FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

There is no valid argument for the destruction of our planet and any form of life on it.As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves. Be the change that you want to see in the world.
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.



Freedom Adds

Sunday, November 23, 2014

JFK, RFK, & MLK Were All Killed By the Same Forces

JFK, RFK, & MLK Were All Killed By the Same Forces

jfk, rfk, mlk

The murders of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King were all orchestrated by the same group. How can I be sure? I can be sure by a simple preponderance of circumstantial evidence which overwhelmingly connects the three most important and horrific assassinations in the 20th century.

The Vietnam War
More than 58,000 soldiers died in Vietnam.

More than 58,000 soldiers died in Vietnam.

All three men shared a similar goal of not becoming more deeply involved in the Vietnam War and they paid for it with their lives.  John F. Kennedy sought to avoid the Vietnam War because he saw it as a military quagmire that would burn American resources, needlessly waste American lives and would ultimately hurt his legacy as a president who oversaw an unwinnable war.

Robert Kennedy was still reeling from his older brother’s assassination for which the Vietnam War was a major factor which motivated the co-conspirators. RFK was determined to end the war in Vietnam. Robert also posed the threat of being able to reopen his brother’s murder and Allan Dulles, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George Bush and David Rockefeller had a lot to worry about if that were ever to happen. RFK had to be stopped with regard to his quest for the Presidency.

As Robert Kennedy sought the Democratic nomination for the 1968 presidential race, we should take note of the fact that most of his supporters were in their early to mid 20’s which comprised the demographics of people most vehemently opposed to the Vietnam War. Therefore, Robert F. Kennedy had a motive to withdraw the forces from Vietnam for political reasons.

At the beginning of the 1968 Democratic campaign season, most people didn’t give Robert Kennedy a snowballs chance in hell of securing the nomination from his party. However, his early stunning upset victories caused great alarm among the establishment elite. One of the stories that floated among intelligence operatives who have spoken out was that Robert Kennedy was told not to go to California and participate in the Democratic primary. He was clearly told to withdraw from the race or he would be killed. Reportedly, Robert Kennedy scoffed at the threats clearly thinking that the establishment elite would not be able to get away with assassinating two different Kennedy’s in less than five years. Allegedly, Martin Luther King was killed, in part, at the height of the civil rights movement, in order to provide Robert Kennedy with a high-profile warning that nobody was beyond the reach of the elite establishment. Dr. King’s assassination did not sway Robert Kennedy from his political ambitions and he ultimately paid the ultimate price for ignoring the warning.

Martin Luther King was a threat to the establishment elite, not simply because he was having a revolutionary civil rights movement and was succeeding, he was also opposed to the Vietnam War. King’s objection to the Vietnam War was not based so much on geopolitical reasons, but rather on issues of racial equality.

At a time in our country’s history when we still had a military draft, a disproportionate number of black males, particularly in the South, were being drafted in lieu of white males. And King was also opposed to the disproportionate number of black soldiers who were being sent to Vietnam.  King’s objections to the Vietnam War were dangerous to the establishment. King drew the attention of J. Edgar Hoover and was illegally spied upon by the FBI. And if you want a reason to dislike J. Edgar Hoover any more, Hoover removed King’s FBI bodyguards shortly before his assassination. Of course, the establishment would have us believe that this was just another coincidence.

The Vietnam War was a huge cash cow for the establishment elite in the areas of oil, the military-industrial complex and the banks. Nothing was going to interfere with establishment’s right to wage war for profit.

Oswald, Sirhan, Ray
oswald, sirhan, ray

Single Assassins

The establishment says that John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King were all killed by lone assassins who most people labeled as mentally ill and extremist in their beliefs.

Ask yourself an important question. If you were going to carry out a high-profile assassination of well-guarded individuals, this would require a great deal of planning, don’t you think? One would have to be able to get in proximity to their target, remain undetected, conceal their weapon until the last moment and then flawlessly carry out the plot with an accuracy that’s second to none. With the high degree of planning that would have to go in to these three assassinations, why would anyone risk discovery by revealing their plans in advance by confessing in a diary which could’ve been serendipitously discovered?

Perhaps we can buy this ridiculous diary explanation in one of these assassinations. More amazingly, each diary left a convincing trail of condemning evidence as to the written, self expressed guilt of the assassin which would leave no doubt in the public’s mind that the assassin acted alone. Therefore, we are asked to believe that this scenario happened three times, in the three major assassinations of the 20th century, less than five years apart and we’re supposed to believe that this commonality of modus operandi is just a mere coincidence? Are you kidding me? Meanwhile the establishment elite gets to point the finger individually at each of the accused three assassins by pointing to these diaries.

John Kennedy was allegedly killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald supposedly wrote a diary upon his return journey from his previous defection to the Soviet Union in which he threatened the president with harm. Many handwriting analysts discredit the Oswald diary as a diary that was written in just a few sessions and not over a period of months and years as the Warren Commission claimed.

Robert Kennedy was killed by Sirhan Sirhan and the diary was later discovered and used to implicate the accused assassin in a court of law.

Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated by James Earl Ray and he too had a diary professing his intentions to kill the civil rights activist. Interestingly, members of the King family visited James Earl Ray on many occasions in prison and publicly stated that they do not believe that James Earl Ray was the man who killed Dr. Martin Luther King.

This trifecta trail of implication through the finding of a diary is not believable and this really does demonstrate how dumb the establishment elite thinks the American people truly are that we would believe the same story three times over.

The Lone Assassin Myth

Political assassinations of this magnitude are complicated to say the least. How one sniper, or one gunman could have carried out this act, without any assistance, is very difficult to believe. Failure to use a spotter in all three cases and the failure to have an accomplice in all three cases is just not believable. And that is exactly what the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977 stated when Congress issued an opinion which stated that JFK was murdered by at least two gunmen. Yet the media propaganda spin still continues to this day.

                 All Three Assassins Were Mentally Ill

All three of the assassins have been categorized to the public as extremists who are mentally ill. There is actually a fourth assassination attempt in the 20th century in which the establishment claims was carried out by a mentally ill lone assassin and that person was the would-be assassin of Ronald Reagan, John Hinckley. Wouldn’t you say that the establishment went to the well a little too often with this profile?


