FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."



Saturday, October 22, 2016

American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season

American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season

“I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don’t know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip.”—Patrick Bateman in American Psycho
When it comes to sexual predators, there should be no political bright line test to determine who gets a free pass and who goes to jail based on which candidate is better suited for office.
Yet almost 20 years after Bill Clinton became the first and only sitting president to be sued for sexual harassment and impeached for lying under oath about his sexual escapades while in office, the Left and the Right are still playing politics with women’s rights.
I should know.
As one of Paula Jones’ lawyers in her sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton (Hillary Clinton infamously and erroneously accused me of being part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy”), I saw first-hand how quickly Hillary Clinton and the nation’s leading women’s rights groups demonized any woman who dared to accuse Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct while turning a blind eye to a long list of incidents involving groping, propositioning, and pressuring women for sexual favors.
Trust me, it was a very long list.
“The man in question [Bill Clinton] has been sued for sexual harassment over an episode that allegedly included dropping his trousers to waggle his erect penis at a woman who held a $6.35-an-hour clerical job in the state government over which he presided. Another woman has charged that when she asked him for a job he invited her into his private office, fondled her breasts, and placed her hand on his crotch. A third woman confided to friends that when she was a 21-year-old intern she began an affair with the man… Actually, it was less an affair than a service contract, in which she allegedly dashed into his office, when summoned, to perform oral sex on him… Let us not even mention the former lover who was steered to a state job; or the law-enforcement officers who say the man used them to solicit sexual partners for him; or his routine use of staff members, lawyers, and private investigators to tar the reputation of any woman who tries to call him to account for his actions.”
I also witnessed first-hand the hypocrisy of the Religious Right, which was eager to stand in judgment over Clinton for his marital infidelity, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the indiscretions of other conservative politicians in their midst.
Fast forward 20 years, and the women’s rights groups that were silent when Bill Clinton was being outed as a sexual predator have suddenly found their voice and their outrage in the face of accusations that Donald Trump groped and kissed women without their consent. Likewise, the religious groups that were aghast over Clinton’s sexual immorality have somehow created a sliding scale of sin that allows them to absolve Trump of his own indiscretions.
It’s like being in the Twilight Zone.
Only instead of Rod Serling’s imaginary “land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas,” we’re trapped in an all-too-real land of politics and lies, where freedom and integrity play second fiddle to ambition and greed.
Nothing is real.
This year’s presidential contest and its candidates have, through their double-talking and lies, pulled back the curtain to reveal that what we see is all part of an elaborate hoax, a cruel game where “we the people” are just pawns to be used, abused, discarded and demonized when convenient.
Consider if you will: Bill Clinton was accused of using various and sundry women for sex. For years, he lied about his affairs and accused his accusers of smear campaigns. Only when caught red-handed, did he finally admit—sort of—to having sexual relations with certain women. At no time did he ever apologize for abusing his authority and disrespecting women.
Trump not only is accused of making sexual advances on various women, but he also used Clinton’s sexual victims to score points off Hillary.
And Hillary, in turn, has used and abused both Clinton and Trump’s sexual victims in order to advance her own political ambitions.
As Melinda Henneberger and Dahlia Lithwick wrote for Slate back in 2008:
Hillary Clinton the candidate has largely benefited from her husband's extracurricular activities… Sure, her husband's behavior has humiliated her. But she has also helped him humiliate the women he's been involved with… One of the most troubling things about Hillary Clinton is that she is never above cashing in on [the politics of victimization].
Are you starting to get it yet?
All this talk about sexual predators is just so much political maneuvering to score points off one another. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump care one whit about the victims of sexual harassment.
Frankly, they don’t seem to care much about the rest of the populace, either.
For all intents and purposes, we’re all victims of a perverse, perverted, psychotic mindset that views the citizenry as lesser beings: lacking in value, unworthy of respect, and completely undeserving of the legal rights and protections that should be afforded to all Americans.
In the eyes of Bill, Hillary, Donald and the powers-that-be, we’re all little more than “bimbos,” “trailer trash,” “nuts and sluts,” “loony toons,” “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”
In other words, we’re all Paula Jones. And Gennifer Flowers. And Juanita Broaddrick.  And Kathleen Willey. And Eileen Wellstone. And Cristy Zercher. And Connie Hamzy. And Monica Lewinsky. For that matter, we’re all Jill Harth. And Cassandra Searles. And Jessica Leeds. And Kristin Anderson, too
This is what happens when politics is allowed to trump principle: “we the people” lose.
The women’s movement lost when it chose politics over principle, then and now.
Women have been suffering because of that choice ever since. As feminist Jessica Valenti acknowledged in theWashington Post, “For women in America, equality is still an illusion. We’re basking in a ‘girl power’ moment that doesn’t exist—it’s a mirage of equality that we’ve been duped into believing is the real thing. Because despite the indisputable gains over the years, women are still being raped, trafficked, violated and discriminated against—not just in the rest of the world, but here in the United States… It's time to stop fooling ourselves. For all our ‘empowered’ rhetoric, women in this country aren’t doing nearly as well as we’d like to think.”
The Religious Right lost when it chose politics over principle, then and now.
By compromising their values, they have made themselves completely irrelevant in matters of public policy. “As an organized and potent force in national politics, the Christian right has faded into nothingness,” policy analyst Paul Waldman concluded for the Washington Post. “It now exists for nothing more than to be patted on the head and sent on its way with an encouragement to vote in November.”
The media—through its careful crafting of news stories to advance one politician over another—chose politics over principle, then and now. Barring a few exceptions, they have become little more than mouthpieces for the corporate elite.
The citizenry is faced with a choice right now: to be distracted by mudslinging and circus politics or to forge a new path for the nation that rejects politics in favor of locally-based, transformative grassroots activism.
“Perhaps you think that by voting at least you’re doing your small part, making your small contribution. But contributing toward what?” asks commentator Dan Sanchez.
Sanchez continues:
Candidates are package deals. Any candidate will violate the rights of some, even if they respect or defend the rights of others. Objectors say it’s about going in the general right direction, making choices out of which the good outweighs the bad, that do a net amount of good, that is good “on balance.” But that is collectivist speak. There is no “good on balance” for the people whose lives are run over by the candidate you empowered: for the child who is bombed by Hillary’s foreign policy, for the man who is shot by Trump’s police state, or the people Gary Johnson and Bill Weld kept in cages when they were governors.
Sanchez is right: the act of voting is indeed futile.
Voting in this political climate merely advances the agenda of the police state and affirms the government’s pillaging, raping, killing, bombing, stealing, shooting and many acts of tyranny and injustice.
Mark my words: no matter who wins this election, the predators of the police state will continue to wreak havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives.
After all, police officers are still shooting unarmed citizens. Government agents—including local police—are still being armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies are still fleecing taxpayers. Government technicians are still spying on our emails and phone calls. And government contractors are still making a killing by jailing Americans for profit and waging endless wars abroad.
Are any of these issues being discussed right now? Not a single one.
It boggles the mind.
How is it possible that out of 318 million Americans in this country, we have been saddled with two candidates whose personal baggage and troubled histories make them utterly unfit for office anywhere but in the American police state?
We need to stop being victimized by these political predators.
As It makes clear in the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, I’m not just talking about the ones running for office, but the ones who are running the show behind the scenes—the shadow government—comprised of unelected government bureaucrats whose powers are unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and beyond the reach of the law.
Stop voting for their puppet candidates. Stop tolerating their long list of abuses. Stop making excuses for a system that long ago ceased to be legitimate. Most of all, stop playing by their rules and make them start playing by ours.
My fear is that we are nearing the point of no return.
“We the people”—men and women alike— have been victims of the police state for so long that not many Americans even remember what it is to be truly free anymore. Worse, few want to shoulder the responsibility that goes along with maintaining freedom.
Yet as John Adams warned, “A government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
There is no way to erase the scars left by the government’s greed for money and power, its disregard for human life, its corruption and graft, its pollution of the environment, its reliance on excessive force in order to ensure compliance, its covert activities, its illegal surveillance, and its blatant disdain for the rule of law.
Still, we can forge a new path.
There is so much work to be done in order to right what is wrong with our nation, and there is so little time to fix what has been broken.
Let’s not waste any more time on predator politics. Let’s get to work.

