at least one of those so involved in globalist schemes as to be invited to their meetings) and the CFR, and President Jimmy Carter, member of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR. One on the Republican “side” and one on the Democrat “side”.

Also interesting is the affiliation of the 16 members of the American Agenda’s Executive Committee. Thirteen are members of the CFR and many are also members of one or more of the elite and ultra-elite groups, those being the BilderBergers, Tri-lateral Commission, Club of Rome, and two other groups whose code I’m not sure of in my source. I think one is the Rhodes Scholars. There is also one one member with possible family connections.

The two Executive Directors are members of the CFR. Four of five “Senior Policy Coordinators are members. Those five are included in the 400 I analyzed as well.

I’m willing to bet that, in the case of these top people, the correlation runs close to 100%. This would mean that 21 of 25 running the group, or 84%, have at least CFR membership.

Of the 400, there are 97 who have probable CFR membership and many have membership in one or more of the other elitist organizations. That’s just under 25%. At least another 105 have possible family connections. Taking probables and possibles together make up about 50% of the people who composed the main body that contributed to the report.

These are the people who run America, not us. There is only one party, the Council on Foreign Relations with its two divisions--Republican and Democrat. Major candidates and/or their key appointed personnel are taken from this pool. Elections are a dog and pony show for the masses. In-fighting may be real among some of the candidates in the two “parties” chosen to display our “choices”, but the rivalry is similar to that of players on an NFL team. Players may battle each other to earn a starting job, but they all pull together to defeat the other teams in the league. Likewise, the members of these elite groups may, in the mock elections, fight real battles to earn the right to carry the ball, but afterward, they all pull together to defeat our Constitution, our National Sovereignty, and our Liberty.

A brain-child of globalist Edward Mandell House, the CFR is comprised of only about 4000 members, that's about 15 ten thousandths of one percent of the population, yet it has provided an incredibly disproportionate number of members of every administration for at least 3/4 of a century. They also hold key positions throughout the media making it very easy for the organization to keep a low profile and to scoff at those who attempt to expose them.

These people, not Saddam, not Iraq, not Iran, not Al Quaida, and not the Taliban are the real threat to our liberty.

America’s Ruling Party and the Neo-Libs

A while back, I started reading a book called “The Wise Men” written by Rhodes Scholar Walter Isaacson and Thomas Evans. It’s subtitled “Six Friends and the World They Made.”

These were ostensibly conservative businessmen who ported over to the Roosevelt administration in much the same way the McGovern liberals ported over to the Republican party to become the “Neo-Cons.” For that reason I think “Neo-Libs” would have been an appropriate name for them at the time.

Just as the “Neo-Cons” played a major role in the Project for a New American Century, the authors credit these men with being the architects of the “American Century.” As many of the “Neo-Cons” tend to be Israel Firsters, the six were England Firsters.

The Six “Wise” Men

W. Averell Harriman - Skull & Bones, CFR
His father built the Union Pacific Railroad. A Tory England Firster, Harriman favored U.S. entry into WWI on behalf of his beloved Mutha England although he avoided actual service. A clever profiteer, he advocated a naval build up, bought the Chester Shipyard, and got a contract with the navy to build forty cargo ships. All were eventually delivered, but none before the Armistice. After the war he negotiated a private mineral rights deal with the Bolsheviks when our country refused to recognize the regime.

Dean Acheson - Scroll & Key, CFR
Scroll & Key is second only to Skull & Bones in prestige among the secret senior societies. The son of an Episcopal clergyman, Acheson attended Groton the prep school for Anglophile elite. Groton was compared to Eton. FDR also attended Groton. Groton students usually went on to Harvard, Yale, & Princeton.

Robert Lovett - Skull & Bones, CFR
His father was president of E.H. Harriman’s Union Pacific. He started the Yale Naval Reserve flying unit with a friend F. Trubie Davison whose father, a Morgan partner, gave financial backing. It was called the “millionaires unit” and its purpose was to train pilots for eventual use in defending Mutha England.