Let’s sum up the “official” position of the establishment.   The three most prominent assassinations of the 20th century were carried out against high-profile political targets. And according to the establishment elite, all of the assassinations were the individual acts of one man with an unstable mental health background and extremist political views. Further, all the assassins possessed a diary which professes their murderous intentions towards their individual target, and just coincidentally, the diary was discovered and used to implicate the single assassin notion in each case. And let’s not forget that in two of the three assassinations involving John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, expert marksmanship was displayed. In fact, in the case of Oswald, nobody has been able to duplicate the accuracy and speed of which the assassination had to be carried out in 5.6 seconds. Don’t you wish that MIT would run the odds on these probabilities being due to chance.

Fifty one years later following the death of John Kennedy and 46 years after the death of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, some of the older folks in this country still seek answers. Why in 2013 is assassination evidence still being held under lock and key and the American people are not allowed to look at it? What is the establishment afraid that we might learn? And more disturbingly, why don’t more Americans care? For when we let a few men, behind-the-scenes, commit a coup d’état against three high level political figures, especially the President of the United States, and subsequently change policy in case of John Kennedy, we no longer live in a democratic republic.  We now live in a corporate oligarchy.

When these events are allowed to go on and the true perpetrators remain unpunished and the evidence is carefully concealed decades after the events, then what we are left with is a Praetorian Guard who runs the government for behind-the-scenes committing assassinations, rigging elections and by bribing politicians with undue corporate influence and gratuity. Add in the control of the media and we live in a prison country.  This is why you should care and this is why it’s disgraceful that  more of the alternative media is not covering these events and more Americans don’t give a damn about what happened to these three men and why they were assassinated.

The same forces were killed by the elite establishment using the same modus operandi, representing the identical interlocking directorates of the entities that are wreaking havoc in tyranny upon our country today (e.g. the Federal Reserve, the military industrial complex etc.).

There are definitive reasons, with modern day implications which describe why you should care and this is why you should take the time to investigate and educate your neighbors because the assassins of these three men, all from the same groups, are responsible for the mess we’re in today. And we can’t fix the mess we’re in today unless we understand how we got into the situation we are mired in.

JFK, RFK and MLK were clearly killed by the same forces. If you are wondering about the identities of these forces, I refer you to Part One of this series where the identities of these interlocking directorates are clearly identified.

There is another compelling reason why we should keep the heat on with regard to the murders of these three men. If we can ever have a bold American leader attempt to lead the country out of tyranny, the amount of attention that we pay to these three assassinations, could ultimately save the life of a future great reformer.

I know, and many others know who pulled the trigger from the grassy knoll in order to kill John Kennedy. Many of us also know the identities of the puppeteers behind the scenes who orchestrated these heinous acts. However, nobody is home and nobody is listening any longer as we continue to lose our country, our traditions, our true historical past and most of all, our children’s futures.
Why do we kill those who try and make a difference? Dion wondered the same as he wrote a song about the great civil rights reformers in American History. Before you dismiss this topic of one that should go back on the history shelf, not to be debated again, listen to the following song. And then ponder, just for a moment, about how life would be different for all of us if these men were able to carry out the fulfillment of their dreams.

by Dave Hodges

No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order

No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order

No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order

Today is the big day, and the Progressive media is in full spin to mitigate the anger Americans are expressing about President Obama’s decision to offer legal status to millions of people who broke the law. That spin has taken many forms, including the novel arguments that the executive branch is empowered to act whenever the legislative branch declines and that the executive branch’s enforcement discretion includes the affirmative grant of benefits not otherwise authorized by law. Most recently, however, Progressive columnists have settled on an old favorite tactic: justify Democratic misbehavior by claiming (falsely, as you will see) that a Republican did it first.

Democrats across print, web, and cable media have been repeating the claim that Obama is doing nothing more than what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did first. They point to executive actions taken in 1987 and 1989 that deferred the removal of certain aliens. But, as usual for Progressive commentators, they elide the crucial facts that distinguish those actions from Obama’s. The sign that you’re being swindled isn’t so much what the con artist tells you, but what he does not tell you. What the Progressive commentariat is not telling you is that the Reagan and Bush immigration orders looked nothing like Obama’s creation of a new, open-ended form of immigration relief.

Legally, illegal immigration is dealt with in two steps. First, the Department of Homeland Security (in Reagan and Bush 41′s time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS) has to show that an alien is removable (deportable, in Reagan and Bush 41′s lingo) from the United States. Then the alien gets a chance to show that they are eligible for some form of relief from removal or deportation. Ordinarily, those forms of relief are created by Congress. There is asylum and adjustment and cancellation of removal, and so on and so forth, all set down in statute by Congress over the decades (more than a century in the case of certain waivers) in an overlapping mess of eligibilities and disqualifiers and discretionary decisions.
With some regularity, however, the existing forms of immigration relief have been overtaken by circumstances. When that has happened, Congress steps in. In 1986, faced with a large and growing population of illegal aliens, Congress created a new, time-limited form of immigration relief for certain aliens who, among other things, had to have come to the United States more than six years previously. This is the much ballyhooed Reagan amnesty. It was, unfortunately, riddled with fraud in its execution, the uncovering of which is still roiling the immigrant community. But even setting that aside it left President Reagan with a moral dilemma. Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

What the Progressive commentariat is not telling you is that the Reagan and Bush immigration orders looked nothing like Obama’s creation of a new, open-ended form of immigration relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law.

Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children. Importantly, nor had it excluded them. So Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 filled that statutory gap. “What do we do with spouses and children?” INS asked. “Well,” the executive branch leaders said, “defer their deportation. Decline to exercise your lawful authority for the particular cases that are related to those Congress has offered amnesty.”

These Reagan and Bush 41 executive actions were obviously different than what Obama is doing now. They were trying to implement a complicated amnesty that Congress had already passed. Congress’ action was a form of immigration relief that obviously fit within our constitutional system. Moreover, Congress left a gap when it came to immediate family members, including minor children, of individuals who qualified for the amnesty. Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 forbore from deporting people in that select group.

Obama is clearly contravening both ordinary practice and the wishes of Congressas expressed in statuteby declaring an amnesty himself. This is nothing like Reagans or Bushs attempts to implement Congress amnesty.

Obama, in contrast to Reagan and Bush 41, is not trying to implement a lawfully created amnesty. There has been no congressional amnesty. In fact, there has been no immigration action from Congress in the past few years except the post-9/11 REAL ID Act of 2005, which made it harder, not easier, for aliens to qualify for immigration relief. More than that, Congress declined to pass a legalization of the type Obama is issuing during both Obama’s term and in a hotly-contested bill during President Bush 43′s term.

