| Question Everything!Everything!! |
Welcome to Truth, FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience. , is an alternative media and news site that is dedicated to the truth, true journalism and the truth movement. The articles, ideas, quotes, books and movies are here to let everyone know the truth about our universe. The truth will set us free, it will enlighten, inspire, awaken and unite us. Armed with the truth united we stand, for peace, freedom, health and happiness for all
Question Everything!
MEN OF PEACE
"I don't know how to save the world. I don't have the answers or The Answer. I hold no secret knowledge as to how to fix the mistakes of generations past and present. I only know that without compassion and respect for all Earth's inhabitants, none of us will survive - nor will we deserve to." Leonard Peltier
Monday, March 30, 2015
Its Time to Downsize the Federal Government
Repair and realignment of our federal government
Enough is Enough, Its Time to Downsize the Federal Government
The size of the federal government has exploded over the last century. The legislative and judicial branches of government have grown to serve the increased number of states and its growing population. The size and scope of the executive branch has grown to reflect an expanded role of the federal government over the last 100 years.
Apparently the staffing of fourteen separate Cabinet Departments were not enough to manage the current executive branch, so Barack Obama felt the need to appoint a number of “czars” to focus on special emphasis areas. Recent studies have found that economic growth rates decline when relative government spending exceeds 26% of GDP, and the United States government current spending is close to 40% of GDP. The Republican Party claims the core principle of limited government, but has actively participated in this growth in both size and scope of the federal government. There is still the question of constitutionality why the federal government has expanded into areas not explicitly called out for in the 10th Amendment. Ronald Reagan diagnosed this problem with “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”http://www.aei.org/publication/the-proper-size-of-government/
The executive branch of government has grown over time with it greatest growth period last century. George Washington appointed a Cabinet of four departments: State, Treasury, War (now Defense), and Attorney General (now Justice). Departments of Interior (1849) and Agriculture (1862) were added in the 19th century. In the first half of the 20th century, Departments of Commerce (1913) and Labor (1913) were added. In the second half of the 20th century, the executive branch exploded well beyond the original enumerated powers with Departments of Health and Human Services (1953), Housing and Human Development (1965), Transportation (1966), Energy (1974), Education (1979), and Veterans Affairs (1989). Homeland Security was created in 2002. The role of these departments has also increased from overseeing industry, to participating in select niches of industry, and even virtual nationalization of select industry segments. Government monopolies are notoriously inefficient. Revenues are collected not just to pay for government services, but now departments redistribute funds between people, between states, and even between countries. The problem is that government execution gets worse the bigger it gets. The federal budget deficits have caused the national debt to skyrocket over $18 trillion, with no end in sight.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/redistributing-wealth-from-top-to-bottom
Dismantle, devolve Departments of Education, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Human Development, and Health and Human Services
If our federal government is really too large, where to begin? The first step is to convene a Committee Against Government Waste, much like under President Reagan, to develop plans to eliminate duplication, inefficiency, and waste. For example, there is no reason for 24 education and job training programs to be scattered among seven different federal departments and agencies. The next step is to reorganize the Executive branch to eliminate duplication and waste between departments, such as folding Veterans affairs into Defense, and moving the Coast Guard from Homeland Security into Defense. Homeland Security could then be folded under Justice to focus on enforcement. The next step is to privatize work done by the public sector that should rightly be in the private sector, such as: Federal Reserve Banks, Export-Import Bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, PBGC, Amtrak, TSA, TVA, Medicare, and Social Security. The federal government does not need to own so much park land, and should devolve this land back to the states so they can manage its use for parks and resource exploitation. The next step is to eliminate transfer (redistribution) payments between states to decentralize investment decision making back to the states, which represents 17% of the federal budget. Finally plans must be put in place to dismantle or devolve the functions of the Departments of Education, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Human Development, and Health and Human Services. The 80-plus means-tested welfare programs are so vast and complex, that they are unmanageable from a system-wide perspective. Cabinet Secretaries should be measured by how much they downsized their departments and how many regulations have been repealed. Republicans have talked a good game of limited government, but pragmatic leadership is missing. Constitutional grounding will provide the framework for long overdue downsizing of our federal government beginning now.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/seeking_budgetary_prudence.html
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/chrisedwards/2014/12/01/improve-government-repeal-aid-to-states-n1925566
http://townhall.com/columnists/vannellison/2015/02/04/draft-n1952378/page/full
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54378
.jpg)
The American people identified government as the most important U.S. problem, so maybe it is time to relook at the size and scope of the federal government. After all of these changes are made, there should be half as many Cabinet Departments and the cost of the federal government could also be halved. This is the vision I would like to see in a Presidential candidate campaign because it is transformational and returns to the fundamentals outlined in our original Constitution. Hopefully Ted Cruz will not be the only Presidential candidate who will offer radical reform ideas to begin the repair and realignment of our federal government http://www.gallup.com/poll/181946/americans-name-government-no-problem.aspx
By David Coughlin
Enough is Enough, Its Time to Downsize the Federal Government
Apparently the staffing of fourteen separate Cabinet Departments were not enough to manage the current executive branch, so Barack Obama felt the need to appoint a number of “czars” to focus on special emphasis areas. Recent studies have found that economic growth rates decline when relative government spending exceeds 26% of GDP, and the United States government current spending is close to 40% of GDP. The Republican Party claims the core principle of limited government, but has actively participated in this growth in both size and scope of the federal government. There is still the question of constitutionality why the federal government has expanded into areas not explicitly called out for in the 10th Amendment. Ronald Reagan diagnosed this problem with “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”http://www.aei.org/publication/the-proper-size-of-government/
The executive branch of government has grown over time with it greatest growth period last century. George Washington appointed a Cabinet of four departments: State, Treasury, War (now Defense), and Attorney General (now Justice). Departments of Interior (1849) and Agriculture (1862) were added in the 19th century. In the first half of the 20th century, Departments of Commerce (1913) and Labor (1913) were added. In the second half of the 20th century, the executive branch exploded well beyond the original enumerated powers with Departments of Health and Human Services (1953), Housing and Human Development (1965), Transportation (1966), Energy (1974), Education (1979), and Veterans Affairs (1989). Homeland Security was created in 2002. The role of these departments has also increased from overseeing industry, to participating in select niches of industry, and even virtual nationalization of select industry segments. Government monopolies are notoriously inefficient. Revenues are collected not just to pay for government services, but now departments redistribute funds between people, between states, and even between countries. The problem is that government execution gets worse the bigger it gets. The federal budget deficits have caused the national debt to skyrocket over $18 trillion, with no end in sight.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/redistributing-wealth-from-top-to-bottom
Dismantle, devolve Departments of Education, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Human Development, and Health and Human Services
If our federal government is really too large, where to begin? The first step is to convene a Committee Against Government Waste, much like under President Reagan, to develop plans to eliminate duplication, inefficiency, and waste. For example, there is no reason for 24 education and job training programs to be scattered among seven different federal departments and agencies. The next step is to reorganize the Executive branch to eliminate duplication and waste between departments, such as folding Veterans affairs into Defense, and moving the Coast Guard from Homeland Security into Defense. Homeland Security could then be folded under Justice to focus on enforcement. The next step is to privatize work done by the public sector that should rightly be in the private sector, such as: Federal Reserve Banks, Export-Import Bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, PBGC, Amtrak, TSA, TVA, Medicare, and Social Security. The federal government does not need to own so much park land, and should devolve this land back to the states so they can manage its use for parks and resource exploitation. The next step is to eliminate transfer (redistribution) payments between states to decentralize investment decision making back to the states, which represents 17% of the federal budget. Finally plans must be put in place to dismantle or devolve the functions of the Departments of Education, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Human Development, and Health and Human Services. The 80-plus means-tested welfare programs are so vast and complex, that they are unmanageable from a system-wide perspective. Cabinet Secretaries should be measured by how much they downsized their departments and how many regulations have been repealed. Republicans have talked a good game of limited government, but pragmatic leadership is missing. Constitutional grounding will provide the framework for long overdue downsizing of our federal government beginning now.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/seeking_budgetary_prudence.html
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/chrisedwards/2014/12/01/improve-government-repeal-aid-to-states-n1925566
http://townhall.com/columnists/vannellison/2015/02/04/draft-n1952378/page/full
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54378
By David Coughlin
A “New Generation” Speaks
Whether it is called a new Cold War or a new phase of the same Cold War, the United States is facing a formidable challenge to its national existence
Cold War? How uncool A “New Generation” Speaks
Relax, there will be no revival of the Cold War. “The new generation doesn’t believe in a new Cold War,” according to an article in the online version of The National Interest entitled “Debunked: Why There Won’t Be Another Cold War.”http://nationalinterest.org/feature/debunked-why-there-wont-be-another-cold-war-12450
The authors, Matthew Rojansky, the Director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington DC., and Rachel S. Salzman, a Doctoral Candidate in Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, describe themselves as members of the generation which has grown up after the collapse of the Soviet Union, “Russia watchers” who have some experience in diplomacy and have lived and worked in Russia.
The difference between the Cold War and today, say the authors, is the “the profound difference in interpersonal relations.” Russia is no longer a closed society, individuals travel to and from Russia rather freely, and personal relationships can develop between Americans in Russia and Russian citizens. Friendships developed in Russia continue through Facebook and Twitter. “We see each other’s birthdays, children, and family vacations. Our relations with our Russian counterparts are therefore fundamentally deeper and more complex than were those of the previous generation of American and Russian experts.”