By John W. Whitehead

It Is What It Is

Is it so hard to believe that the Obama/Clinton Machine anchored in Washington and Chicago would attempt to steal an election?

It Is What It Is 

As the weeks go by the wheels are coming off FBI Director Comey’s whitewash of Hillary.  He gave a laundry list of her criminality endingin “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
Here’s the list that ended in no indictment, which included several previously undisclosed findings from the F.B.I.‘s investigation:
  • Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton handed over to the State Department, 110 contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. Of those, Mr. Comey said, “a very small number” bore markings that identified them as classified. This finding is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertions that none of the emails were classified at the time she sent or received them. The F.B.I. did not disclose the topics of the classified emails, but a number of the 110 are believed to have involved drone strikes.
  • The F.B.I. discovered “several thousand” work-related emails that were not in the original trove of 30,000 turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department. Three of those contained information that agencies have concluded were classified, but Mr. Comey said he did not believe Mrs. Clinton deliberately deleted or withheld them from investigators.
  • In saying that it was “possible” that hostile foreign governments had gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, Mr. Comey noted that she used her mobile device extensively while traveling outside the United States, including trips “in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”
  • Mrs. Clinton used multiple private servers for her personal and government business, not just a single server at her home in New York that has been the focus of media reporting for more than a year. Her use of these servers—some of which were taken out of service and stored—made the F.B.I.‘s job enormously complicated as it struggled to put together, in Mr. Comey’s words, a jigsaw puzzle with “millions of email fragments” in it.
The headlines documenting the fermenting discontent among the professional FBI agents and department of Justice Attorneys in response to this politically motivated exoneration of an obvious criminal by a political hack are mounting up:
FBI Agents Revolt Over James Comey’s Decision To Not Prosecute Hillary Clinton… Never Before Has There Been Such An Open And Shut Case Of Corruption From A Politician.
FBI and DOJ Agents Are Furious Over Comey Letting Hillary Off Scot-Free
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider
FBI Investigative Team ‘Disgusted’ by Comey’s Decision Not to Charge Hillary
Investigator Claims ‘No Agent Working The Case’ Agreed With Comey’s Decision to Let Clinton Off Hook
The following is an apt representation of the disgusted reaction of our G-Men.  This calling out of the political corruption which is metastasizing throughout our body politic is profound.  To illustrate what all these many articles report, I have decided to quote a long passage from another source, The Daily Caller:
According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey’s leadership.
“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have been convened, but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”
The agent was also surprised that the bureau did not bother to search Clinton’s house during the investigation.
“We didn’t search their house. We always search the house. The search should not just have been for private electronics, which contained classified material, but even for printouts of such material,” he said.
“There should have been a complete search of their residence,” the agent pointed out. “That the FBI did not seize devices is unbelievable. The FBI even seizes devices that have been set on fire.”