Thus, Obama is clearly contravening both ordinary practice and the wishes of Congress—as expressed in statute—by declaring an amnesty himself. This is nothing like Reagan’s or Bush’s attempts to implement Congress’ amnesty. The progressive media’s claims otherwise are blatant lies, relying on their readers’ ignorance of events in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Such attempts should be rejected wherever they are found.

If Obama wants to justify his lawless immigration action, he will have to do it some other way than citing (blaming, more like) prior Republican presidents. They, to their credit, were trying to implement Congress’ will. Obama, on the other hand, has declared that his government will act despite Congress, or, I suspect, to spite Congress. Such pettiness finds no support in the presidencies of Reagan and Bush.

Gabriel MalorGabriel Malor is an attorney and writer in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter.

Sorry, President Obama: Scripture Doesn’t Support Amnesty

Sorry, President Obama: Scripture Doesn’t Support Amnesty

Where’s the separation-of-church-and-state crowd when you need them? AWOL on amnesty.

Sorry, President Obama: Scripture Doesn’t Support Amnesty

So President Obama is quoting Scripture to make his case for amnesty. I just knew the separation-of-church-and-state crowd would be up in arms today with shouts of protest—wait, there aren’t any. No scathing posts. No statement from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Oh, right, this is a Democratic president, so it’s okay. His reference to Exodus 22:1 and 23:9 is perfectly acceptable. But like most politicians who pillage the Bible for their own purposes, Obama plucked verses out of context. “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt” is nestled within a list of other commandments—as well as a linguistic and historical framework:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.” So, all you guys who have sex with a girl you’re not married to—you need to put a ring on it. The Bible says so.

“Do not allow the sorceress to live.” Wiccans beware! Obama might be after you next.

“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.” If we adopted this directive, the war with the Islamic State would certainly take an interesting turn. Will Obama be quoting that one at his next national security meeting? Let’s hope not.

In Exodus 23, just a few verses above “You shall not oppress a stranger” is “Do not kill the innocent.” Is Obama going to take executive action and overturn Roe v. Wade? Don’t hold your breath.

It would, however, be prudent for anyone cheering Obama’s executive overreach to contemplate that if the president can act because Congress won’t on immigration, he sets a precedent for a future Republican president to do the same. Imagine this: the GOP president in 2017 makes a speech about how the Bible says we shouldn’t kill the innocent, and with a stroke of his pen, he makes abortion illegal. I can just hear the howls of protest then.

Lets Look at Supposed Biblical Support for Amnesty

So what of this verse, “Do not oppress a stranger”? Let’s take a closer look at it. The Hebrew word for “oppress” in this context is lachats (law-khats’). It means to afflict, squeeze, press, force, hold shut, oppress. The word connotes more than “we need to show hospitality” or even caring for the poor. It’s a strong word, implying disdain and hostility toward the stranger, not caring for his needs at all, not showing him dignity as a human being.

The passage makes a comparison to the Jews in Egypt. Egyptian oppression wasn’t just that the Jews weren’t taken care of. They were oppressed, pressed down, enslaved. They had to make bricks from straw, and they were beaten. Is this what American citizens are doing to illegal immigrants? Are we oppressing them? Obama basically accused us of being cruel and selfish—he called us oppressors, in the same way that Egyptians were oppressors to the Israelites. Are we? No, not at all. Quite the contrary.

Americans Lavish Care on Illegal Immigrants

Just look at what benefits illegal immigrants can get, as outlined, for example, by The Children’s Aid Society in New York. In their brochure, “Know Your Rights,” they inform people who come here illegally of all the benefits open to them—and how they can get them even when they don’t exactly qualify. “Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for public assistance but may receive other benefits and services necessary for health and survival. Below is a list of resources for low-income undocumented immigrant families.”

Emergency Medicaid: Persons who cannot pay or have no insurance (regardless of immigration status) can be treated for emergency conditions at public hospitals free of charge; they will have to fill out paperwork so that the hospital can be reimbursed by the government.

HHC Plus: All financially eligible undocumented adults can obtain discounted medical care, including prescriptions and mental health treatment, through the Health and Hospitals Corporation.
Medicaid/Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP): Public health insurance and prenatal health insurance are available to all financially eligible pregnant women without regard to immigration status.

Child Health Plus (CHP): State health insurance is available to financially eligible children regardless of immigration status.

Food Stamps: While undocumented immigrants are not eligible, other people in the family, including children who are born citizens, may receive this benefit.
School Breakfast and Lunch Program: Free or reduced-price meals are provided to students at public and participating private schools.

Public housing: In general, only legal immigrants are eligible. In the case of mixed families, the family may still qualify for public housing but the amount of the family’s housing subsidy will be reduced accordingly for those who decline to submit their documentary evidence. New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) requires all tenants to verify citizenship or immigration status, but family members can avoid disclosure by “electing not to contend.”

Employment benefits: Workers Compensation provides weekly cash payments and covers the cost of medical treatment, including rehabilitation, for covered employees who become disabled as a result of injury (or disease) connected with their employment. It also provides payments for qualified dependents of a worker who dies from an injury or illness. The New York State Attorney General’s Office advises that Workers Compensation benefits are available to anyone who worked including those paid in cash, paid off the books, paid as independent contractors or otherwise not reported to the government as an employee. Immigration status is irrelevant.

Domestic violence: Undocumented immigrants who have been abused or whose children have been abused by their U.S. citizen or lawfully permanent resident status partner may be eligible for public benefits and for “green card” status.

Not exactly oppression, would you say?

Were Admitting More Government Dependents

But—supporters of Obama’s amnesty would counter—now illegal immigrants will pay their fair share by contributing through taxes. This isn’t exactly true. According to Forbes, most immigrants won’t pay net income taxes.

On Thursday evening, President Obama unveiled his plan to offer legal status to approximately 5 million undocumented aliens. ‘If you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes,’ said Obama, ‘you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country.’ But the President neglected to mention that the income of the typical illegal immigrant is so low that he would pay no net income taxes, and become eligible for welfare benefits like Obamacare. According to a 2006 report from the left-leaning Century Foundation, ‘it is likely that the undocumented workers will end up receiving rather than paying the Treasury money.’

Despite 56 percent of American voters who think the U.S. government is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally, Obama declares amnesty for five million illegal immigrants—and opening the floodgates for more to come through chain immigration. On top of that, he preaches to us from Scripture as if he’s a pontiff, condemning anyone who opposes his plan as being oppressive and uncaring, even cruel. Americans are a compassionate people. We have always been a compassionate people. But we are a people bound together through laws—laws made, not by the despotic decree of a president who quotes religious texts, but by Congress, representing the will of the people. If Obama is going to turn to Scripture for guidance, maybe he should turn to Proverbs 11:14: For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.