The two authors do fear, however, that the “interpersonal connections” which have developed could “atrophy and disappear,” in which case “we really will find ourselves in a new Cold War.”
With all due respect to the authors and their impressive credentials, it is possible to observe that “deeper and more complex” personal relationships do not always lead to positive results. It is also possible to become so invested in individuals that one can become blind to a larger, more ominous reality.
In 2010, the FBI broke up a Russian spy ring which used “interpersonal connections” in an attempt to provide Moscow with influence/control over certain important Americans. The infamous Anna Chapman was a member of the group.
An FBI official later revealed that one of the female members of the ring was getting too close to a member of President Barack Obama’s cabinet, although the names of the spy and her target have not been revealed. While no one is implying that the authors are in any way compromised, it is true that personal relationships can cause a loss of perspective. That is the point in the use of agents of influence. A personal relationship, manipulated by someone like Chapman, can cause the target to take actions which are harmful to the nation and which would not have been done under ordinary circumstances.
Beyond personal relationships, the following should be considered.
The political elite in Moscow, at least nominally led by Russian president Vladimir Putin, have taken the Crimean peninsula from the nation of Ukraine. There are no second thoughts or regrets in this move, in point of fact, it is a matter of pride. Commenting upon the military operation in Crimea, Admiral Igor Kasatonov, former commander of the Black Sea Fleet and Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy (retired) boasted that Russia carried out its military operations in Crimea under the nose of NATO intelligence, using a sardonic phrase we translate from the Russian as NATO “missed all that was possible and impossible [to miss].”
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150313/1052386077.html
Russian forces are training for, preparing for, and in the case of Ukraine, actually involved in war
From the Baltic Sea to the Kuril Islands (taken from Japan by the Soviet Union in the last days of WWII and still not returned), from the Arctic to Ukraine, Russian forces are training for, preparing for, and in the case of Ukraine, actually involved in war. State-of-the art tanks, submarines, and military aircraft are in production or on the drawing boards. Russia has a de facto military alliance with China, and is planning to establish air and naval bases in the Western hemisphere.
Eastern Europe fears the new Russian aggressiveness, and Japan sees not only Russian troops on the Kuril Islands, but also the Russian Pacific fleet staging exercises with the growing naval forces of the Peoples Republic of China.
The military buildup comes as nostalgia for the old Soviet Union continues to grow in Russia, and even the Soviet dictator and mass murder Joseph Stalin is regaining a high degree of respectability.
Putin’s admiration for the old Evil Empire is well known
Putin’s admiration for the old Evil Empire is well known, and his esteem for Communism, the Soviet ideology, was further demonstrated by the national honor he gave last year to the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Gennady Zyuganov. Putin awarded the Order of Alexander Nevsky to Zyuganov for “achievements [in] labor progress, significant contributions to socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, [and] the implementation of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.” The “foreign policy of the Russian Federation” includes the strengthening of ties to the Communist states of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Nicaragua, the Peoples Republic of China, and with the fanatical, soon to be nuclear, Islamic nation of Iran.
In addition to the award, Putin also presented to Zyuganov a statuette of Vasily Chapaev, a Bolshevik whom Soviet leaders presented as a model of Communist valor. (See also: A Putin Kind of Communism). (Chapaev statuette).http://www.inatoday.com/rus_zyuganov_putin20140630.htm
It is true that the “old” Cold War will not return. We are, however, in a new rivalry with Moscow and its allies, where war is an increasing threat. The Kremlin’s propaganda tools are more congenial, but the stakes remain life and death, as the widow of murdered opposition leader Boris Nemtov can attest.
It is apparent that relaxation is not warranted. Whether it is called a new Cold War or a new phase of the same Cold War, the United States is facing a formidable challenge to its national existence. We all must be alert, vigilant, and prepared - even the “new generation.
By Toby Westerman
Cold War? How uncool A “New Generation” Speaks
Relax, there will be no revival of the Cold War. “The new generation doesn’t believe in a new Cold War,” according to an article in the online version of The National Interest entitled “Debunked: Why There Won’t Be Another Cold War.”http://nationalinterest.org/feature/debunked-why-there-wont-be-another-cold-war-12450
The authors, Matthew Rojansky, the Director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington DC., and Rachel S. Salzman, a Doctoral Candidate in Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, describe themselves as members of the generation which has grown up after the collapse of the Soviet Union, “Russia watchers” who have some experience in diplomacy and have lived and worked in Russia.
The difference between the Cold War and today, say the authors, is the “the profound difference in interpersonal relations.” Russia is no longer a closed society, individuals travel to and from Russia rather freely, and personal relationships can develop between Americans in Russia and Russian citizens. Friendships developed in Russia continue through Facebook and Twitter. “We see each other’s birthdays, children, and family vacations. Our relations with our Russian counterparts are therefore fundamentally deeper and more complex than were those of the previous generation of American and Russian experts.”
The two authors do fear, however, that the “interpersonal connections” which have developed could “atrophy and disappear,” in which case “we really will find ourselves in a new Cold War.”
With all due respect to the authors and their impressive credentials, it is possible to observe that “deeper and more complex” personal relationships do not always lead to positive results. It is also possible to become so invested in individuals that one can become blind to a larger, more ominous reality.
In 2010, the FBI broke up a Russian spy ring which used “interpersonal connections” in an attempt to provide Moscow with influence/control over certain important Americans. The infamous Anna Chapman was a member of the group.
An FBI official later revealed that one of the female members of the ring was getting too close to a member of President Barack Obama’s cabinet, although the names of the spy and her target have not been revealed. While no one is implying that the authors are in any way compromised, it is true that personal relationships can cause a loss of perspective. That is the point in the use of agents of influence. A personal relationship, manipulated by someone like Chapman, can cause the target to take actions which are harmful to the nation and which would not have been done under ordinary circumstances.
Beyond personal relationships, the following should be considered.
The political elite in Moscow, at least nominally led by Russian president Vladimir Putin, have taken the Crimean peninsula from the nation of Ukraine. There are no second thoughts or regrets in this move, in point of fact, it is a matter of pride. Commenting upon the military operation in Crimea, Admiral Igor Kasatonov, former commander of the Black Sea Fleet and Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy (retired) boasted that Russia carried out its military operations in Crimea under the nose of NATO intelligence, using a sardonic phrase we translate from the Russian as NATO “missed all that was possible and impossible [to miss].”
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150313/1052386077.html
Russian forces are training for, preparing for, and in the case of Ukraine, actually involved in war
From the Baltic Sea to the Kuril Islands (taken from Japan by the Soviet Union in the last days of WWII and still not returned), from the Arctic to Ukraine, Russian forces are training for, preparing for, and in the case of Ukraine, actually involved in war. State-of-the art tanks, submarines, and military aircraft are in production or on the drawing boards. Russia has a de facto military alliance with China, and is planning to establish air and naval bases in the Western hemisphere.
Eastern Europe fears the new Russian aggressiveness, and Japan sees not only Russian troops on the Kuril Islands, but also the Russian Pacific fleet staging exercises with the growing naval forces of the Peoples Republic of China.
The military buildup comes as nostalgia for the old Soviet Union continues to grow in Russia, and even the Soviet dictator and mass murder Joseph Stalin is regaining a high degree of respectability.
Putin’s admiration for the old Evil Empire is well known
Putin’s admiration for the old Evil Empire is well known, and his esteem for Communism, the Soviet ideology, was further demonstrated by the national honor he gave last year to the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Gennady Zyuganov. Putin awarded the Order of Alexander Nevsky to Zyuganov for “achievements [in] labor progress, significant contributions to socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, [and] the implementation of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.” The “foreign policy of the Russian Federation” includes the strengthening of ties to the Communist states of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Nicaragua, the Peoples Republic of China, and with the fanatical, soon to be nuclear, Islamic nation of Iran.
In addition to the award, Putin also presented to Zyuganov a statuette of Vasily Chapaev, a Bolshevik whom Soviet leaders presented as a model of Communist valor. (See also: A Putin Kind of Communism). (Chapaev statuette).http://www.inatoday.com/rus_zyuganov_putin20140630.htm
It is true that the “old” Cold War will not return. We are, however, in a new rivalry with Moscow and its allies, where war is an increasing threat. The Kremlin’s propaganda tools are more congenial, but the stakes remain life and death, as the widow of murdered opposition leader Boris Nemtov can attest.
It is apparent that relaxation is not warranted. Whether it is called a new Cold War or a new phase of the same Cold War, the United States is facing a formidable challenge to its national existence. We all must be alert, vigilant, and prepared - even the “new generation.
By Toby Westerman
Americans Held To Different Rule Of Law Than Our Elected Officials!
Hillary Clinton, email scandal, Sarbanes-Oxley A
Americans Held To Different Rule Of Law Than Our Elected Officials!
.jpg)
What would happen to any American citizen if their computer servers were subpoenaed and they responded by destroying them? Do you think jail time would be a potential outcome? Obviously, Hillary Clinton believes she lives by a different “rule of law” than the average American. These are the very people who decide what the rule of law will be and obviously, who will be required to live by them. As we have seen year after year, and term after term, our law makers and our president live by a completely different set of rules than the American citizens.
The Benghazi committee headed by Senator Trey Gowdy, released this statement:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/emails-server-deleted-Trey-Gowdy/2015/03/27/id/635001/?fb_action_ids=1062353750447546&fb_action_types=og.shares
“After seeking and receiving a two-week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis.”