“The idea that [the Clinton/e-mail case] didn’t go to a grand jury is ridiculous.”
Another special agent for the bureau who worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey’s saying: “we” and “I’ve been an investigator.”
After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey’s career moved through the U.S. Attorney’s Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.
After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller.
“Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in ‘collective we’ statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute,” the second agent said. “All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to be prosecuted but he stood in the way.”
He added, “The idea that [the Clinton/e-mail case] didn’t go to a grand jury is ridiculous.”
According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at the bureau and specifically the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.
DiGenova told WMAL radio’s Drive at Five last week, “People are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked today to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away.”
He explained, “It’s not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess.”
He added, “The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk.”
Besides pressuring State Department officials not to mark any of Clinton’s emails as classified,  there is also evidence that in at least one case a political appointee from the Clinton entourage attempted to affect a quid pro quo with the FBI.  He dangled increased FBI presence at foreign missions in exchange for a change in classification for one particularly embarrassing email.
And in those emails that were released, the ones we have been told over and over there is no classified material; there are over 4,500 redactions.
Try any of this yourself and you will be in jail. 
Is it so hard to believe that the Obama/Clinton Machine anchored in Washington and Chicago would attempt to steal an election?  They have made a mockery of our justice system ever since Bill looked directly into the camera and without a hint of shame said, “It depends upon what your definition of is is.”

By Dr. Robert R. Owens 

Proposed Strategy for Trump Even If the Ironies Will Go Over People’s Heads

Trump’s policies in favor of free enterprise and freedom of speech and in favor of all the Amendments to and protections of the U.S. Constitution and Trump’s positions against terrorists and criminals and repressions of freedom of thought