D.C. McAllisterBy D.C. McAllister,

New rules will allow illegals convicted of serious felonies to remain

New rules will allow illegals convicted of serious felonies to remain

There's "prosecutorial discretion," and then there's Obama's idea of "prosecutorial discretion."

In his speech on Thursday night, the president promised the American people that those convicted of "serious" crimes would not be subject to amnesty.  But new rules issued by Homeland Security make it clear that the administration has a weird idea of just what constitutes a "serious" felony.

Washington Examiner:

The Department of Homeland Security has just released new "Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants." Designed to fill in the details after President Obama's announcement that at least four million currently illegal immigrants will be given work permits, Social Security numbers and protection from deportation, the DHS guidelines are instructions for the nation's immigration and border security officers as they administer the president's directive.

The new priorities are striking. On the tough side, the president wants U.S. immigration authorities to go after terrorists, felons, and new illegal border crossers. On the not-so-tough side, the administration views convicted drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities. An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration.

In the memo, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson says his department must develop "smart enforcement priorities" to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in order to best use his agency's limited resources. Johnson establishes three enforcement priority levels to guide DHS officers as they decide whether to stop, hold, or prosecute an illegal immigrant.

Priority One is the "highest priority to which enforcement resources should be directed," the memo says. The category includes "aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security." It also includes "aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States." In addition, any illegal immigrant convicted of an offense involving a criminal street gang, or convicted of a felony -- provided that immigration status was not an "essential element" of the charge -- is targeted. Finally, any illegal immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony is included in Priority One.

The guidelines say Priority One aliens "must be prioritized" for deportation unless they qualify for asylum or unless there are "compelling and exceptional" factors that indicate the alien is not a threat.

Priority Two offenders, whose cases are less urgent than criminals in Priority One, include the following:

aliens convicted of a "significant misdemeanor," which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence)

This opens the door for some career criminals to remain in the U.S.  Sexual abuse is a predatory crime, and allowing someone convicted of it to remain in the U.S. endangers our communities.  And allowing drug-traffickers to stay – including possible Mexican gang members – is the height of idiocy.

The rules further state:

DHS further defines a "significant misdemeanor" as an offense for which the maximum term of imprisonment is one year or less, but greater than five days. In addition, the guidelines contain a possible out for illegal immigrants accused of domestic abuse. "Careful consideration should be given to whether the convicted alien was also the victim of domestic violence," the guidelines say. "If so, this should be a mitigating factor."

Priority Two also includes "aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic offenses or state or local offenses for which an essential element was the alien's immigration status." But there's an important footnote to that. The three offenses must arise out of three separate incidents. If an illegal immigrant committed a single act that resulted in multiple misdemeanor charges, it would count as one charge for DHS counting purposes.

My question is, with all the law-abiding, hardworking, honest people waiting patiently to legally immigrate to the U.S., why give burglars, drug-traffickers, and other illegal alien felons a break?  Our immigration policy should encourage the very best and brightest from other countries to come to the U.S.  This policy turns that idea on its head and allows the worst dregs of humanity to ply their criminal trade in our communities.

This is a minor part of the president's amnesty plan.  It's not likely that too many of these criminals will come forward.  They don't need Social Security cards or work permits to continue to commit crimes.

But as an indication of what the administration is thinking about who deserves to stay in the U.S., it speaks volumes to Obama officials' "compassion" for the citizens they purport to serve.

By Rick Moran

Do Major Think Tanks Violate US Law?

Do Major Think Tanks Violate US Law?

Prominent American research organizations may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, (FARA), by failing to register and to disclose lavish donations they have received from foreign governments, as documented in a recent major report in the New York Times, “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks”, by Eric Lipton, Brooke Williams and Nicholas Confessore. Such funding by foreign governments, especially when not disclosed, is extremely detrimental to the interests of the United States, since their goal is to influence our policies.

 “More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donor’s priorities.”

Although receipt of such funding is not illegal, failure to report it is.

“The think tanks do not disclose the terms of the agreements they have reached with foreign governments.  And they have not registered with the United States government as representatives of the donor countries, an omission that appears, in some cases, to be a violation of federal law, according to several legal specialists who examined the agreements at the request of the Times”

FARA requires registration and disclosure by persons who are funded by foreign nations if they engage in “political activities” which is defined as an attempt to influence public opinion or any part thereof, in the United States on matters of policy.  That is precisely what these think tanks do, as Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institute explicitly states in this article. “Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Indyk. To assume that the researchers and the think tanks are not influenced by the agenda of their donors belies common sense.

Norway, Japan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are among nations identified as heavy donors to these think tanks

Indyk’s problematic role as an envoy of the United States to Israel during the early stages of its campaign against Hamas in Gaza, Protective Edge, is a perfect example of conflict of interest, because of the financial role of Qatar.   At that time, Indyk was the Vice President and director of foreign policy for Brookings; Qatar gives extensive support to both Brookings and Hamas.

Qatar is widely accepted to be Hamas’ main financial backer.   The New York Times reported that Qatar gave Brookings $14 million, making Qatar also its largest donor.  Neither Brookings nor Indyk disclosed this financial connection during Protective Edge.

The entire purpose of the FARA law is to ensure transparency when foreign nations try to influence American policy.  Unfortunately, no reference to Qatar was found either on the Brookings website or in its annual report. From the NYT article, one may reasonably infer that the same invisibility is true for donations from foreign governments received by the other think tanks.

Shortly before Attorney General Eric Holder announced his imminent resignation, he ordered investigations into the Ferguson, Missouri police department, and domestic violence within the ranks of the NFL.  As important as these issues are, it is incumbent upon his soon to be appointed successor to promptly initiate an investigation into the funding of major research organizations by foreign nations. Clearly, there is ample cause for the Justice Department to open an investigation promptly into violations of FARA both by these institutions and the individuals involved, and if warranted by their findings, to commence judicial proceedings to impose the full extent of the civil and criminal penalties provided.

By Jan Sokolovsky

Amnesty for Unamerica

Amnesty for Unamerica

Obama’s excuse for his illegal amnesty will be that the immigration system is “broken” forcing him to act. But when Obama says that the system is broken, he means that some parts of it still work and so he intends to break immigration all the way through to benefit his own corrupt political allies.

That will hurt his own voters the most, but the Democratic Party has a notoriously masochistic relationship with its voting base. It beats them up and then it gaslights them by hugging them and telling them that it was really the mean Republicans who punched them in the face.