“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department. “‘
In July of 1992, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was put into law, to address corporate responsibility and accountability, and also addressed destruction of evidence.
“With the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which President Bush labeled as “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” and the increased commitment of prosecutors to stamp out corporate fraud, today’s company executives have more legal requirements and challenges to meet than they have ever faced in the past. In particular, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 takes aim at individuals who obstruct justice by destroying or altering documents in an attempt to thwart criminal and other government investigations or inquiries.”
http://www.kslaw.com/Library/publication/A%20Focus%20on%20Law%20Analysis%20-%20The%20Intricacies%20and%20Effects%20of%20Sarbanes-Oxley%20Legislation.pdf
The institution of this law allows for more strict enforcement and punishment of individuals who destroy evidence during an investigation or criminal case, and punishes those who destroy evidence under even the “contemplation” of an investigation.
“The new provisions reach those who destroy documents merely “in contemplation” of an investigation or “any matter” within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Moreover, destruction of documents under § 1519 contains a maximum sentence of twenty years, at least twice what could be attained under the previous statutory scheme.”
Based on this law, the average American citizen can be sentenced to prison for destroying evidence even when the government is merely thinking about investigating them or their company. Martha Stewart was sent to jail under the provisions of this law. So it appears as though Hillary Clinton has broken the law and should be held accountable. This means jail time. But will she be punished as any other American would be? Only time will tell if the powers at be will demand she follow the rule of law or if, once again, the Clintons and everyone else on the Hill will be held under different standards than the rest of us.
Although Hillary Clinton claimed she refused to use her government server because she wanted to avoid carrying two different phones, just weeks before in an interview, she admitted to having an iPhone, a blackberry and a iPad.
Clinton said, during her press conference at the UN,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/transcript-hillary-clinton-addresses-e-mails-iran/
“The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.”
Yet it was discovered that “Hillary Clinton emailed with her top advisers at the State Department about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya on their own personal emails,” as reported by The New York Times.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/politics/in-clinton-emails-on-benghazi-a-rare-glimpse-at-her-concerns.html?_r=1
During her press conference at the UN, Clinton said,
“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided. ”
When asked about emails, Bill Clinton stated he only sent two emails his entire time in office, one of them going to John Glenn in 1998 and the other went to U.S. troops serving in the Adriatic. He said he still does not use email today.http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2015/03/3-10-15.html
Questions still remain regarding the legality of Hillary Clinton’s deletion of her server. Americans have to ask themselves if this is the person that should be running for president of the United States? We have certainly seen the negative results of a “lack of transparency” within the Obama administration.
The American people are owed the truth and should have access to the communications from and between our elected officials. When we begin to allow the laws to be manipulated by those in power, while we are held to task, we certainly have graduated from the “elected over the electorate to the ruling over the ruled”- Edward Snowden.
By Leigh Bravo
Americans Held To Different Rule Of Law Than Our Elected Officials!
What would happen to any American citizen if their computer servers were subpoenaed and they responded by destroying them? Do you think jail time would be a potential outcome? Obviously, Hillary Clinton believes she lives by a different “rule of law” than the average American. These are the very people who decide what the rule of law will be and obviously, who will be required to live by them. As we have seen year after year, and term after term, our law makers and our president live by a completely different set of rules than the American citizens.
The Benghazi committee headed by Senator Trey Gowdy, released this statement:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/emails-server-deleted-Trey-Gowdy/2015/03/27/id/635001/?fb_action_ids=1062353750447546&fb_action_types=og.shares
“After seeking and receiving a two-week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis.”
“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department. “‘
In July of 1992, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was put into law, to address corporate responsibility and accountability, and also addressed destruction of evidence.
“With the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which President Bush labeled as “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” and the increased commitment of prosecutors to stamp out corporate fraud, today’s company executives have more legal requirements and challenges to meet than they have ever faced in the past. In particular, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 takes aim at individuals who obstruct justice by destroying or altering documents in an attempt to thwart criminal and other government investigations or inquiries.”
http://www.kslaw.com/Library/publication/A%20Focus%20on%20Law%20Analysis%20-%20The%20Intricacies%20and%20Effects%20of%20Sarbanes-Oxley%20Legislation.pdf
The institution of this law allows for more strict enforcement and punishment of individuals who destroy evidence during an investigation or criminal case, and punishes those who destroy evidence under even the “contemplation” of an investigation.
“The new provisions reach those who destroy documents merely “in contemplation” of an investigation or “any matter” within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Moreover, destruction of documents under § 1519 contains a maximum sentence of twenty years, at least twice what could be attained under the previous statutory scheme.”
Based on this law, the average American citizen can be sentenced to prison for destroying evidence even when the government is merely thinking about investigating them or their company. Martha Stewart was sent to jail under the provisions of this law. So it appears as though Hillary Clinton has broken the law and should be held accountable. This means jail time. But will she be punished as any other American would be? Only time will tell if the powers at be will demand she follow the rule of law or if, once again, the Clintons and everyone else on the Hill will be held under different standards than the rest of us.
Although Hillary Clinton claimed she refused to use her government server because she wanted to avoid carrying two different phones, just weeks before in an interview, she admitted to having an iPhone, a blackberry and a iPad.
Clinton said, during her press conference at the UN,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/transcript-hillary-clinton-addresses-e-mails-iran/
“The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.”
Yet it was discovered that “Hillary Clinton emailed with her top advisers at the State Department about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya on their own personal emails,” as reported by The New York Times.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/politics/in-clinton-emails-on-benghazi-a-rare-glimpse-at-her-concerns.html?_r=1
During her press conference at the UN, Clinton said,
“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided. ”
When asked about emails, Bill Clinton stated he only sent two emails his entire time in office, one of them going to John Glenn in 1998 and the other went to U.S. troops serving in the Adriatic. He said he still does not use email today.http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2015/03/3-10-15.html
Questions still remain regarding the legality of Hillary Clinton’s deletion of her server. Americans have to ask themselves if this is the person that should be running for president of the United States? We have certainly seen the negative results of a “lack of transparency” within the Obama administration.
The American people are owed the truth and should have access to the communications from and between our elected officials. When we begin to allow the laws to be manipulated by those in power, while we are held to task, we certainly have graduated from the “elected over the electorate to the ruling over the ruled”- Edward Snowden.
By Leigh Bravo
Descent into a New Dark Age
Descent into a New Dark Age
Obama does it again
The Muslim Marxist in the White Mosque continues, on a daily basis, to exceed our expectations. Just when you think he can’t get any more lawless, or corrupt, or incompetent, or traitorous, he does. But like he claims to be the case with American’s achievements, he doesn’t do it alone. He’s had massive assistance from the “mainstream” media, the Democrat Party, and to the disgust of patriotic Americans nationwide, the Republican Establishment.
In spite of it being so obvious that his “executive amnesty” scam is blatantly unconstitutional - and therefore blatantly illegal – so obvious that even a federal judge ruled against it and placed an injunction on it, Obama has continued to push through his scheme to overrun the country with semi-literate, unskilled, often violently criminal, illegal alien invaders who have no understanding of America, nor any loyalty to it. But Obama and his co-conspirators are all supremely confident that the invaders will vote Democrat, thus ensuring radical leftist rule in America in perpetuity.
And why wouldn’t the Democrats and the Chamber of Commerce Establishment Republicans be confident of this when a recent left-wing Pew Research Center study shows illegals have stolen jobs to the point they are employed at a higher rate than native-born Americans or legal immigrants. This is on top of insanely huge welfare benefits, and preferential treatment in things like college tuition and, incredibly, accountability for their often violent criminal acts.http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/03/28/hold-think-tank-illegal-immigrant-males-more-likely-to-be-in-workforce-than-legal-immigrants-us-born-men/
The Middle East, thanks to the “brilliance” and utter incompetence of Obama trying to play both ends against the middle is about to be the starting place of World War III.
Beyond our non-existent borders, Obama has made things even worse. His meddling in the Middle East, in support of Islamic jihad, has created disaster after disaster for the dwindling number of secular, relatively civilized countries there. Driven by his egomaniacal, narcissistic belief that he is brilliant and infallible, Obama and his lackeys – Clinton (and her “special” assistant Huma Abedin) and Kerry and the leftist-dominated State Department, Muslim convert Brennan at the CIA, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett, etc., etc., ad nauseam – have tried to install their Muslim Brotherhood allies in power, but instead, due to what is clearly a near total lack of understanding of Middle East politics, culture, and ironically, religion, have created chaos that borders on anarchy.
Their bungling is so bad that Obama’s self-proclaimed success against terrorists in Yemen resulted in jihadis overthrowing the government there. This in turn resulted in Saudi Arabia, a country that has almost always relied on surrogates to act militarily on its behalf, joining with other Arab states to form an Arab Army that will likely include Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. Shiite and Sunni hatred for one another is almost as intense as Islam’s hatred of infidels – Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else who is not Muslim. This has exacerbated the situation in the Middle East and has been, it seems, totally misread by the Muslim in the White Mosque and his cronies.
Terrorist-sponsoring Shiite Iran is being allowed to continue to develop its nuclear weapons, much to the dismay of Sunni Saudi Arabia. Sunni Saudi Arabia, who has financed terrorism on a huge scale (including, many believe 9/11 and Obama’s education and political career) now wants nukes of their own. The Middle East, thanks to the “brilliance” and utter incompetence of Obama trying to play both ends against the middle is about to be the starting place of World War III.