John McCloy - CFR
A Wall Street lawyer, he became president of the World Bank, chairman of Chase, and chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations.

George Kennan - CFR
Educated at Princeton, Kennan, the authors say, became “the intellectual darling of the Washington elite.”

Charles Bohlen - Porcellian Club, CFR
According to the authors, Bohlen was an “amiable insider to the circles of power.” He received his prep schooling at St. Paul’s in NH, another Anglophile school for the elite. He was a member of the Porcellian Club at Harvard as was Teddy Roosevelt. Membership in the club was “deemed so important to young Brahmins that disconsolate sophomores were known to drop out of Harvard upon rejection.”

From about 350 pages of almost 750 I filled over five blank pages in the front with reference notes. I can’t begin to list every significant point, but here are a few.

Harriman was called by some “Roosevelt’s tame businessman” and yet Lovett saw Harriman more like a sovereign than a subject to the President’s he “served.” Could he have been the messenger bringing orders from Wall Street to the presidents?

Harriman formed a joint shipping company with the Soviets in 1922 showing that the capitalists remained in bed with the communists from the beginning. Broker of many deals and “loans” to the USSR.

Bones Brothers stick together to monopolize the money. The Harrimans and two partners of Harriman Brothers, Prescott Bush and Knight Wooley had been Bones Brothers. Together with Lovett. Ellery James, Laurence Tighe, and Charles Dickey, partners in Brown Brothers, and fellow Yale Bonesmen, they brought about the merger of the two major banking firms.

Acheson’s life long Anglophilia was instilled as a child say the authors. While voicing love for “democracy,” he considered us the “vulgar mass of humanity.” He didn’t hesitate to use deceit to gain his ends from that “vulgar mass.” “They favored for example, a postwar loan for the Soviets and efforts to work out a system of joint control of the atom bomb. Yet Acheson and others consciously over stated the threat they perceived in order to sell their vision of America’s role in the postwar world.”

Lovett and McCloy, according to the book, would spend hours going over the roster of the CFR to find people they thought would be good in government. Research will show a lot more CFR in the Roosevelt administration than these six. (Note: Lovett and McCloy are the only ones listed as CFR by Isaacson and Thomas, but internet sites show that no later than the Truman administration all six were members.)

The authors showed considerable admiration for these “six friends,” and why not? Rhodes Scholars hold the same love for England, American intervention in world affairs, and globalism. Nevertheless, an astute reader can find more than enough evidence to indict this whole gang for treason. Unfortunately, there’s just too much to list here. It wouldn’t do any good anyway. The one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history.

If anyone is interested, the book is published by Simon and Schuster and copyrighted in 1986.

This concludes my three part series showing the dominance of the CFR, Americas ruling party through administrations from FDR to George W. Bush and philosophies from the “left” through the center, and to the “right.” Most people, conditioned to believe the lib vs. con, Rep vs. Dem. charade will not accept it. The next section shows how they were conditioned, or maybe I should say, the tools used..

America's Ruling Party and the Media

In the preceeding three sections, I tried to show the relationship of America's ruling party, the Council on Foreign Relations, to the Neo-Cons of today, what I called the Mid-Roaders of not long ago, and a number of wealthy and connected men who played prominent roles in FDR's "liberal" regime and that of Harry Truman. Here's the reason why the majority of Americans have never heard of this group even though it has dominated almost every administration for at least 3/4 of a century. Calling the media "liberal" or conservative" is meaningless.

Here's a list of members of the media that I found on the I-Net who are also members of the CFR and/or the spin-off Trilateral Commission. The list is getting old, it's from the 90's, but you'll recognize many names from past and present. Some are dead. I’m sure many of their replacements are now CFR, but I'm not about to try to pull out present media people from more up to date lists because too few of the general public seem to understand or to care. Besides, even if the list is old, this should be ample evidence of the media control by the global elitists.