When African-American unemployment rates rise, the workers who can’t find jobs because of all the brand new DREAMERs won’t blame the White House, they’ll blame the evil Republicans for income inequality, assuming Sharpton manages to read the term correctly from his MSNBC teleprompter.

According to Obama our immigration system is broken because it doesn’t allow illegal aliens who illegally crossed the border to take American jobs. That’s not a broken system, that’s what the system is supposed to do.

When illegal aliens aren’t allowed to legally take American jobs, that’s how you know the immigration system is working. In the language of progressivism, helping means ruining and fixing means breaking. A system that fulfills any useful purpose must be reformed out of all usefulness. If the tattered shreds of the immigration system still keep a single Democratic voter from legally cashing a welfare check and casting a vote, then immigration must be reformed and helped and fixed until it is completely destroyed.

The immigration system is broken because it was reformed so many times that it makes as much sense as an outhouse on a space shuttle. Its main function now is to bring millions of people without jobs to a country where millions are out of work. Obama wants to fix that by adding millions more people.

Our system of immigration is a perfectly good system for importing lots of low wage workers. The only problem is they’re being imported into a country where there are a lot more low wage workers than there are jobs. The cost of providing food stamps and social services for the immigrants and the Americans they put out of work is passed on to the shrinking middle class which kills more jobs.

Some Republicans would like to modify it to help Mark Zuckerberg bring cheaper third world programmers and engineers to replace the Americans over at Facebook. Why settle for just wiping out the working class, when you can also take out chunks of the middle class?

Our immigration system made perfect sense back when we were opening factories everywhere. It made sense when new ranches needed hands and land needed working. It makes a lot less sense when the government is fighting a war on carbon, when ranches have to get out of the way of the spotted red toad and farms are starved of water in the name of the environment.

The million immigrants a year are not entering booming industries, but serving as cheap labor in declining ones. And they’re doing it in a country where declining industries and poor workers are already being subsidized by taxpayers in a dozen different ways. Why then should taxpayers also be subsidizing the replacement of American workers with Somali and Honduran workers?

Who benefits from that except the Democratic Party which not only killed the industries, but is now managing to kill the American workforce? The glorious future of the new economy is a government subsidized Chinese factory using foreign workers to make subsidized solar panels in Oklahoma while taxpayers remain on the hook for the subsidies which used bonds sold to Chinese investors.

Declining industries tighten their belts by cutting costs. They find the cheapest employees they can. Those cheapest employees become a constituency for the nanny state. The nanny state makes it even more expensive to operate. The cycle spins on until the only industries left are state subsidized and everyone directly or indirectly works for the state. And the only items of collateral with which to borrow more money to subsidize them with are the land and the people. That’s not America. That’s Africa.

The Obama economy has created mostly low wage jobs. Those jobs continue to be filled by immigrants. There still aren’t enough jobs so Obama is proposing to create even less jobs by adding more immigrants by legalizing more illegal aliens.

There is something broken here, but it’s not so much immigration as Obama and his party.

Last week I spoke to a British immigration lawyer who described how difficult it was for seniors in the United Kingdom to retire in the United States. While most countries welcome wealthy retirees, our system makes it difficult for them to move and bring their money over here.

Meanwhile in his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama had praised Desiline Victor, a 102-year-old Haitian woman who had moved to the United States at around 80 and never learned to speak English, but did spend hours waiting in line in Florida to vote for Obama. There are plenty of senior immigrants coming through family reunification for a big bite of a social welfare system they never paid into.

But the Democratic Party would rather have a voter than a worker. And so what we have is not an immigration system, but a migration system.

That’s why Obama and his people fought so hard against an Ebola travel ban. It’s why the New York Times editorialized against allowing Cuban doctors to defect because of the “brain drain” but instead urged that “American immigration policy should give priority to the world’s neediest refugees.”

America certainly takes in plenty of needy people, but what the New York Times is emphasizing is that we should be taking in people with nothing to contribute and keeping out those who do. Its ideal immigrant will at best be a low wage worker and at worst a permanent welfare case. We don’t want Cuban doctors. We want Somali muggers and Liberian Ebola cases and Pakistani terrorists.

Immigration is not meant to serve American interests. America is meant to serve immigration. The end result of this immigration policy will be a stratified society with a permanent lower class and a thin upper class whose leftists can always start a riot by shouting about income equality without ever being able to offer it. Without social mobility what we will have left is social instability. There will be lots of young men with time on their hands to build bombs or throw stones.

If the left doesn’t win through the system, they’ll have their revolutionary constituency standing by. The only way we can afford the immigration policy that we have now is with a lot more industry and a lot less welfare. Instead our immigration rates were widened and rerouted to the Third World even as our actual industries declined. We kept on taking workers we didn’t have jobs for. We built ghettoes and rust belts and our politicians kept on reciting robotic speeches about being a nation of immigrants.

Immigration requires opportunity. We still have it, but less of it than we used to. Our immigration system is not based on opportunity. It’s based on a migratory flow of Democratic Party voters.

What broke the system was making it as open as possible to those who had the least to offer while closing it tightly to those who had the most to offer. Now Obama wants to import illegal aliens while deporting American jobs. He wants to trade American jobs to illegal aliens for Democratic votes.

If the immigration system is to work again, it should work for America… not for Obama.

by Daniel Greenfield

Is Rand Paul Trying to Warn Us of the Coming Internment Camps?

Is Rand Paul Trying to Warn Us of the Coming Internment Camps?


I care that too much power gets in one place, Paul said in a speech in Lexington at the Kentucky Association of Counties conference.

Yesterday Rand Paul was sounding off on Barack Obama’s Executive Amnesty when he suddenly went down a curious path. Soon his warning of too much power being in the hands of one individual became a sobering historical reminder, and possibly a future warning, of American Internment Camps.

Would Barack Obama put his political enemies in Internment Camps?

Does that question really need to be asked?

Steve Watson provides this partial transcript and commentary of Pauls comments:

Think of what happened in World War II where they made the decision. The president issued an executive order. He said to Japanese people ‘we’re going to put you in a camp. We’re going to take away all your rights and liberties and we’re going to intern you in a camp.’” Paul continued, citing then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s executive order authorizing the internments.
We shouldn’t allow that much power to gravitate to one individual. We need to separate the power.Paul urged.
The Senator, who has expressed support for a potential lawsuit against the immigration order, asked the audience to consider the bigger picture ofObama’s actions and the precedent he is now setting by so openly bypassing Congress and the political system put into place by the founders.
The danger of what the president is doing on immigration isn’t necessarilythe details of what he’s doing now, Paul said. The danger is allowing so much power to gravitate to one person.