This, of course, all ignores the state of the world economy and the fact that the dollar is in big trouble, as is, in spite of the lies of the Obama administration and their stooges in the media, the American economy. The mess, once again, is due to the total lack of understanding of economics by knee-jerk Marxist Obama and his knee-jerk Marxists associates. Collapse, sooner rather than later, is a real possibility.
Meanwhile, the Republicans, almost without exception, are doing nothing – repeat, nothing – to stop or even slow down our descent into a New Dark Age. Congress has over the past 30 years degenerated into a corrupt, toothless paper tiger, interested only in enriching its members at the expense of We, the People, and maintaining its position of power and privilege. There is hardly a member who is not in serious violation of their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Instead of actually dealing with the destruction of the separation of powers and the lawlessness of the Obama regime, Congress – and again, abetted by the “mainstream” media – is nearly 100 percent absorbed in an election that won’t happen for a year-and-a-half. In the meantime, the country and the world are going to hell, and We, the People, it seems, can only stand on the sidelines and watch, while the Obamas loot the treasury to indulge themselves in multi-million dollar “vacations” and golf outings, rewarding themselves for the superlative job they are doing.
Obama does it again
In spite of it being so obvious that his “executive amnesty” scam is blatantly unconstitutional - and therefore blatantly illegal – so obvious that even a federal judge ruled against it and placed an injunction on it, Obama has continued to push through his scheme to overrun the country with semi-literate, unskilled, often violently criminal, illegal alien invaders who have no understanding of America, nor any loyalty to it. But Obama and his co-conspirators are all supremely confident that the invaders will vote Democrat, thus ensuring radical leftist rule in America in perpetuity.
And why wouldn’t the Democrats and the Chamber of Commerce Establishment Republicans be confident of this when a recent left-wing Pew Research Center study shows illegals have stolen jobs to the point they are employed at a higher rate than native-born Americans or legal immigrants. This is on top of insanely huge welfare benefits, and preferential treatment in things like college tuition and, incredibly, accountability for their often violent criminal acts.http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/03/28/hold-think-tank-illegal-immigrant-males-more-likely-to-be-in-workforce-than-legal-immigrants-us-born-men/
The Middle East, thanks to the “brilliance” and utter incompetence of Obama trying to play both ends against the middle is about to be the starting place of World War III.
Beyond our non-existent borders, Obama has made things even worse. His meddling in the Middle East, in support of Islamic jihad, has created disaster after disaster for the dwindling number of secular, relatively civilized countries there. Driven by his egomaniacal, narcissistic belief that he is brilliant and infallible, Obama and his lackeys – Clinton (and her “special” assistant Huma Abedin) and Kerry and the leftist-dominated State Department, Muslim convert Brennan at the CIA, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett, etc., etc., ad nauseam – have tried to install their Muslim Brotherhood allies in power, but instead, due to what is clearly a near total lack of understanding of Middle East politics, culture, and ironically, religion, have created chaos that borders on anarchy.
Their bungling is so bad that Obama’s self-proclaimed success against terrorists in Yemen resulted in jihadis overthrowing the government there. This in turn resulted in Saudi Arabia, a country that has almost always relied on surrogates to act militarily on its behalf, joining with other Arab states to form an Arab Army that will likely include Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. Shiite and Sunni hatred for one another is almost as intense as Islam’s hatred of infidels – Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else who is not Muslim. This has exacerbated the situation in the Middle East and has been, it seems, totally misread by the Muslim in the White Mosque and his cronies.
Terrorist-sponsoring Shiite Iran is being allowed to continue to develop its nuclear weapons, much to the dismay of Sunni Saudi Arabia. Sunni Saudi Arabia, who has financed terrorism on a huge scale (including, many believe 9/11 and Obama’s education and political career) now wants nukes of their own. The Middle East, thanks to the “brilliance” and utter incompetence of Obama trying to play both ends against the middle is about to be the starting place of World War III.
This, of course, all ignores the state of the world economy and the fact that the dollar is in big trouble, as is, in spite of the lies of the Obama administration and their stooges in the media, the American economy. The mess, once again, is due to the total lack of understanding of economics by knee-jerk Marxist Obama and his knee-jerk Marxists associates. Collapse, sooner rather than later, is a real possibility.
Meanwhile, the Republicans, almost without exception, are doing nothing – repeat, nothing – to stop or even slow down our descent into a New Dark Age. Congress has over the past 30 years degenerated into a corrupt, toothless paper tiger, interested only in enriching its members at the expense of We, the People, and maintaining its position of power and privilege. There is hardly a member who is not in serious violation of their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Instead of actually dealing with the destruction of the separation of powers and the lawlessness of the Obama regime, Congress – and again, abetted by the “mainstream” media – is nearly 100 percent absorbed in an election that won’t happen for a year-and-a-half. In the meantime, the country and the world are going to hell, and We, the People, it seems, can only stand on the sidelines and watch, while the Obamas loot the treasury to indulge themselves in multi-million dollar “vacations” and golf outings, rewarding themselves for the superlative job they are doing.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
But What Does the Supreme Leader Say?
If the Supreme Leader gets what he wants the prospect for war in the Middle East would increase immeasurably. The threat level to the U.S. and Israel would be off the charts.
But What Does the Supreme Leader Say?
What Americans have a hard time understanding is that, for all the Iranian negotiators, the outcome of the nuclear arms deal that the United States is leading all comes down to just one man, Sayyed Ali-Khamenei, otherwise known as the Supreme Leader of Iran.
In the 21st century, it is hard to comprehend that a nation could be ruled by a man whose powers supersede that nation’s president, its civil government, its judiciary and its military. Iran has had only one other Supreme Leader since its founding in 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini who held the position until his death in 1989. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah in order to secure greater freedom, but the Iranians ended up more servile than before.
This is who Obama and P5+1 team (France, Great Britain, Russia, China, plus Germany) is negotiating with as they move toward the March 31 deadline for the talks. Khamenei has already said that the only thing he wants is the immediately lifting of the economic sanctions that are credited with bringing the Iranians to the negotiation table.
The negotiations have to be seen in the context of Iran’s daily cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They have to be seen in the context of a history of Iranian aggression against America and Israel that has included the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, attacks on U.S. embassies and countless other examples of their bad intentions, not the least of which has been its sponsorship of two anti-Israel groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lessor extent, Hamas in Gaza.
Any nuclear deal that permits Iran to continue to enrich enough uranium to make its own nuclear weapons is a very bad deal
Any nuclear deal that permits Iran to continue to enrich enough uranium to make its own nuclear weapons is a very bad deal. Netanyahu came to the U.S. at the invitation of Congress to make that point as the leader of the nation the Supreme Leader intends to destroy. We would be next.
All this is just slightly insane when one considers that President Obama has been obsessed with reaching an agreement with Iran before and since he took office in 2009. He has done everything possible to demonstrate his desire to remove the obstacles to conferring approval on Iran. In the process, he has made us look and be weak.
It is hopeful news, therefore, as reported in The Hill that “Congress is growing hostile to the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, leaving President Obama with little political cover as he approaches a critical deadline in the talks. Should a deal be reached, it would transform U.S. and Iranian relations and potentially give Obama the most important foreign policy achievement of his second term.”
His most significant foreign policy failure, however, has been his betrayal of Israel, the only ally in the Mideast that the U.S. truly has had. Declassifying information about Israel’s nuclear arms was pure treachery. That said, it was no secret and no doubt has protected Israel against apocalyptic destruction.
Consider the Middle Eastern foreign policy failures Obama has had to date. The Saudis and other Gulf States have abandoned hope that Obama would resist the Iranian proxies taking over Yemen. They are pursuing their own military operation there. Egypt which replaced the Muslim Brotherhood with a U.S.-friendly president has not seen any renewal of the former friendly relations that existed. Iraq is in turmoil thanks to Obama’s removal of U.S. troops in 2011 and even has Iranian military units fighting ISIS. Syria has been in a civil war that has killed thousands. It’s a long list but it comes down to Obama’s ending of the U.S. role in the Mideast.
Just as the Iranians are controlled by their Supreme Leader, we have a President who sees himself and his role in a similar way. He has demonstrated his dissatisfaction with the Constitution and the limits it puts on the Executive branch. He has ignored Congress and has been experiencing reversals of policy by the judicial branch. In the case of the Iran negotiations Congress has been kept in the dark along with the rest of the American people.
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has declared that any outcome of the negotiations would legally non-binding. If so, why are they being pursued?
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has declared that any outcome of the negotiations would legally non-binding. If so, why are they being pursued? Such negotiations at the treaty level have always required the consent of the Senate, but the Obama regime is seeking to by-pass that mandatory factor.
On the other side of the table, it has been reported that the main stumbling block to agreement has been Iran’s failure to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past. If United Nations inspectors, in the future as in the past, are unable to verify that Iran is not continuing its nuclear weapons program, there is no way an agreement of any kind could be achieved.
On March 26, the Washington Examiner reported “The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.”
You can be very sure that the Supreme Leader is watching this closely. If he can continue to get the kind of negotiations—an accord—that will result in Iran becoming a sanctions-free, nuclear-armed nation, he will permit the deal to proceed.
The Iranians, as always, will cheat on any deal to achieve this goal. Sadly, everyone at the table knows that, but Russia and China have strong economic reasons to pretend otherwise.
If the Supreme Leader gets what he wants the prospect for war in the Middle East would increase immeasurably. The threat level to the U.S. and Israel would be off the charts.