Here's the list:

CBS: Laurence A. Tisch, CEO, Dan Rather, Richard Hottelet, James Houghton - also Trilateral Commission, Henry Schacht - also TC, Roswell Gilpatric, Frank Stanton

NBC/RCA: Jane Pfeiffer, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Irving R. Levine, Lester Crystal - also TC, R.W. Sonnenfeidt - also TC, John F. Welch, CEO, John Petty, Marvin Kalb, Herbert Schlosser, Peter G. Peterson, John Sawhill

ABC: Thomas S. Murphy, CEO, Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer John Connor, John Scall

Public Broadcast Service: Robert McNeil, Jim Lehrer, Daniel Schorr, C. Hunter-Gault, Hodding Carter III

Associated Press: Katharine Graham also TC, Stanley Swinton, Harold Anderson

Reuters: Michael Posner

Baltimore Sun: Henry Trewhitt

Washington Times: Arnaud De Borchgrave

Children's TV Workshop (Sesame Street): Joan Ganz Cooney, Pres. [Even Cookie Monster is CFR. We're doomed!!! I hear they're planning a new "Talking Elmo". It will say, "Hi! I'm Elmo. I'm here to help you learn. You will learn to obey!!]

Cable News Network: W. Thomas Johnson, Pres. -- TC only, Daniel Schorr

U.S. News & World Report: David Gergen -- TC

New York Times Co.: Richard Gelb, William Scranton - also TC , John F. Akers, Dir., Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Dir., George B. Munroe, Dir., Donald M. Stewart, Dir., Cyrus R. Vance, Dir., Max Frankel, Harrison Salisbury, and on and on to a total of 18 CFR that are or were with the NYT.

Time, Inc.: Alexander Heard, Sol Linowitz, Thomas Watson, Jr., Ralph Davidson, Donald M. Wilson, Henry Grunwald, Strobe Talbott

Newsweek/Washington Post: Katherine Graham, N. Deb. Katzenbach, Robert Christopher, Osborne Elliot, George Will CFR & TC and on and on to a total of 14 CFR that are or were with Newsweek/WP.

Dow Jones & Co (Wall Street Journal): Richard Wood, Robert Bartley CFR & TC, Karen House

National Review: Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. - also Skull & Bones at Yale [Yes!!! The fabled "conservative" Bill Buckley is CFR, TC and a Bilderberg member or attendee]

Readers Digest: George V. Grune, CEO, William G. Bowen, Dir.

Syndicated Columnists: Geogia Anne Geyer, Ben J. Wattenberg

Additional control of the media, even local, is wielded through CFR membership of officers and directors of some of the largest advertisers.

The truth is! The problem is getting it out there!

America's Ruling Party in the Encyclopedia

For many years I’ve tried to show people that, while "liberal"/"conservative," Republican/Democrat administrations come and go, one thing remains constant throughout. The CFR has dominated both parties and all administrations since at least 1932. The Council on Foreign Relations is a heavily funded "think tank" dedicated to the world government so desired by the international financier and multi-national mega-corporations. It is in their interest and the interests of their patrons to ruin the country to make world government more palatable to the American people.

Few in the general public seem to be concerned that 15 ten thousandths of one percent of the population is able to wield so much power. Few seem concerned that they have enough control over the media to keep themselves semi-secret. The fact is that before Al Gore invented the internet, they were known to very few. Maybe it’s just an innate fear of the "C" word. Certainly the evidence suggests that what is going on is planned.
But are they secret enough to be part of a (shudder) conspiracy. Certainly, the encyclopedias will make them known to all. Let’s take a look at what the encyclopedias say.

Encyclopedia Brittanica has this to say about the Council on Foreign Relations: " "

Encyclopedia Americana says this: " "

Of those on my computer, Microsoft Encarta 2002 Comments: " "
(Although it had no article on the Council, it did have several articles in which the CFR was mentioned including five regarding Rockefeller Foundation Funding.)

Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1999 goes whole hog: "The Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921, is an organization concerned with the international aspects of U.S. political, economic, and strategic matters. With a membership of almost 3,000 the council provides a forum for individuals with an interest in international affairs and sponsors research projects by its professional staff advised by selected leaders in education, public service, business, and the media. The council publishes the influential bimonthly Foreign Affairs and produces programs on National Public Radio. Its headquarters are in New York City."