Is Rand Paul speaking hypothetically or does he know more than he cares to tell us?
Do you ever get the feeling that there are still some semi-good people in government that might be trying to warn us? They can’t or won’t come out and say things in plain words because they fear they would jeopardize everything they have worked for, and maybe even their lives, but they want to say something to speak to those who might be able to “decode” what they are saying, because deep down they still have some semblance of human decency.
Is there such an animal as a decent politician?
Am I crazy?
But I believe these subtle warnings are present for those who might be able to recognize them.
If you want a perfect example of that, watch Congressman Thomas Massie’s video about the secret 9/11 documents. He talks about the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 report and calls for the truth to be told to America.
Most who follow the Truthful Media already know what those 28 pages likely contain.
Massie doesn’t really believe the government will tell the truth, but he can still, however, let the American people know that the government is lying.

Sometimes you have to interpret what these people say because saying too much can and will get them killed.

Is Rand Paul trying to do the same thing with his comments on Internment Camps?

Is it a warning?

Is he simply bound by how much he can actually tell us?
I would say the answer to all of the above questions is very likely “yes.”
Rand Paul is not the first key public figure to travel down this road. Earlier this year we received another warning about what may be coming in the form of a Supreme Court Justice.

Rand Paul isnt the only one talking about Internment Camps

Back in February Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued statements quite similar to those of Rand Paul that might be considered a warning as well.

On Tuesday Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was quoted, in aWashington Examiner article, discussing the possible return of World War II style “internment camps”:
Justice Antonin Scalia predicts that the Supreme Court will eventually authorize another wartime abuse of civil rights such as the internment camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II.

“You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told the University of Hawaii law school while discussing Korematsu v. United States, the ruling in which the court gave its imprimatur to the internment camps.

So a respected Senator and Supreme Court Justice are talking about the possibility ofInternment camps on U.S. soil…

Should that serve as a warning of what is coming?
Or is it simply reminding us that it could happen here?

Does it really matter?

Either way it is cause for concern and FEMA Camps are not a conspiracy. Any government worth its salt is going to have a contingency plan for a “just in case” scenario. Of course there are plans to incarcerate large numbers of people, should it be deemed necessary. A form of that plan likely exists, in some fashion, with every national government on Planet Earth.

In case you are ready to open your eyes, click here to learn about REX-84 and a plan for mass incarceration that was written 30 years ago by a very familiar American historical figure. Because, whether Paul and Scalia are trying to warn us, or just reminding us that things might someday get bad, FEMA Camps are real and every American needs to know that.

by Dave Hodges
by Dean Garrison

Dispelling the 'Poverty Causes Crime' Myth

Dispelling the 'Poverty Causes Crime' Myth

My paternal grandparents were extremely poor immigrants from Russia. They lived in a small apartment in Brooklyn where they raised four children, none of whom, of course, ever had their own room. Moreover, my grandfather was a tailor, and as such made little during normal years, and next to nothing during the Great Depression.

They were considerably poorer than the vast majority of Americans who lived below the poverty line as it existed when I was in college and graduate school. And they would have regarded most of those designated poor today as middle class, if not rich by the standards of their day.

That is worth remembering whenever an American claims that violent crime in America is caused by poverty. The poor who commit murder, rape and robbery are not only not starving, they have far more material things than the word “poverty” suggests.

According to the U.S Department of Energy’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey for 2005 (the last year I could find in detail – but it doesn’t matter what year because those who say that poverty causes crime have said it for a hundred years and continue to say it), among all poor households:

Over 99 percent have a refrigerator, television, and stove or oven. Eighty-one percent have a microwave; 75 percent have air conditioning; 67 percent have a second TV; 64 percent have a clothes washer; 38 percent have a personal computer.

As for homelessness, one-half of one percent living under the poverty line have lost their homes and live in shelters.

Seventy-five percent of the poor have a car or truck. Only 10 percent live in mobile homes or trailers, half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments. Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home, the average of which is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

According to a recent Census Bureau report, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cellphones.

When the left talks about the poor, they don’t mention these statistics because what matters to the left is inequality, not poverty.

But that is another subject. Our subject is the question: Given these statistics, why do the poor who commit violent crime do so? Clearly it is not because they lack the basic necessities of life.

Now I didn’t know any of these statistics back in college and graduate school. So how did I know that “poverty causes crime” was a lie?

I thought about my grandparents, and I could not imagine my grandfather robbing anyone, let alone raping or murdering.

Why not? Because it was unimaginable. They were people whose values rendered such behaviors all but impossible.

But there was another reason.

I was as certain as one could be that if I were poor in America, I wouldn’t rob, rape or murder.

Which leads me to wonder about people who believe that “poverty causes crime.”

When people say this, there are only two possibilities. One is that, on some level of consciousness, they think that if they were poor, they would commit violent crimes. My hunch is that this is often the case. Just as the whites who say all whites are racist are obviously speaking about themselves, those who claim that poverty leads to violence may well be speaking about themselves, too.

The other possibility is that they are not speaking about themselves, in which case they would have to admit that poor Americans who rob, rape or murder are morally inferior to themselves.

Which, of course, happens to be true. People (of any income level) who rob, rape and murder do so because they lack a functioning conscience and moral self-control. It is not material poverty that causes violent crime, but poor character. But the “poverty causes crime” advocates refuse to acknowledge this because such an acknowledgment blames criminals – rather than American society – for poor peoples' violent crimes.

And that they won’t admit. Because once they do, they will have begun the journey toward affirming conservatism and Judeo-Christian values, both of which are rooted in the belief that values, not economics, determine moral behavior.

By Dennis Prager

Paying Up, Bottoming Out – Why the Payday Loan Crisis Must Be Stopped

Paying Up, Bottoming Out – Why the Payday Loan Crisis Must Be Stopped

Despite what the talking heads are saying, the economy isn’t doing so well. In this most recent jobs report, the two main sectors of growth were fast food and retail, accounting for a total of about 32.2% of jobs created in October. And due in part to these low-paying jobs, many more people are using payday loans to get by. Why does it matter?

Unfortunately, when it comes time to pay up, many people are paying much more than what they borrowed due to extremely high interest rates. While the issue gets raised in the mainstream media every now and then, rarely has anyone taken a look how payday loans came into existence – and the type of real financial havoc they wreak on people, mainly the poor. We need to realize that payday loans only harm us, and to explore alternatives.