By Alan Caruba
But What Does the Supreme Leader Say?
What Americans have a hard time understanding is that, for all the Iranian negotiators, the outcome of the nuclear arms deal that the United States is leading all comes down to just one man, Sayyed Ali-Khamenei, otherwise known as the Supreme Leader of Iran.
In the 21st century, it is hard to comprehend that a nation could be ruled by a man whose powers supersede that nation’s president, its civil government, its judiciary and its military. Iran has had only one other Supreme Leader since its founding in 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini who held the position until his death in 1989. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah in order to secure greater freedom, but the Iranians ended up more servile than before.
This is who Obama and P5+1 team (France, Great Britain, Russia, China, plus Germany) is negotiating with as they move toward the March 31 deadline for the talks. Khamenei has already said that the only thing he wants is the immediately lifting of the economic sanctions that are credited with bringing the Iranians to the negotiation table.
The negotiations have to be seen in the context of Iran’s daily cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They have to be seen in the context of a history of Iranian aggression against America and Israel that has included the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, attacks on U.S. embassies and countless other examples of their bad intentions, not the least of which has been its sponsorship of two anti-Israel groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lessor extent, Hamas in Gaza.
Any nuclear deal that permits Iran to continue to enrich enough uranium to make its own nuclear weapons is a very bad deal
Any nuclear deal that permits Iran to continue to enrich enough uranium to make its own nuclear weapons is a very bad deal. Netanyahu came to the U.S. at the invitation of Congress to make that point as the leader of the nation the Supreme Leader intends to destroy. We would be next.
All this is just slightly insane when one considers that President Obama has been obsessed with reaching an agreement with Iran before and since he took office in 2009. He has done everything possible to demonstrate his desire to remove the obstacles to conferring approval on Iran. In the process, he has made us look and be weak.
It is hopeful news, therefore, as reported in The Hill that “Congress is growing hostile to the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, leaving President Obama with little political cover as he approaches a critical deadline in the talks. Should a deal be reached, it would transform U.S. and Iranian relations and potentially give Obama the most important foreign policy achievement of his second term.”
His most significant foreign policy failure, however, has been his betrayal of Israel, the only ally in the Mideast that the U.S. truly has had. Declassifying information about Israel’s nuclear arms was pure treachery. That said, it was no secret and no doubt has protected Israel against apocalyptic destruction.
Consider the Middle Eastern foreign policy failures Obama has had to date. The Saudis and other Gulf States have abandoned hope that Obama would resist the Iranian proxies taking over Yemen. They are pursuing their own military operation there. Egypt which replaced the Muslim Brotherhood with a U.S.-friendly president has not seen any renewal of the former friendly relations that existed. Iraq is in turmoil thanks to Obama’s removal of U.S. troops in 2011 and even has Iranian military units fighting ISIS. Syria has been in a civil war that has killed thousands. It’s a long list but it comes down to Obama’s ending of the U.S. role in the Mideast.
Just as the Iranians are controlled by their Supreme Leader, we have a President who sees himself and his role in a similar way. He has demonstrated his dissatisfaction with the Constitution and the limits it puts on the Executive branch. He has ignored Congress and has been experiencing reversals of policy by the judicial branch. In the case of the Iran negotiations Congress has been kept in the dark along with the rest of the American people.
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has declared that any outcome of the negotiations would legally non-binding. If so, why are they being pursued?
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has declared that any outcome of the negotiations would legally non-binding. If so, why are they being pursued? Such negotiations at the treaty level have always required the consent of the Senate, but the Obama regime is seeking to by-pass that mandatory factor.
On the other side of the table, it has been reported that the main stumbling block to agreement has been Iran’s failure to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past. If United Nations inspectors, in the future as in the past, are unable to verify that Iran is not continuing its nuclear weapons program, there is no way an agreement of any kind could be achieved.
On March 26, the Washington Examiner reported “The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.”
You can be very sure that the Supreme Leader is watching this closely. If he can continue to get the kind of negotiations—an accord—that will result in Iran becoming a sanctions-free, nuclear-armed nation, he will permit the deal to proceed.
The Iranians, as always, will cheat on any deal to achieve this goal. Sadly, everyone at the table knows that, but Russia and China have strong economic reasons to pretend otherwise.
If the Supreme Leader gets what he wants the prospect for war in the Middle East would increase immeasurably. The threat level to the U.S. and Israel would be off the charts.
By Alan Caruba
Death Domes Are the End Game for Jade Helm 15
Death Domes Are the End Game for Jade Helm 15
The new dome in Edna, Tex., will also serve as a high school gymnasium. The $2.5 million structure, mostly financed by FEMA, is designed to withstand winds of up to 200 miles per hour. Credit David J. Phillip/Associated Press
I have been incapacitated for the past 36 hours and am still not able to speak clearly. However, that does not mean that the flow of information regarding Jade Helm 15 has slowed down.
With regard to Jade Helm 15, there are enigmas upon mysteries based upon false flag events. And the biggest false flag event is tied to the notion that Russians have penetrated the territorial boundary of the lower 48. Yes, it is true that the Russians have a presence inside of the United States courtesy of the Obama administration. However, the notion that the Russians are preparing to arm Texas-based insurgents who favor withdrawing from the United States, is not true. The following does represent accurate reporting in so far of what has been released. However, the following represents a PSYOPS operation. In other words, it is a false flag.
The False Flag Premise
According to this scenario, The United States is arming the military forces of Georgia and the insurgents in Kiev. Russia views these actions by the U.S. as an act of war. In retaliation, Russian troops have been infiltrating the United States via Canada and they plan to support a civil war in the American Southwest which will commence in Texas. This premise further states that Jade Helm 15 (JH 15) is designed to stop the Russian attempts to ferment a civil war inside of the United States.
Jade Helm 15 and Common Sense
This information is flawed on its face. Geographically, it makes no sense for the Russians to initiate an action by coming in through Canada, which would be thousands of miles from their intended action. It makes infinitely more sense to initiate such an insurgency close to the target, in Mexico, where there is no security to speak of. Further, if JH15 is designed to thwart this Russian action, then why isn’t the drill being initiated at the point of territorial penetration, namely near the Canadian border. Also, Canada and the United States have very strong mutual defense treaties. If Russians were coming through our northern border without the permission of the Obama administration, the Canadians are obligated to act.
Jade Helm 15 and the “Leaked” Russian Plans to Start a Civil War in Texas
What we are witnessing here is an attempt on the part of the Obama administration to plant stories which support the Russian intent to wreak havoc inside our country. And they are doing it by hiding their disguised purpose in plain sight.
No American in their right mind would support a Russian inspired overthrow of the U.S. government, whether it would be in one state or in all 50 and this is exactly what the Obama administration is counting on.
As this information has been leaked to the alternative media, the reaction was predictable. Most Americans would come to support JH 15 if they were to come to believe that the “drill” was designed to stop such an action.
Death Domes and Edna, Texas
A very revealing clue as to the intent of JH 15 comes to us from the growing “coincidental” presence of Death Domes. There are 28 known Death Domes in Texas.
The New York Times describes Death Domes as “dual use domes”. In the case of Edna, Texas, the local high school graciously accepted one such dome to double as its gymnasium as well as being a shelter against raging hurricanes. Death Domes can house thousands of unsuspecting Americans.
http://goingglobaleastmeetswest.blogspot.com/2015/03/fema-domes-popping-up-across-texas.html
The Death Domes are nearly escape proof as the steel rods supporting the facility go 30 feet underground. The walls are double layered made of cinder block reinforced by steel bars. The most telling aspect of this death dome is that they are FEMA funded! Funny, I did not think that there was supposed to be any FEMA camps.http://goingglobaleastmeetswest.blogspot.com/2015/03/fema-domes-popping-up-across-texas.html
The True Purpose of Jade Helm
The release of the information that Russians are coming through Canada to start a civil in Texas is a PSYOPS, and not a very clever one at that.
As this false flag rumor begins to spread, the masses of sheep in this country will come to support any action designed to thwart such an action by the Russians.
Another revealing aspect of JH 15 is that the operations are to take place at night. When did the Nazi roundups of the Jews take place? The extractions took place at night.
On Friday March 27, 2015, I was interviewed by Nik Rajkovic, a news reporter for NewsRadio 740 KTRH in Houston. In the course of the interview, Rajkovic informed me that he had interviewed a Sheriff’s Deputy and was told that Jade Helm 15 was practicing “extractions of dissidents”. The extractions will transport the dissidents to the Death Domes for final disposition.
http://www.ktrh.com/main.html
Following JH-15 will be a formal declaration of martial law.
by Dave Hodges
The new dome in Edna, Tex., will also serve as a high school gymnasium. The $2.5 million structure, mostly financed by FEMA, is designed to withstand winds of up to 200 miles per hour. Credit David J. Phillip/Associated Press
I have been incapacitated for the past 36 hours and am still not able to speak clearly. However, that does not mean that the flow of information regarding Jade Helm 15 has slowed down.
With regard to Jade Helm 15, there are enigmas upon mysteries based upon false flag events. And the biggest false flag event is tied to the notion that Russians have penetrated the territorial boundary of the lower 48. Yes, it is true that the Russians have a presence inside of the United States courtesy of the Obama administration. However, the notion that the Russians are preparing to arm Texas-based insurgents who favor withdrawing from the United States, is not true. The following does represent accurate reporting in so far of what has been released. However, the following represents a PSYOPS operation. In other words, it is a false flag.