Proposed Strategy for Trump Even If the Ironies Will Go Over People’s Heads

Trump may have inadvertently hurt his cause by saying too much, from time to time, and not always in a politically incorrect way (deemed politically correct by most people),  but one 4-letter word he has hardly ever used is “even” followed by the 2-letter word “if.” If used properly, and in enough contexts, these two words, “even if,” have the potential to even the score or to catapult Trump over the top.
Denying that Trump improperly touched a number of women some years ago when a private citizen (unlike Bill Clinton who clearly did so when he was an attorney general and a president) is counterproductive since, even in the best case scenario, taking Trump at his word, he may not have improperly touched SOME of the women who made their claims, and possibly did touch some but forgot. What Trump must subtly – or overtly – clarify is that EVEN IF he may have improperly touched some or even all of the women, he generally treats women well; women generally get good jobs and good benefits at his companies, more of them get high-ranking jobs at his construction companies than other women at virtually all other construction companies, and these ACTIONS are more important to most women than the possibility that he may have improperly touched maybe one in a thousand young women he came across.
EVEN IF Trump did indeed insult some women, over the years, it may be noted that, by comparison, 15 of the 16 presidential candidates Trump insulted earlier this year were men, so the argument that Trump’s insults to a few women in the general population in the course of a few decades reflect misogyny simply do not hold up, in context.
Trump’s focusing on law and order and/or stop and frisk will not endear Trump to many members of the minority community, so Trump should be saying that EVEN IFmembers of minorities may not like these policies when improperly used to justify police brutality, law and order when applied with respect BY police officers who are minorities or who are respectful of minorities will lower crime perpetrated against minorities. EVEN IF stop and frisk when imposed improperly in New York was declared unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has ruled that stop and frisk when applied with reasonable cause and in a reasonable and respectful manner is indeed constitutional – and helpful in reducing crime— and would indeed lead to the removal of dangerous weapons from criminals and the savings of lives of members of minorities and majorities.
EVEN IF black lives matter – and they certainly do— the number of black lives lost as a result of white police officers killing black suspects without provocation is minute compared to the number of blacks who are killed by other blacks when police officers aren’t around to save the black victims,—or are too afraid to intervene, lest they be falsely accused of brutality. Terrorist bombings, and possible nuclear bombings and weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill far more blacks than some rogue, trigger happy, or just improperly impulsive police officers. Trump’s policies in fighting, pre-empting, or preventing wholesale multiple mass murders with or without weapons of mass destruction are much tougher on foreign terrorists than on local African-Americans.
EVEN IF most Mexicans who cross the border into the United States are law abiding and actually help factories and farmers make payrolls and profits, some cross into the United States illegally, and some of these individuals bring dangerous drugs and commit violent crimes. EVEN IF the number of illegal drug pushers and violent criminals is small – which is debatable—the victims of these crimes would be the first to point out that had the criminals not been permitted into the country, the victims and their families would never have become victims and would still be healthy and happy – and alive.
EVEN IF most gay people do not bother heterosexual people, some jurisdictions force some Bible followers, under certain circumstances, to serve these gay people or go to jail or lose their jobs and licenses just because of their interpretation of Biblical passages which have prohibited gay marriages throughout the centuries and the millennia and did so by American law and most international laws until after Barak Obama was first elected president, so punishing people for upholding principles held by Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton until recently – and the Bible even now—is wrong, and even insulting to Obama and Hillary, in a way.
EVEN IF Trump insulted a disabled news reporter on one occasion for allegedly denying something Trump believed the reporter had said, and Trump made some kind of a motion with his hands, while insulting him, this did not constitute an insult of DISABLED PEOPLE, as a group, or even as individuals, because (1) The disability of that reporter did not involve the kind of hand motions Trump made, (2) Trump used these hand motions when insulting perfectly healthy people who Trump criticized, such as Ted Cruz, (3) Trump even used these hand motions when self-deprecating himself, so (4) the allegation that Trump thereby was insulting disabled people is nothing more than a trumped up charge with no validity. Hillary and all others in the media and privately who accuse Trump of insensitivity to people with disabilities should apologize, especially if their accusations are based largely on this single incident.
EVEN IF Trump indirectly insulted the mother of a Muslim veteran on one occasion, after the veteran’s father attempted to very directly and publicly humiliate Trump at the Democratic National Convention,
  1. the insult to Mrs. Khan was directed against Muslims in general for relegating their women to a place in the background, and if anything showed Trump’s sensitivity to the rights of women in general and was a criticism of Muslims for not giving women equal rights and an equal place in the sun;
  2. (Trump never insulted the son of the mother he most indirectly insulted.
  3. Trump did not insult the veteran’s father, either;
  4. Trump specifically praised the veteran in the family as a hero;
  5. the veteran’s father, it turned out, made a living helping aliens become citizens;
  6. the veteran’s father had ties to Hillary before the convention;
  7. the veteran’s father falsely accused Trump of never having sacrificed for his country, knowing that unlike most politicians, Trump could have lived out his life as a rich and powerful man, with a generally untarnished brand name worth millions if not billions in itself, but instead sacrificed his career and his time and energy – and possibly his successful business—by running for president to save the United States from its slide away from capitalism and away from various freedoms of speech and thought based on political incorrectness disguised as political correctness, and Trump risked his life and the lives of members of his family by becoming targets of violence and death threats.
Mr. Khan, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, and most members of the media should apologize to Trump for their distortions of what Trump said, and their fabrications of what Trump did not say.
EVEN IF Trump originally called for a temporary ban on letting Muslims into the country until an effective system would be devised and implemented to ensure that predatory “lone wolf” and ISIS terrorists would not be let into the country, (1) Trump later revised his plan to temporarily ban people based on the COUNTRIES from which they emanate that are hotbeds of terrorism; (2) the proposed ban is intended to be temporary; (3) the proposed ban is not as sweeping as the permanent bans of Jews escaping the holocaust who sought refuge in the United States and were denied entry by President Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat who also interned American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II; (4) Trump does not and never advocated interning Muslims in concentration camps in America, nor was the ban as bad as what President Carter, a Democrat did, when Carter not only did not let Iranians into the United States but deported Iranians, at some point, just because of their country of origin, something Trump never advocated. (5) Trump encourages the intelligent policy of increasing intelligence in this country to reduce the number of people who would commit mass murder, with or without weapons of mass destruction, and by doing so, Trump advocates saving the lives of innocent Muslims along with the lives of members of other religions and the lives of those who profess to observe no religion who believe that all the complex organisms, plants and animals in the world, and all of their complex DNA compositions and reproductive systems came about without intelligent design.

Trump insulted John McCain by saying that he (Trump) preferred honoring soldiers who were not captured, (1) this was not an insult of soldiers who were captured, but simply a statement that a person who performed an act of heroism, such as the Khan soldier referred to above, deserves more acclaim than a person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, when fighting for his country, and was captured for this reason. (3) Trump immediately declared that McCain was indeed a hero, right after making the original comment that Trump immediately realized would be misinterpreted and distorted. (3) McCain actually became a hero not so much for being captured but for refusing to accept an offer of freedom unless he would insult America or be freed without his comrades in arms.  (4) Trump also felt that McCain didn’t do enough to help other veterans.
Above all, EVEN IF Trump insulted these categories of people and more, Trump’s policies in favor of free enterprise and freedom of speech and in favor of all the Amendments to and protections of the U.S. Constitution and Trump’s positions against terrorists and criminals and repressions of freedom of thought would benefit all of the categories of people Trump allegedly insulted far more than the insults might have hurt them or their successors and supporters.

By Ron A. Y. Rich 

Setting Patriotism Free from its Bonds

Battle Hymn of the Republic • America the Beautiful

Day 18: Setting Patriotism Free from its Bonds

Patriotism, which is the very heart and soul of America, is Number 1 on the globalists’ Hit List.
Patriotism, now stirring again in every corner of America , will elect a president striving against all odds to ‘Make America Great Again’.
Progressives and their running dog media are resurrecting the dead for votes; patriots resurrecting the living fame of unbridled patriotism.
Starting today and for the next — leading to November 8, you can return patriotism to the front of the battle lines with music that both stirs the patriot heart and sings proudly of America’s exceptionalism; music that resounds the message: “Let’s roll, America!”

Day 18—America the Beautiful
Day 19—Battle Hymn of the Republic

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.

The Self-Identified Elite

The Self-Identified Elite

Mark Twain said, “If you don’t read the papers you’re uninformed. If you do read them, you’re misinformed.”