According to a 2007 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, the practice of getting credit against one’s next payment goes back to the Great Depression. However, “the spread of direct deposit and electronic funds transfer technologies slowed the growth in the demand for check cashing services,” and payday loans played more of a side role to check-cashing businesses. But in 1978 the situation changed, facilitating the rise of payday lenders.

The Origins of the PayDay Loan

The beginnings of payday loans can be found in the 1978 Supreme Court case Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp, which stated that “national banks were entitled to charge interest rates based on the laws of states where they were physically located, rather than the laws of states where their borrowers lived.” The ruling allowed banks to offer credit cards to anyone they deemed qualified.

A further empowerment came from the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, which allowed banks and financial institutions to decide interest rates based on the market. This laid the foundation for payday loans, since one could now set up a payday loan company and charge high interest rates claiming they were based on the market. Payday lenders could offer loans to literally anyone they wanted, even those with bad credit.

As most of us now know, payday lenders are able to profit off the loans they provide by charging interest – often exorbitant interest, which gets out of control. For example, “for a loan of $300, a typical borrower pays on average $775, with $475 going to pay interest and fees over an average borrowing cycle.” In 1999, the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland noted that loans had “annualized interest rates often ranging from 213 percent to 913 percent.” In other words, the interest on a payday loan could vary between 4.4% and 19% – per week.

Today, the situation has only slightly improved as interest on a two-week loan can be between 391% and 521% annually, or 8.14% to 10.85% weekly. When one factors in that “only 14 percent of borrowers can afford enough out of their monthly budgets to repay an average payday loan,” we can see the beginning of a debt cycle where interest quickly and dangerously adds up.

Who's Getting Hurt?

While it’s known that mainly working-class people and the poor are the primary users of payday loans, that population is spread out over a rather broad spectrum. More specificity, Pew Research in 2012 reported that the majority of payday loan borrowers are 25- to 44-year-old white women, though “there are five groups that have higher odds of having used a payday loan: those without a four-year college degree; home renters; African Americans; those earning below $40,000 annually; and those who are separated or divorced.”

Furthermore, the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that many payday loan borrowers “are seriously debt burdened and have been denied credit or not given as much credit as they applied for in the last five years.” In other words, the victims of payday loans come from groups and communities that are already having economic troubles – even more so due to the current economic climate. As to why and when people take out the loans, the Journal found that “most borrowers use payday loans to cover ordinary living expenses over the course of months, not unexpected emergencies over the course of weeks." More than anything, perhaps, this speaks to the problem of wages: that people aren’t being paid enough.

Worse still, not only is the bottom line for payday lenders “significantly enhanced by the successful conversion of more and more occasional users into chronic borrowers," reported the Economic Development Quarterly, "[but] the federal government has found that one of the country’s biggest payday lenders provides financial incentives to its staff to encourage chronic borrowing by individual patrons.” In short, companies are either purposefully seeking – or have a strong financial incentive – to put vulnerable populations into a cycle of poverty that is extremely difficult to get out of.

There has been some attempt by state governments to regulate payday loans. Some states have banned them outright, whereas others have limited interest rates. The lenders, though, are getting smart and attempting to avoid regulation by “making surface changes to their businesses that don’t alter their core products: high-cost, small-dollar loans for people who aren’t able to pay them back.”

Who Are the Culprits?

It should be noted that payday lenders are no small chumps in the financial world. Not only did their industry have a revenue of $9.3 billion in 2012, but for a while even major banks were involved in payday lending including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, US Bank, JP Morgan Chase and National City (PNC Financial Services Group). These mega-banks were able to finance 38% of the entire payday lending industry, and even that is considered a conservative estimate.

In January of this year, the big banks bowed out of the industry after being warned by federal regulators who were looking to see if the loans violated consumer protection laws. But despite these Wall Street players leaving the industry, the problem doesn’t end there. There are also middlemen involved, which operate on behalf of the payday companies.

In April, Responsible Lending reported that a lawsuit was being filed against Money Mutual which “[claimed] the company [was] operating as an unlicensed lender by arranging loans that violate a [Illinois] state law that restricts borrower fees.” Money Mutual is itself not a lender, but “a lead generator that sells sensitive customer information, like bank-account numbers and email addresses, to payday lenders, and federal and state officials increasingly are cracking down on these businesses.” Middlemen like Money Mutual can be paid $50 to $150 per "lead," even if a person doesn’t take out a loan.

And the numbers can quickly add up. In 2012, Bloomberg News found that “lead generators in financial services take in $100 million a year, with the market growing by more than 16 percent annually.” Yet this is just with storefront lenders, and many new problems arise when one delves even deeper into the world of online payday lending.

Many online payday lenders “attempt to skirt the rules and charge exorbitant fees, amongst other affronts to regulations that leave many a consumer seeking payday loan legal help.” The Pew Research Center also “found that about 30 percent of Internet payday loan borrowers claim they have received at least one threat from the lender,” whether in the form of arrest or that the debtor’s employer would be contacted.

One of the worst problems with online payday lenders is theft. Take the story of Jeannie Morris of Kansas City. She entered personal information on websites that offered to match her up with payday lenders. The situation took a turn for the worse when, “without asking her approval, two unrelated online lenders based in Kansas City had plopped $300 each into her bank account. Together, they began withdrawing $360 a month in interest payments,” and after her account was wiped clean, Jeannie was hounded by collection companies.

But Jeannie is not alone, as “many consumers reported that loans they’d never authorized had been dropped into their bank accounts. Then those accounts often evaporated as the lenders snatched out money for interest payments while never applying any of the money to the loan principal.” In short, online payday lenders can lend people money without asking them – then clean out those people’s bank accounts, effectively stealing from families.

Some Alternative Solutions

The situation may seem hopeless, but there are alternatives to payday loans. One way to avoid them is through credit union loans, whereby members are allowed to borrow up to $500 each month and each loan is “connected to a SALO cash account, which automatically deducts 5 percent of the loan and places it in a savings account to create a ‘rainy day fund’ for the borrower.”

Small consumer loans are another option. They are a lot less expensive than payday loans; for example, “a person can borrow $1,000 from a finance company for a year and pay less than a $200-$300 payday loan over the same period." Some people can also get a cash advance on their credit card. In the long term, credit counseling can help people create debt repayment plans and find a way to balance their budget.