The False Flag Premise
According to this scenario, The United States is arming the military forces of Georgia and the insurgents in Kiev. Russia views these actions by the U.S. as an act of war. In retaliation, Russian troops have been infiltrating the United States via Canada and they plan to support a civil war in the American Southwest which will commence in Texas. This premise further states that Jade Helm 15 (JH 15) is designed to stop the Russian attempts to ferment a civil war inside of the United States.
Jade Helm 15 and Common Sense
This information is flawed on its face. Geographically, it makes no sense for the Russians to initiate an action by coming in through Canada, which would be thousands of miles from their intended action. It makes infinitely more sense to initiate such an insurgency close to the target, in Mexico, where there is no security to speak of. Further, if JH15 is designed to thwart this Russian action, then why isn’t the drill being initiated at the point of territorial penetration, namely near the Canadian border. Also, Canada and the United States have very strong mutual defense treaties. If Russians were coming through our northern border without the permission of the Obama administration, the Canadians are obligated to act.
Jade Helm 15 and the “Leaked” Russian Plans to Start a Civil War in Texas
What we are witnessing here is an attempt on the part of the Obama administration to plant stories which support the Russian intent to wreak havoc inside our country. And they are doing it by hiding their disguised purpose in plain sight.
No American in their right mind would support a Russian inspired overthrow of the U.S. government, whether it would be in one state or in all 50 and this is exactly what the Obama administration is counting on.
As this information has been leaked to the alternative media, the reaction was predictable. Most Americans would come to support JH 15 if they were to come to believe that the “drill” was designed to stop such an action.
Death Domes and Edna, Texas
A very revealing clue as to the intent of JH 15 comes to us from the growing “coincidental” presence of Death Domes. There are 28 known Death Domes in Texas.
The New York Times describes Death Domes as “dual use domes”. In the case of Edna, Texas, the local high school graciously accepted one such dome to double as its gymnasium as well as being a shelter against raging hurricanes. Death Domes can house thousands of unsuspecting Americans.
http://goingglobaleastmeetswest.blogspot.com/2015/03/fema-domes-popping-up-across-texas.html
The Death Domes are nearly escape proof as the steel rods supporting the facility go 30 feet underground. The walls are double layered made of cinder block reinforced by steel bars. The most telling aspect of this death dome is that they are FEMA funded! Funny, I did not think that there was supposed to be any FEMA camps.http://goingglobaleastmeetswest.blogspot.com/2015/03/fema-domes-popping-up-across-texas.html
The True Purpose of Jade Helm
The release of the information that Russians are coming through Canada to start a civil in Texas is a PSYOPS, and not a very clever one at that.
As this false flag rumor begins to spread, the masses of sheep in this country will come to support any action designed to thwart such an action by the Russians.
Another revealing aspect of JH 15 is that the operations are to take place at night. When did the Nazi roundups of the Jews take place? The extractions took place at night.
On Friday March 27, 2015, I was interviewed by Nik Rajkovic, a news reporter for NewsRadio 740 KTRH in Houston. In the course of the interview, Rajkovic informed me that he had interviewed a Sheriff’s Deputy and was told that Jade Helm 15 was practicing “extractions of dissidents”. The extractions will transport the dissidents to the Death Domes for final disposition.
http://www.ktrh.com/main.html
Following JH-15 will be a formal declaration of martial law.
by Dave Hodges
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Snake Oil Sociology
Snake Oil Sociology
The American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA) submitted friend of the Court briefs in the Windsor case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. If the Windsor Court majority relied on those briefs, it was reliant on snake oil, not science. The APA and the ASA should be the guardians of good science. Instead, they have joined the ranks of the pink panzers of political correctness. Most studies we have seen that claim that children raised by same-sex parents suffer no disadvantages are so seriously flawed that in any other context, the ASA and APA would be the first to point out those methodological flaws.
Some of the studies cited in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex parenting have serious methodological flaws, which are not small but so basic they violate “Stats 101.” The most notable of these is the use of something called an opportunity sample. That error would be committed, for example, if you went to the magazine American Rifleman to ask questions about proposed gun control legislation. American Rifleman is a publication of the National Rifle Association. The results of a reader survey would suffer from volunteer bias. Another flaw is what we call the snowball sample. That would occur if NRA members were invited to enlist friends and family members to be part of the sample and respond to a questionnaire. That only compounds the methodological problem.
There are dozens of opportunity and snowball sample research reports all saying that there is no difference between children raised in same sex households and same-sex marriages and children raised in intact married biological parent households. From these the ASA insists there is a consensus among sociologists and that the matter of no difference is settled. However there could be thousands of such studies and they all would be trumped by one study from a large nationally representative probability study. Just one would do the job and blow the reality of the so-called consensus. In the last two years there have been a few reports from large sample surveys and they come up with very different conclusions.
Rather than “letting the debate begin” by encouraging more diversity and exploration of competing hypotheses in robust surveys the ASA is insisting on consensus, shutting down debate, aiding and abetting the hounding and persecution of those professors who dare to do good big-data research.
Rather than protecting research professors in good standing as researchers, and rather than encouraging exploration of significant questions, the ASA is closing down research just when the country is in a major debate and in need of really good data. A solution to this culture of academic suppression and oppression is a big problem that we don’t address right here but happily there is a solution to the data problem easily at hand.
The American Community Survey, conducted annually be The Bureau of the Census, is our largest annual survey – a one percent sample of the US population – and an indispensable tool for thousands of researchers. The Census Bureau is presently planning to drop some vital questions on marriage and family from the survey. Instead it could exploit what is already there by “tweaking” the present questions in the survey to ensure that they measure:
What are the sexual and marital relationships between all adults in the households sampled and their duration. To whom are the children in the family related to biologically, i.e. who is/are their biological parents or grandparents. These are minor tweaks on two of the four questions already being used in the ACS. Instead the Census looks like it too is engaged in closing down the exploration of the data, by eliminating family questions rather than refining them to take care of a pressing national debate.
With these changes sociology can be rescued from the ASA and the country given a great source by which to flush out what the data say. As a former Chairman of the U.S. Census Board, I will be pressing the Census Bureau to include these important questions, so that it contributes to the national discourse and to ensure it is not part of the ASA’s agenda of closing down data and research.
The American Community Survey is a wonderful tool for researchers studying a broad variety of important social, economic, and educational issues. It should be harnessed to contribute what it can to a question the whole country is debating but the ASA is working hard to make sure there is no good data to inform us.
With these minor tweaks in the ACS our academic institutions and teachers will be very free to continue their search for solid facts and pass them on to the nation and the courts and the classroom. The larger question at issue here is academic freedom. Thomas Jefferson was not only the author of the American Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he was also the father of the University of Virginia. And it was there that he argued most eloquently for academic freedom:
“For here we are not afraid to follow truth, wherever it may lead, Nor to tolerate error, so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
Shouldn’t that noble and liberal sentiment guide us in our academic pursuits two hundred years later? The ASA might begin a much needed internal reform by making Jefferson its honorary patron.
By Ken Blackwell
Some of the studies cited in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex parenting have serious methodological flaws, which are not small but so basic they violate “Stats 101.” The most notable of these is the use of something called an opportunity sample. That error would be committed, for example, if you went to the magazine American Rifleman to ask questions about proposed gun control legislation. American Rifleman is a publication of the National Rifle Association. The results of a reader survey would suffer from volunteer bias. Another flaw is what we call the snowball sample. That would occur if NRA members were invited to enlist friends and family members to be part of the sample and respond to a questionnaire. That only compounds the methodological problem.
There are dozens of opportunity and snowball sample research reports all saying that there is no difference between children raised in same sex households and same-sex marriages and children raised in intact married biological parent households. From these the ASA insists there is a consensus among sociologists and that the matter of no difference is settled. However there could be thousands of such studies and they all would be trumped by one study from a large nationally representative probability study. Just one would do the job and blow the reality of the so-called consensus. In the last two years there have been a few reports from large sample surveys and they come up with very different conclusions.
Rather than “letting the debate begin” by encouraging more diversity and exploration of competing hypotheses in robust surveys the ASA is insisting on consensus, shutting down debate, aiding and abetting the hounding and persecution of those professors who dare to do good big-data research.
Rather than protecting research professors in good standing as researchers, and rather than encouraging exploration of significant questions, the ASA is closing down research just when the country is in a major debate and in need of really good data. A solution to this culture of academic suppression and oppression is a big problem that we don’t address right here but happily there is a solution to the data problem easily at hand.
The American Community Survey, conducted annually be The Bureau of the Census, is our largest annual survey – a one percent sample of the US population – and an indispensable tool for thousands of researchers. The Census Bureau is presently planning to drop some vital questions on marriage and family from the survey. Instead it could exploit what is already there by “tweaking” the present questions in the survey to ensure that they measure:
What are the sexual and marital relationships between all adults in the households sampled and their duration. To whom are the children in the family related to biologically, i.e. who is/are their biological parents or grandparents. These are minor tweaks on two of the four questions already being used in the ACS. Instead the Census looks like it too is engaged in closing down the exploration of the data, by eliminating family questions rather than refining them to take care of a pressing national debate.
With these changes sociology can be rescued from the ASA and the country given a great source by which to flush out what the data say. As a former Chairman of the U.S. Census Board, I will be pressing the Census Bureau to include these important questions, so that it contributes to the national discourse and to ensure it is not part of the ASA’s agenda of closing down data and research.