That’s why I want to draw your attention to a recent article called “The Isolationist Temptation,” in The Wall Street Journal, written by Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The piece wasn’t worth reading—except that it offers some real insight into what the “elite” are thinking. The CFR is one of about a dozen groups, like Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, and Davos, where the self-identified elite gather.

These groups don’t have political power, per se. But their members are members of governments, large corporations, universities, the military, and the media. They all went to the same schools, belong to the same clubs, socialize together and, most important, share the same worldview. What might that be? They believe in the State—not the market—as the best way to organize the world.

Believe it or not (I still don’t…) I was recently invited to one of these conclaves. Probably by mistake. I don’t expect to be a fox in the henhouse, but more like a skeleton at a feast. I’ll tell you all about it next month…

But back to the current topic. Like me, you’ve probably asked yourself, “Who are these people? Are they knaves, or fools, or both? What are they smoking? Are they actually crazy?”

Haass starts out by dividing the world of foreign policy observers into the “internationalists” and the “isolationists”—a false, misleading, and stupid distinction. They’re not “internationalists” (which are people who move between countries); they’re “globalists” (people who want to work for one world government, that they control). He uses the term “isolationists” as a pejorative term for the enemy camp, conflating them with non-interventionists—who are a totally different group. Isolationists bring to mind a backward cult, hiding from the rest of the world. Non-interventionists simply don’t want to stick their noses into other people’s business.

He lauds so-called internationalists (i.e., globalists) as “those who want the U.S. to retain the leading international role it’s held since WW2.” By that, he means minions of the U.S. government should roam the world to “spread democracy.” He assumes that democracy—which is actually just a more polite form of mob rule—is always a good thing. Apart from the fact that democracy is only rarely the result of U.S. intervention. Another division he makes (and here I admire his candor) is between the “elites”—like high government officials and people like those in the CFR—and the “non-elites.” He actually uses these words. He terms U.S. invasions and regime change efforts as “an ambitious foreign policy.”

He says, even after referencing disastrous U.S. failures like the Korean, Vietnamese, Afghan, and Iraq wars, and ongoing catastrophes in Libya and Syria, that we should continue on the same course.

He loves the idea of alliances, of course. Despite the fact that alliances only serve to draw one country into another one’s war. Alliances just take relatively small local disputes and move them up to catastrophic levels. This has always been the case. But the classic example is World War 1, which signaled the start of the long collapse of Western Civilization. Alliances can only serve to draw the U.S. into wars between nothing/nowhere countries that few Americans can find on a map.

Then he goes on to discuss what he calls “free trade,” another dishonest misuse of the term. Free trade exists when there are no duties or quotas when any business can buy and sell what it wants when and where it wants.

What these people actually want is a government-managed trade, which they prefer to call “fair trade.” He implies that wise and incorruptible government officials are necessary to ensure that foolish and dishonest buyers and sellers don’t hurt themselves.

But shouldn’t we worry if foreigners subsidize their manufacturers, and disregard U.S. environmental and labor regulations? My answer is: No. It’s wonderful if a foolish, mercantilist government subsidizes U.S. consumers; we’re enriched while they’re impoverished by selling dollar bills for 50 cents. And if the Chinese can make something cheaper than Americans, that’s wonderful. The Americans—who still have the world’s largest pool of capital, technology, and educated labor—are freed to do something more productive.

Anyway, the Haass article is horrible on every level. I’d reprint it here, but it’s too long and too boring. And it would violate the Journal’s reprint policy. But there’s another article, even more egregious, more stupid, and more destructive, that the Journal recently ran, by Kenneth Rogoff, called “The Sinister Side of Cash.” He is, of course, a Harvard “economist.” You’ll have to get hold of it yourself, because of the newspaper’s reprint policy. But I urge you to do so. It lays out—in clear and well-written English—the “elite” rationale for negative interest rates, and the abolition of cash.

It literally beggars belief and makes me think the author is criminally insane. I mean that literally, in the clinical sense. Criminal because he actively advocates aggression against other’s property, and in effect, their lives. And insane because his thoughts and beliefs are completely delusional and divorced from reality.

All in all, every day there are more indications on every front that the trailing edge of the gigantic financial hurricane we entered in 2007 is going to be very, very ugly.

The Greater Depression is going to be worse than even I thought it would be.

By Doug Casey

Friday, October 21, 2016

Obama's Iranian Lies

Obama's Iranian Lies

Senator Obama opposed naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terror group even while it was closely involved in organizing attacks against American soldiers in Iraq. Then, as part of his dirty deal with Iran, he secretly sent a fortune in foreign cash on airplanes linked to the IRGC.
And, as another part of the secret ransom deal with Iran, he lifted UN sanctions on Bank Sepah.

The United States has gone after plenty of banks for aiding terror finance, but Bank Sepah is somewhat unique in that it is a financial institution actually owned and operated by Islamic terrorists.

Bank Sepah is an IRGC bank. The IRGC, despite Obama’s denials, is an Islamic terror group with American blood on its hands. It is to Shiite Islam what ISIS is to Sunni Islam. And even the Democrats know it.

After the Khobar Towers bombing, which killed 19 Americans, President Clinton sent a message to the leader of Iran warning that the United States had evidence of IRGC involvement in the attack.

More recently, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the IRGC have been “labeled as terrorists” when discussing how the Shiite terror organization will benefit from Obama’s sanctions relief.

Bank Sepah however had been sanctioned for something bigger than terrorism. The scale of bombings it was involved in could make the Khobar Towers attack seem minor. Sepah had been sanctioned for being "involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities."