Most agree that payday lenders are a major problem: they prey on the desperate in order to make money. For this reason, people need to organize and fight for their economic freedom. Consumer watchdog groups, payday borrowers and victims of payday theft need to come together to end the practice that creates a never-ending cycle of debt. To quote the rallying cry of IWW songwriter Joe Hill: “Don’t mourn, organize!”

Originally posted on

Devon Douglas-Bowers is a 22 year old independent writer and researcher and is the Politics/Government Department Chair of the Hampton Institute. He can be contacted at devondb[at]mail[dot]com.

Are You Better Off This Thanksgiving Than You Were Last Thanksgiving?

Are You Better Off This Thanksgiving Than You Were Last Thanksgiving?

Are you in better shape financially than you were last Thanksgiving?  If so, you should consider yourself to be very fortunate because most Americans are not.  As you chow down on turkey, stuffing and cranberry sauce this Thursday, please remember that there are millions of Americans that simply cannot afford to eat such a meal.

According to a shocking new report that was just released by the National Center on Family Homelessness, the number of homeless children in the U.S. has reached a new all-time high of 2.5 million.  And right now one out of every seven Americans rely on food banks to put food on the table.

Yes, life is very good at the moment for Americans at the top end of the income spectrum.  The stock market has been soaring and sales of homes worth at last a million dollars are up 16 percent so far this year.  But most Americans live in a very different world.  The percentage of Americans that are employed is about the same as it was during the depths of the last recession, the quality of our jobs continues to go down, the rate of homeownership in America has fallen for seven years in a row, and the cost of living is rising much faster than paychecks are.  As a result, the middle class is smaller this Thanksgiving than it was last Thanksgiving, and most Americans have seen their standards of living go down over the past year.

In 2014, there are tens of millions of Americans that are anonymously leading lives of quiet desperation.  They are desperately trying to hold on even though things just keep getting worse.  For example, just consider the plight of 49-year-old Darrell Eberhardt.  Once upon a time, his job in a Chevy factory paid him $18.50 an hour, but now he only makes $10.50 an hour and he knows that he probably would not be able to make as much in a new job if he decided to leave…
For nearly 20 years, Darrell Eberhardt worked in an Ohio factory putting together wheelchairs, earning $18.50 an hour, enough to gain a toehold in the middle class and feel respected at work.

He is still working with his hands, assembling seats for Chevrolet Cruze cars at the Camaco auto parts factory in Lorain, Ohio, but now he makes $10.50 an hour and is barely hanging on. “I’d like to earn more,” said Mr. Eberhardt, who is 49 and went back to school a few years ago to earn an associate’s degree. “But the chances of finding something like I used to have are slim to none.”

Of course you can’t support a family on $10.50 an hour.

You can barely support one person on $10.50 an hour.

But there are many men out there that would absolutely love to switch positions with Darrell Eberhardt.  At this point, one out of every six men in their prime working years (25 to 54) does not have a job.  That is an absolutely crazy number.

And of course just because you “have a job” does not mean that things are going well.  The number of Americans that are “working part-time involuntarily” has risen by over 50 percent since the beginning of the last recession.  There are millions of hard working Americans that would love to get a full-time job if they could land one.  But these days “decent jobs” are in short supply.

For example, CNN recently profiled the story of college graduate Meghan Brachle…
Meghan would love to be a music teacher or play full-time in an orchestra. She studied music at Loyola University in New Orleans and plays the flute.

Instead, Meghan works a slew of part-time jobs and receives no benefits.
She is a cashier at Whole Foods, a substitute teacher, a flute tutor and an administrative assistant at a non-profit.

Even with all of her hard work, Brachle and her husband often really struggle to pay the bills…

With inconsistent hours, Meghan monthly income fluctuates between $1,000 and $3,000. Even with her husband’s teaching salary, the couple sometimes struggles to cover the $3,600 of monthly expenses they have.

“It’s very stressful,” Meghan, a college graduate, says. “I think about all the job applications I’ve turned in and all the interviews I’ve been on and all the other people who are in the same situation, looking for those same [full-time] jobs. It’s frustrating.”

Sadly, a lot of these part-time employers know that their employees desperately need these jobs and are using that leverage to treat them very poorly.

For example, it is being reported that any KMart employees that do not show up for work on Thanksgiving will be automatically fired.

What kind of nonsense is that?

And around the country at Wal-Mart stores, food drives are being held for "needy employees".

So why wouldn’t Wal-Mart just pay their workers enough so that they could afford to take care of themselves in the first place?

Most people don’t realize this, but approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is currently living below the poverty line.  Many of them are working as hard as they can and still can’t make enough to take care of themselves.

Meanwhile, our paychecks are getting stretched further and further with each passing month.

When you don’t make much money, every dollar is precious.  And when food prices go up substantially, it can be very painful.  Unfortunately, that is precisely what is happening right now…

-From September to October, the price of a pound of Turkey rose from $1.58 to $1.66.  That represents a 5.2 percent price increase in just one month.

-The price of a pound of ground beef has just risen to a brand new record high of $4.15 a pound, and more price increases are on the way.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture is projecting that U.S. beef production will drop by another 1 billion pounds next year due to a variety of factors including the horrific multi-year drought out west.

-The entire planet is bracing for a huge chocolate shortage, and this threatens to push the price of chocolate beyond the reach of many American families…
Start hoarding those Hershey’s Kisses and stockpile your Snickers: The world could soon experience a chocolate shortage.

Mars Inc. and Barry Callebaut, two of the world’s largest chocolate makers, say that’s the path we’re headed down. They cite a perfect storm of factors: Less cocoa is being produced as more and more people are devouring chocolate.

In 2013, consumers ate about 70,000 metric tons more cocoa than was produced, The Washington Post reports, and that deficit could go up to 1 million metric tons by 2020.
The Ivory Coast and Ghana produce more than 70 percent of the world’s cacao beans, and both countries are experiencing dry weather that limits growth. To make things worse, a fungal disease called frosty pod has destroyed 30 to 40 percent of global cocoa production.

As a result of all of the things that I have just discussed above, more Americans than ever are being forced to turn to the government for assistance.  Today, the number of Americans getting a check from the government each month is at an all-time high, and at this point Americans collectively get more money from the government than they pay in taxes.  For much, much more on this, please see my recent article entitled "21 Facts That Prove That Dependence On The Government Is Out Of Control In America".

So if things are going well for you this Thanksgiving, you should be truly thankful.

For most of the country, things just continue to get even worse.  And if the next major wave of our economic crisis arrives next year like many are projecting, this may just be the beginning of our economic pain.

Michael Snyder
Activist Post