The American Community Survey is a wonderful tool for researchers studying a broad variety of important social, economic, and educational issues. It should be harnessed to contribute what it can to a question the whole country is debating but the ASA is working hard to make sure there is no good data to inform us.
With these minor tweaks in the ACS our academic institutions and teachers will be very free to continue their search for solid facts and pass them on to the nation and the courts and the classroom. The larger question at issue here is academic freedom. Thomas Jefferson was not only the author of the American Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he was also the father of the University of Virginia. And it was there that he argued most eloquently for academic freedom:
“For here we are not afraid to follow truth, wherever it may lead, Nor to tolerate error, so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
Shouldn’t that noble and liberal sentiment guide us in our academic pursuits two hundred years later? The ASA might begin a much needed internal reform by making Jefferson its honorary patron.
By Ken Blackwell
Run for Peace?
Run for Peace?
Does this sound like an admonition? Such as in “run for good health.” Since the writer has experienced the University of Oregon’s legendary Bill Bowermann, moreover, since ever since he stuck to daily running and weight lifting interrupted by reading Russian, such a call would be understandable. (It is not common knowledge: Before inventing “Nike,” the Coach popularized jogging.) No, the subject here is not related to physical exercise – although if it might be relate to an aspect of our mental health.
The topic is the way we allow negotiations to undermine our security and imperil our existence. It seems that we – America, Europe, and advanced systems – repeat the errors of the 1930s. The implication is that a link unfolds between the present and the past. Yes, history is open to abuse. Bad history assumes that history will repeat itself. By itself, it does not, and when it does, it did not have to and was avoidable. A mutant of this is when history – the warning precedent – is overlooked by the ignorant, misinterpreted by the confused, or misunderstood by the superficial.
What is the original sin that is recreated in the present to imperil our future?
Since the Enlightenment, we have assumed that “all men,” implying that man regards certain matters as “self-evident.” This assumption puts pleasing ideology above the facts. Proceeding from there, a culture emerged that created a democratic civilization that made progress into a goal. The vision of a better future replaced the return to a golden past and its idealized static and harmonious ways. Concurrently, the idea emerged that, regardless of the culture that men inherit, they would be able to assess their interests by universal, “self-evident” standards.
The resulting system functioned well on the local and the international level. After the First World War, changes occurred that brought a breakdown. The follow up that of the conflict – the Depression being a catalyst – gave elements power whose ideology and modus operandi negated the progressive-democratic-humanistic order.
Communism, Fascism, National Socialism and the combative mutants of sick nationalism, have turned on the system they were committed to abolish. These foes of an order of rational democracy differed from earlier rivals. Not a retreat into a simpler order and the security of inherited status was the goal. The new challenge was revolutionary and propagated the values of the equalitarian submission of a marching column. These emerging entities saw the world governed by conflict and not by competition within reason-governed pacific structures.
Our assertions have a global validity. Totalitarian movements are universal. They also see security as guaranteed only if it is total; that is achievable only by world dominance. The upshot of that flows into in a conflict, which is waged regardless of the reason-fed will of the designated victim to seek a compromise.
A further aspect of substituting the doing of deals with making war into a preferred instrument is the emergence of new players on the world scene. The mutants of “third-worldism,” but also of militant Islam, inserted new elements into world politics. These do not fit the system that had developed since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
The clash deepens by the sentiment of the newcomers that the system to settle conflicts contractually and without violence has unfavorable outcomes. Doubts of that system arise because it is not a product of the culture of belated participants and so it is said to ignore their interests. Furthermore, the game’s roles leave late entrants unsuccessful if they stick to their traditional ways. Nationalism, the most easily imported Western idea, confirms that the copy of alien ways to success implies dishonor leaving as the manly alternative self-asserting conflict. Notably, this view does not correlate fully either with race or with religion. However, it makes the closing of the developmental gap, and thus the good life for all, unattainable.
Outsiders might consider underdevelopment in modern times as largely self-inflicted through the wrong choices. However, those that are left behind differ. From their perspective, underdevelopment is caused by the tutelage of “colonialism.” (The attraction of the blame is expressed by updating it to “neo-colonialism.”) From foreign control in the past, the logical distance is close to blame of present backwardness on foreigners. Those that accept the thesis will resist the use of outsider techniques of government, social organization and law. An exception is the militarily relevant products of the cursed modern world.
A doctrinal belief in past wrongs that confirm victim status completes the list. Actually, the world is full of nations that can claim that they have been wronged in the past. The more it is invoked, the greater the correlation with contemporary local turbulence.
Regardless of their location, our experience tells that past victimhood serves as a current weapon. Those that are “licensed” to profess their victim status not only go for your purse but also claim immunity from what is a crime if committed by others.
Those systems of the past century that were programmatically criminal have all claimed victim status. In it, they found a moral justification by invoking claimed past wrongs done to them. Victimhood is in such cases attributes moral superiority, which extends from the past’s suffering into the planned misdeeds of the forgiven future. Once a state or a movement convinces itself that the suffering of yesterday justifies the future torment of others, it becomes a threat.
Those that think to possess absolution ahead of their deeds will be cruel. Moral immaculacy detached from behavior also makes for unreliable negotiators. For these, agreements with “sinners” are not binding. Ultimately, an agreement depends not only of verification but also on a felt moral obligation to abide by the covenant.
Developed countries are confronted by the hostility of those that resent their system and threaten their existence. Moved by their tradition, the designated victims of the overthrow of the global order wish to overcome crises within the confines of their tradition. First, there is an attempt to identify the disputed issues. Then follows the attempt to define rationally the position of the parties. Third, an appeasing compromise is formulated. By meeting the outrageous halfway, a deal is proposed that lets the cheeky save face. Conceding what should be rejected, has an intended strategy: Giving in partially is to convince the other side that it can get a hearing for its moderated goals and that the “other side” is not by design an adversary.
This approach is reasonable, yet the results will be disappointing. The attempt to educate to a give-and-take is played with a party that refuses to “give” and plays to “take” all. If you have a chicken and a neighbor wants a few eggs, then you might strike a bargain. If his purpose is not scrambled eggs but fried chicken, then you will not only have to do without eggs, you will consent to lose your hen.
Negotiating according to a tradition that attributes its success to fruitful compromises is understandable. However, given the mindset of those that principally reject not only the status quo but also our right to exist, the tested technique is misplaced.
We desire to preserve the peace because to a sound brain war is a to-be-avoided option. The rational mind sees war as an inefficient last resort that signals the bankruptcy of sanity. The inappropriate projection of our values means that sanity is attributed to those that do not fit the term because they prefer military agendas.
Thusly confused, we pursue our wish to convince those that challenge the accepted procedural ways to alter the world order of our good will. However, permissiveness against the relentless is ineffective because it rewards aggressiveness. This means that, in practice, we tend to run backwards when menaced. We retreat even if the game of chess has muted into poker in which the winner wants all including the board and the table. Running predictably, retreat as a strategy to educate the violent and to save the peace means that, once cornered and forced to react in terms of the threat, it becomes needlessly difficult to hold our own.
By George Handlery
The topic is the way we allow negotiations to undermine our security and imperil our existence. It seems that we – America, Europe, and advanced systems – repeat the errors of the 1930s. The implication is that a link unfolds between the present and the past. Yes, history is open to abuse. Bad history assumes that history will repeat itself. By itself, it does not, and when it does, it did not have to and was avoidable. A mutant of this is when history – the warning precedent – is overlooked by the ignorant, misinterpreted by the confused, or misunderstood by the superficial.
What is the original sin that is recreated in the present to imperil our future?
Since the Enlightenment, we have assumed that “all men,” implying that man regards certain matters as “self-evident.” This assumption puts pleasing ideology above the facts. Proceeding from there, a culture emerged that created a democratic civilization that made progress into a goal. The vision of a better future replaced the return to a golden past and its idealized static and harmonious ways. Concurrently, the idea emerged that, regardless of the culture that men inherit, they would be able to assess their interests by universal, “self-evident” standards.
The resulting system functioned well on the local and the international level. After the First World War, changes occurred that brought a breakdown. The follow up that of the conflict – the Depression being a catalyst – gave elements power whose ideology and modus operandi negated the progressive-democratic-humanistic order.
Communism, Fascism, National Socialism and the combative mutants of sick nationalism, have turned on the system they were committed to abolish. These foes of an order of rational democracy differed from earlier rivals. Not a retreat into a simpler order and the security of inherited status was the goal. The new challenge was revolutionary and propagated the values of the equalitarian submission of a marching column. These emerging entities saw the world governed by conflict and not by competition within reason-governed pacific structures.
Our assertions have a global validity. Totalitarian movements are universal. They also see security as guaranteed only if it is total; that is achievable only by world dominance. The upshot of that flows into in a conflict, which is waged regardless of the reason-fed will of the designated victim to seek a compromise.
A further aspect of substituting the doing of deals with making war into a preferred instrument is the emergence of new players on the world scene. The mutants of “third-worldism,” but also of militant Islam, inserted new elements into world politics. These do not fit the system that had developed since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
The clash deepens by the sentiment of the newcomers that the system to settle conflicts contractually and without violence has unfavorable outcomes. Doubts of that system arise because it is not a product of the culture of belated participants and so it is said to ignore their interests. Furthermore, the game’s roles leave late entrants unsuccessful if they stick to their traditional ways. Nationalism, the most easily imported Western idea, confirms that the copy of alien ways to success implies dishonor leaving as the manly alternative self-asserting conflict. Notably, this view does not correlate fully either with race or with religion. However, it makes the closing of the developmental gap, and thus the good life for all, unattainable.