Among other activities, it had helped Iran buy ballistic missile technology from North Korea.

Iran’s nuclear weapons program would only be halfway complete if it gets the bomb. It also needs missiles to be able to strike Israel, Europe and eventually America. That’s where North Korea and Bank Sepah come in. Bank Sepah helps keep Iran’s ballistic missile industry viable. By delisting it, Obama aided Iran’s ballistic missile program just as he had earlier aided its nuclear program.

Obama’s holistic approach to the Iranian bomb is to help the terror state assemble the physical components it needs to become a nuclear power. And the truth is hidden within the secret deals.

There are secret deals that Obama made with Iran that we already know about. There are secret deals that we suspect exist. And there are secret deals whose existence we are not even aware of.

Obama rang in Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, by assuring the Rabbis on a conference call that they didn’t need to worry about Iran nuking anyone because “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is now closed off.”

That’s funny because last year he was still claiming that under his deal in 13 years Iran’s breakout time will, “have shrunk almost down to zero.” If every pathway to a nuclear weapon is closed, how could Iran possibly have zero breakout time to make the occasion of the bar mitzvah of his dirty nuclear deal?

And which Obama do you believe? Try neither.

The secret document revealed earlier this year by the AP showed that Iran would be able to get its uranium enrichment in gear after 11 years and more than double its enrichment rate. What happens by the thirteenth year? Then Iran gets a blank check on centrifuges. That’s what Obama really meant.

Then breakout time to the bomb drops from a year to six months. Or even less. Until it hits zero.

But Ernest Moniz, Obama’s sniveling Secretary of Energy, assured the AP that it wouldn’t be a problem because Iran would only be allowed to store 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium.

He lied.

Even as Obama was assuring the Rabbis of how thoroughly Iran was complying with his deal, new revelations were emerging of how he had helped Iran fake its compliance with the deal.

That’s the sort of thing you go to hell for. But it’s a little too late for Obama to worry about that.

The issue was simple. Obama wanted to lift sanctions on Iran. But Iran was not in compliance with even his mostly worthless agreement. So Obama decided that it was time to help the terror state fake it.

Iran was only allowed to keep 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. Obama agreed to upgrade that amount to “unknown quantities”. How much is an “unknown quantity”? Like the rest of Iran’s nuclear program, we don’t know. Low-enriched uranium, even in unknown quantities, doesn’t sound that scary. Except that according to a former U.N. weapons inspector, it can be used to produce highly enriched uranium. And that’s how you go from zero to a mushroom cloud over your city.

And then there are the large hot cells that Iran was allowed to keep running.

Secretary of Energy Moniz didn’t just lie to the AP. Lying to the media is practically an Obama indoor sport. He told the same lie in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Senators were assured that Iran would be allowed to keep "only 300 kilograms of low (3.67 percent) enriched uranium hexafluoride, and will not exceed this level for fifteen years." Iran didn’t have to wait 15 years to exceed that amount. Or even 15 minutes. Obama gave them a pass on it right out of the gate.

But Moniz wasn’t a rogue liar. He was telling the lie that he had been told to tell.

At the Rosh Hashana conference call with the Rabbis, Obama repeated the false claim that Iran had “shipped out 98 percent of its enriched uranium”. He told the lie even though the truth had already come out at the beginning of September. The 98 percent or 300 kilogram limit had been bypassed by him.

No one challenged him or called him out on his lie. And that is the problem.

Obama has lied about the Iran deal from the very beginning. And that’s not about to change.

The fairy godmother of Iran’s enrichment was Hillary Clinton. The “breakthrough” in the negotiations took place when she accepted some Iranian nuclear enrichment. And then it was just a matter of determining how much enrichment would take place officially and how much would take place unofficially that would be officially ignored or covered up by our own government.

That is how we got to the ticking atomic time bomb.

Obama hasn’t just turned a blind eye to Iran’s race to the bomb. He has empowered and enabled all elements of it from its nuclear program to its ballistic missile program. He has ensured that Iran would have the money, the manpower and the resources to become a nuclear power. He directed elements of our intelligence services and military to prevent Israel from striking Iran’s nuclear program. He even aided its core terrorist organization and its ballistic missile program.

This isn’t an error. It’s not cowardice. It’s treason.

A coldly calculated plan to turn Iran into a nuclear power is coming together. On the other end of it lies the horrifying death of millions.

Why would Obama and Hillary do such a horrifying thing? The American scientists and spies who helped the Soviet Union get the bomb believed that they were making the world a better place by limiting our ability to use nuclear weapons. Their treason almost led to the end of human life on earth.

The Iran deal is the second great wave of nuclear treason of the left. And the full truth is yet to be told.

Monday, October 17, 2016

The Science of Silencing

The Science of Silencing

John F. Kennedy was outspoken against the secret government growing behind the curtains of American democracy. In his address to American publishers and the media in 1961, two years prior to his public assassination, he remarked about the nature of secrecy and the dangers of allowing our government to operate without our consent and beyond our knowledge, warning the press to consider the importance of their role in protecting American liberty from the emergence of the Deep State. In essence, JFK was the first major American whistleblower.

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.” ~John F. Kennedy.

Today, as the world hangs on every Wikileaks release coming from Edward Snowden, it is clear that the role of whistleblower in our society is critical to the survival of freedom, and also clear the public demands the truth.