World Book 2003 says: "Council on Foreign Relations is a private organization that studies problems in United States foreign policy. The council aims to develop new approaches to, and an understanding of, international relations. It does not, however, support or oppose any course of action.

The council encourages the publication of books on foreign affairs. The authors of these books need not be council members. However, they receive advice from study groups made up of experts who are members. Since 1922, the council has published a quarterly magazine called Foreign Affairs.

The Council on Foreign Relations sponsors about 150 meetings yearly for members. Leading government officials and experts in foreign affairs address the meetings. The council offers fellowships to selected individuals to broaden their knowledge of foreign affairs.

The council was established in 1921 and has over 2,500 members. It selects members for their experience and interest in foreign affairs. More than 35 committees on foreign relations in cities throughout the United States are associated with the council. The Council on Foreign Relations has headquarters at 58 E. 68th Street, New York, NY 10021. "

Critically reviewed by the Council on Foreign Relations

(Yes! World Book says all this, but only with the approval of the CFR)

A printed version of World Book tells us: "The Council on Foreign Relations is a private organization, publisher, and study center in the United States. It works to encourage understanding of global issues and to develop new approaches to U.S. foreign policy. The council promotes debates and discussions to help clarify world issues. It also encourages the publication of books on foreign affairs. Since 1922, the council has published a quarterly magazine called Foreign Affairs.

The Council on Foreign Relations sponsors a number of meetings yearly for members. Leading government officials and experts in foreign affairs address the meetings. The council offers fellowships to selected individuals to broaden their knowledge of foreign affairs.

The council was established in 1921 and has about 4000 members. It selects members for their experience and interest in foreign affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations has headquarters in New York City. It also has offices in Washington, D.C. The council operates programs throughout the United States. "

Critically reviewed by the Council on Foreign Relations
(Once again, with permission only)

I have two other encyclopedias on my computer that have the same comments: " "

Finally, Wikipedia has a lengthy article that includes a link to this "independent study," "Building a North American Community" sponsored by the Council. Of course, it is said within the article that national sovereignty will be maintained. Riiiight! What’s left of it. This is the same line we heard fighting internal regionalism. It’s to "strengthen" local government. Right! By merging it into larger units as they plan to do with the United States. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Amazing how the mainstream encyclopedias can virtually overlook so powerful an organization.

Return to TOC

America's Enemies

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bailouts – The Sinking of the American Ship of State Bailout money from the American taxpayers will be used by GM to ship the equivalent production of four assembly plants to Mexico, South Korea, and China. From “The Nation.” What's that about “None dare call it treason?”

Uncommon Criminals

Secret Service, Tacoma Police Department, Principal of Truman Middle School, Tacoma School District

The Banks and Banksters - Part I

A Litmus Test for Enemies

Internet Censors

Department of Justice -- Part 2

Dan Onorato

Department of Justice

Southern Poverty Law Center

More Enemies In Congress

Barack Obama

Early Lives of Some of Our Enemies

Racist NAACP

A Note of Appreciation

Nothing Changes

Mexican Bandit Attacks the United States

AMERICA'S ENEMIES IN THE SENATE

America's Enemies in the House

Incontrovertible Proof -- Global Warming is Man Made

AMERICA'S CORPORATE ENEMIES

Ruling Party's Media Control - Fox News

I HAD A DREAM

AN APOLOGY

BILDERBERG PLANS

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--DOMESTIC ENEMY NO. 1

BILDERBERG 2009

Did I Offend Anyone?

Bailouts -- The Sinking of the American Ship of State

Rhodes – The Beat Goes On

"Uncle Tom" Not In Charge

Obama Continues Web of Treason

INTERDEPENDENCE

The Trilateral Commission

AMERICA'S RULING PARTY

Bailouts – The Sinking of the American Ship of State
Bailout money from the American taxpayers will be used by GM to ship the equivalent production of four assembly plants to Mexico, South Korea, and China. From “The Nation.” What's that about “None dare call it treason?”