The Science of Destroying Whistleblowers
There is a definitive science to preventing and destroying whistleblowers which includes a continuum of intimidation tactics that are very effective at keeping government employees from going public with information that could be harmful to the state.

Author of From the Company of Shadows, and a decorated former CIA officer and anti-terrorism specialist turned whistleblower, Kevin Shipp, recently spoke in a public awareness event in Northern California on the issues moral people face when confronted with evidence of state corruption. He begins by asking why there are not more whistleblowers in a world where government secrecy and covert activity has become the norm.

“I come from the belly of the best. I was a interviewer, interrogator, I was a counter intelligence agent. I was a polygraph examiner. I was an internal investigator, and on and on and on. So I know this system and I know it well, and then I experienced it personally. Why don’t people come out in these secret programs that they know are illegal and unconstitutional? Why don’t they come out and blow the whistle and tell people what’s going on?” — Kevin Shipp.

Speaking from his personal experience, both as a witness from inside the CIA and as a person who is directly taking the risks associated with exposing government corruption, he reveals his insight into this issue, offering a solid explanation of why more people don’t come forward with the truth about our government’s unconstitutional and immoral activities.

According to Shipp, there is a complete game plan in play that covers all the bases of intimidation, harrasment and coercion, and as outlined below, here are the main things that prevent more people from speaking out.

1. Binding Secrecy Agreements
Ninety-nine percent of all would-be whistleblowers are convinced to look the other way by use of binding secrecy agreements as terms for employment or promotion.

Essentially, in order to work for the government in any capacity that would involve one in any of the many unconstitutional programs it operates today, employees must sign binding secrecy agreements where they cannot talk without going to prison for doing so. This type of agreement was originally designed as a way to legitimately protect sources, methods and technology, however the intention has changed dramatically and it is now used broadly as a form of intimidation to conceal criminal activity.

These agreements are forfeitures of constitutional rights such as the right to a jury trial, the right to sue the government, and all rights to due process.

2. The Intelligence Community and the State Secrets Privilege
“There is a massive, mammoth, complex secret mechanism in the U.S. Government, it’s called the intelligence community. It is so powerful that not even the Congress or the Senate can control it. Matter of fact, it controls them. It does whatever it wants. They have these Senate investigations, and they’ll come and they say, ‘sorry Senator, we can’t tell you what we’re doing because you don’t have the agency clearance.’ And that’s where it’s shut down.” — Kevin Shipp.

By using the state secrets privilege, which was created by the executive branch of the U.S. Government, the intelligence community can prevent and stop any investigation into sensitive issues, it can prevent disclosure of pertinent information in an investigation, and it can stop any lawsuits it wishes to shut down.

“The state secrets privilege (SSP) is a common law privilege that allows the head of an executive department to refuse to produce evidence in a court case on the grounds that the evidence is secret information that would harm national security or foreign relation interests if disclosed.” [Source]

3. Direct Personal Intimidation and Harassment
If someone persists on going public with state secrets, or even indicates an intention to do so, there are a number of tactics that can be applied to embarrass, intimidate, and directly penalize them. This may come in the form of demotion, of giving someone embarrassing or compromising assignments, or by directly intervening in their personal lives in illegal ways such as financially destroying one’s family by blocking retirement funds or by raising interest rates on credit union loans so their vehicles and homes become unaffordable.

4. Psychological Re-Education
This tool is used to officially discredit a potential whistleblower before they actually go public so that if they succeed at drawing attention to an agency their character is already defamed and documented as being unstable.

“What they’ll do is they’ll say, ‘We can see that you’re very stressed out by all of this, and we want to help you, so we’re going to refer you to the office of medical services so you can undergo some psychological counseling to help you sleep at night and make you better and get rid of your anxiety. So we’re going to set up an appointment for you to meet with a psychologist.’

Now, where do you suppose that goes? The interview’s over, the document is falsified, ’employee is paranoid, obsessive-compulsive, and disgruntled.’ That goes in the file, so if it ever does get to the Congress or Senate or court, they pull it out and say, ‘Well, look, he or she went under an evaluation and they’re basically unstable, end of story, shut the case down.’” — Kevin Shipp

5. Internal Investigation by the Offices of Inspectors General
Inspector generals are presented as an objective and honest safeguard in the bureaucratic process, however this is not always true.

When a significant case is presented with overwhelming evidence against the state, the inspector general for any agency can step in with their own conclusions citing there is no problem, nor wrong-doing, and their internal investigation had not revealed anything. This effectively prevents any outside body from being able to fully examine whistleblower allegations.

Final Thoughts
“They will destroy you. They’ll destroy your career, your finances, destroy your family. They’ll take you all the way down as far as they can.” —Kevin Shipp

All in all this creates a culture of fear within all government agencies, effectively silencing dissent before it happens.

We’ve seen what happened to Bradley Manning who was prosecuted under the espionage act for releasing military documents to Wikileaks. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have been living for years in exile under the protection of foreign governments for their roles in exposing how the state is violating our constitutional rights. Even at the civil level people who expose state corruption are persecuted beyond common sense as is evidenced in the case of Ramsey Orta, the only person going to jail in relation to the murder of Eric Garner by the NYPD, after he filmed Garner’s murder in 2014.

In light of all of this, it is no wonder that more people do not speak out on government programs that violate our natural and civil rights, for it takes tremendous courage and incurs significant risk to do so.

Lucas Dare

Decades of a Criminal War on Drugs

Decades of a Criminal War on Drugs

The Regime’s Reckoning

Irrespectively of how he, in fact, will govern if he becomes president, it’s no longer possible to deny that Donald Trump is indeed the anti-Establishment candidate.

To get as far as he has, Trump has had to battle the Regime every step of the way.  Now that the election is less than a month off, it has dispatched its agents from all quarters to not just defeat Trump, but to crucify him.

The Clintons and their legions of surrogates from the Obamas to the Bushes, from the Republican leadership in the Congress to all of the major media are tirelessly doing anything and everything to destroy the one person who (they at least believe) poses the biggest threat to their Empire.

Yet, as of this writing, Trump is still standing and the outcome of this contest remains an open question.  He will continue standing, I predict, right through Election Day—whether he wins the race or loses it, for Trump has already won.

To repeat, Trump has won.

Most Americans have long admitted to having, if nothing else, an intuitive sense that both Washington D.C. and the media are corrupt.

Trump has confirmed in spades that they’ve been right to trust their gut.  His candidacy has revealed for all with eyes to see the existence of a massive, sprawling government-media complex created and preserved by an elite that advances its class-interest behind the veneer of such rhetorical fictions as “Democracy,” “the Will of the People,” “Equality,” and the like.

This ruling class of like-minded individuals is accustomed to directing the lives of the rest of us.  However, its exercise of control is just as subtle as it is relentless, facilitated by an abstract, ahistorical, universalistic ideology.  Its proponents describe the latter in terms of “values,” “ideals,” “principles.”  Though Democrats are reluctant to invoke it, the doctrine of “American Exceptionalism,” the creed that America is nothing else than a proposition or idea, also expresses this ideology.  Moreover, it makes the ideology that much more marketable by lulling the casual hearer into thinking that the affirmation of this borderless, globalist doctrine is equivalent to an assertion of patriotism.

Trump, whether he intended for this to happen or not, has in effect deconstructed this myth.  He’s revealed that while the Regime promotes its fiction in the name of the citizenry, millions and millions of Americans, those to whom Hillary derisively referred as “deplorables,” resolutely reject it.

There have been other whistleblowers on the Regime.  Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are two of the most prominent that immediately come to mine.  In fairness, even Bernie Sanders’ candidacy shed light on the corruption of Democrat Party politics.  But Trump is the first in our lifetime that has succeeded in actually exposing in all of its nakedness the manipulative, deceptive, and hypocritical nature of the whole Establishment.  Sanders is a leftist tool, and while Buchanan and Paul are both principled men—vastly more principled, in fact, than Trump—the cold hard truth of the matter is that they had neither the exposure nor the brashness to do in decades what Trump has managed to do within less than a year-and-a-half.

If the left and the neocon alt-left in Washington and the media think that a defeat at the polls for Trump is going to spell defeat for the movement that his candidacy brought to the fore, then they are even more delusional than we think.  Most Americans, regardless of party, distrust the media.  The tens of millions of Americans who found a voice in Trump despise it.  Whether Trump wins or loses on November 8, but especially if he loses, Trump’s impassioned base will hold the Regime’s court-appointed hacks accountable.  If he loses and Hillary Clinton proves to be the disastrous president that we know she will be, the contempt on the part of Trump supporters toward the faux journalists and commentators will only intensify.

An already polarized nation promises to grow still more divided and Hillary’s presidency promises to be a rocky one.  This the Deplorables will insure.

As for the GOP NeverTrumpists in Congress and their apologists in the so-called “conservative” (neoconservative) media, there’s perhaps no wing of the Regime for which the future is looking grimmer.  Election cycle after election cycle, the same con-men and women who have now turned their backs on their party’s presidential nominee—a man, mind you, who garnered more voter support than any Republican primary contestant in history—would spare no occasion to shame skeptical voters into supporting their candidates: Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney.

It’s now painfully clear that it is they who have no shame, for they’d prefer to give the election, and the country, over to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats rather than support the person who threatens to wreck their power structure.

So be it.

But the GOPers are sorely mistaken in thinking that it is their endorsement of Trump that will account for the reversal in their political fortunes.  It is, rather, their refusal to give Trump all of the backing that they would’ve provided to any other nominee that portends their downfall.

Do the NeverTrumpists seriously believe that Trump’s supporters will just return to business as usual in the event that Clinton becomes President? Do they think that the unprecedented number of voters who propelled Trump as far as he’s gone will forget their treachery, that they will ever again contribute a dime or a vote toward the Republican Party?

The GOP is destined to be in for a world of hurt.  So too, however, are those “conservative” (neoconservative) talk radio hosts, bloggers, writers, and Fox News chatterers who sought at every turn to safeguard the status quo, i.e. their own power.

The refusal to tell the truth when it needed to be told will be remembered by untold numbers of people. The D.C. and media Regimists think that if only Trump loses the election, they will be able to sleep comfortably again.  But as a colleague of mine put it today, Trump was but a spring shower.  There is a tsunami coming their way, a force of nature that will be all that much more catastrophic for the Regime’s interests if Trump loses, for it isn’t Trump, but the movement that he unleashed that will be the source of its greatest troubles.

#NeverTrump will give rise to #NeverGOP, or at least #NeverNeoconGOP.

The Trump phenomenon will continue—and grow.

By Jack Kerwick