Outsiders might consider underdevelopment in modern times as largely self-inflicted through the wrong choices. However, those that are left behind differ. From their perspective, underdevelopment is caused by the tutelage of “colonialism.” (The attraction of the blame is expressed by updating it to “neo-colonialism.”) From foreign control in the past, the logical distance is close to blame of present backwardness on foreigners. Those that accept the thesis will resist the use of outsider techniques of government, social organization and law. An exception is the militarily relevant products of the cursed modern world.
A doctrinal belief in past wrongs that confirm victim status completes the list. Actually, the world is full of nations that can claim that they have been wronged in the past. The more it is invoked, the greater the correlation with contemporary local turbulence.
Regardless of their location, our experience tells that past victimhood serves as a current weapon. Those that are “licensed” to profess their victim status not only go for your purse but also claim immunity from what is a crime if committed by others.
Those systems of the past century that were programmatically criminal have all claimed victim status. In it, they found a moral justification by invoking claimed past wrongs done to them. Victimhood is in such cases attributes moral superiority, which extends from the past’s suffering into the planned misdeeds of the forgiven future. Once a state or a movement convinces itself that the suffering of yesterday justifies the future torment of others, it becomes a threat.
Those that think to possess absolution ahead of their deeds will be cruel. Moral immaculacy detached from behavior also makes for unreliable negotiators. For these, agreements with “sinners” are not binding. Ultimately, an agreement depends not only of verification but also on a felt moral obligation to abide by the covenant.
Developed countries are confronted by the hostility of those that resent their system and threaten their existence. Moved by their tradition, the designated victims of the overthrow of the global order wish to overcome crises within the confines of their tradition. First, there is an attempt to identify the disputed issues. Then follows the attempt to define rationally the position of the parties. Third, an appeasing compromise is formulated. By meeting the outrageous halfway, a deal is proposed that lets the cheeky save face. Conceding what should be rejected, has an intended strategy: Giving in partially is to convince the other side that it can get a hearing for its moderated goals and that the “other side” is not by design an adversary.
This approach is reasonable, yet the results will be disappointing. The attempt to educate to a give-and-take is played with a party that refuses to “give” and plays to “take” all. If you have a chicken and a neighbor wants a few eggs, then you might strike a bargain. If his purpose is not scrambled eggs but fried chicken, then you will not only have to do without eggs, you will consent to lose your hen.
Negotiating according to a tradition that attributes its success to fruitful compromises is understandable. However, given the mindset of those that principally reject not only the status quo but also our right to exist, the tested technique is misplaced.
We desire to preserve the peace because to a sound brain war is a to-be-avoided option. The rational mind sees war as an inefficient last resort that signals the bankruptcy of sanity. The inappropriate projection of our values means that sanity is attributed to those that do not fit the term because they prefer military agendas.
Thusly confused, we pursue our wish to convince those that challenge the accepted procedural ways to alter the world order of our good will. However, permissiveness against the relentless is ineffective because it rewards aggressiveness. This means that, in practice, we tend to run backwards when menaced. We retreat even if the game of chess has muted into poker in which the winner wants all including the board and the table. Running predictably, retreat as a strategy to educate the violent and to save the peace means that, once cornered and forced to react in terms of the threat, it becomes needlessly difficult to hold our own.
By George Handlery
The 240th Anniversary of 'Liberty or Death!'
The 240th Anniversary of 'Liberty or Death!'
240 years ago on March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry famously addressed the Virginia Convention:
“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
Henry’s passionate declaration for independence from Britain is widely acknowledged as the catalyst for the convention’s decision to deliver Virginian troops to help fight the Revolutionary War.
“Liberty or death!” became the rallying cry throughout the colonies. Not all, but enough of the founding generation cared enough to risk their lives fighting the War for Independence. To them, it indeed amounted to a choice between liberty or death.
Much has changed since. Today, most Americans clearly care for many things other than liberty. If this were not true, Americans would by now have thrown off the chains of the Federal Reserve. Likewise for the fear-mongered, liberty-suppressing “wars” on drugs, terror, poverty, etc., and the host of other policies, programs, agencies, bureaucracies, and departments comprising the unsustainable American welfare/warfare state. “Fear is the passion of slaves” said Henry. By and large then, are Americans not slaves? Are Americans not afraid of liberty itself?
“When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.” By 1775, the trend was running away from liberty. Henry’s generation helped slow it, if only temporarily. How do Britain’s punitive “Intolerable Acts” (or “Coercive Acts”), imposed upon the colonies – the final straw of-sorts before revolution – stack up to today’s abuses against Americans by their federal government? The lying, the spying, the inflation, the taxes, the regulations, the wars, the groping by the TSA at airports, the domestic militarization, the multitudinous assaults on civil liberties and the pervasive disdain and utter disrespect for private property and voluntary economic transactions? If alive today Henry would be the first to thunder “Liberty or death!”
“I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.” If Henry is correct, then something in the near-future, as in early 1775, has to give, no?
Henry is correct. He was guided by knowledge of the past – by experience: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.” Here, Diogenes the Cynic is evoked. He was banished from Sinope for debasing the currency, but found a redemption-of-sorts in part by carrying a lamp in broad daylight, claiming to be searching for an honest man. Yes, Henry’s wisdom flowed from knowledge and experience. The more free the society, the more honest the society. Most Americans have access to the whole of recorded history at their fingertips – literally. Does not history show that “Perfect freedom is as necessary to the health and vigor of commerce as it is to the health and vigor of citizenship” as Henry asserted?
This is the “Golden Thread” of truth: to be realized and sustained, peace and prosperity necessarily require perfect freedom. Princess Ariadne gave Theseus the Golden Thread to unravel as he disappeared into the labyrinth, so he could find his way back after slaying the Minotaur. Have Americans lost their handle on the Golden Thread? The Minotaur devoured sacrificial Athenians for sustenance. Do Americans realize that today’s Minotaur is their own government? Most do not. If more did, the government would be held accountable. The Minotaur would be starved, if not slayed. There would be more peace and prosperity, because there would be more freedom.
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Here, Henry again struck a timeless truth. It rings especially true today, the 5th anniversary of we-have-to-pass-it-to-see-what’s-in-it Obamacare, and one week after the Obama administration exempted the executive office from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records requests. The exemption announcement cynically marked the beginning of “Sunshine Week” – a week-long media and watchdog advocacy effort for greater government transparency. According to The Associated Press this year’s Sunshine Week revealed that the administration has set a record for censoring and denying access to government files. This comes just weeks after the FCC’s “passing” of Net Neutrality, which essentially amounts to the federal government’s takeover of the internet. In a sense, this grants the government control over “the whole of recorded history” currently at Americans' fingertips.
On this day, March 23, 2015, remember Patrick Henry. Don’t lose hold of the Golden Thread. Henry’s words and actions – his perfect freedom – were seen as treasonous. “If this be treason, make the most of it” he said.
Someday perhaps sooner than later, your words and actions – your perfect freedom – may also be seen as treasonous. If so will you, like Henry, make the most of it?
By Jason Peirce
“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
Henry’s passionate declaration for independence from Britain is widely acknowledged as the catalyst for the convention’s decision to deliver Virginian troops to help fight the Revolutionary War.
“Liberty or death!” became the rallying cry throughout the colonies. Not all, but enough of the founding generation cared enough to risk their lives fighting the War for Independence. To them, it indeed amounted to a choice between liberty or death.
Much has changed since. Today, most Americans clearly care for many things other than liberty. If this were not true, Americans would by now have thrown off the chains of the Federal Reserve. Likewise for the fear-mongered, liberty-suppressing “wars” on drugs, terror, poverty, etc., and the host of other policies, programs, agencies, bureaucracies, and departments comprising the unsustainable American welfare/warfare state. “Fear is the passion of slaves” said Henry. By and large then, are Americans not slaves? Are Americans not afraid of liberty itself?
“When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.” By 1775, the trend was running away from liberty. Henry’s generation helped slow it, if only temporarily. How do Britain’s punitive “Intolerable Acts” (or “Coercive Acts”), imposed upon the colonies – the final straw of-sorts before revolution – stack up to today’s abuses against Americans by their federal government? The lying, the spying, the inflation, the taxes, the regulations, the wars, the groping by the TSA at airports, the domestic militarization, the multitudinous assaults on civil liberties and the pervasive disdain and utter disrespect for private property and voluntary economic transactions? If alive today Henry would be the first to thunder “Liberty or death!”
“I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.” If Henry is correct, then something in the near-future, as in early 1775, has to give, no?
Henry is correct. He was guided by knowledge of the past – by experience: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.” Here, Diogenes the Cynic is evoked. He was banished from Sinope for debasing the currency, but found a redemption-of-sorts in part by carrying a lamp in broad daylight, claiming to be searching for an honest man. Yes, Henry’s wisdom flowed from knowledge and experience. The more free the society, the more honest the society. Most Americans have access to the whole of recorded history at their fingertips – literally. Does not history show that “Perfect freedom is as necessary to the health and vigor of commerce as it is to the health and vigor of citizenship” as Henry asserted?
This is the “Golden Thread” of truth: to be realized and sustained, peace and prosperity necessarily require perfect freedom. Princess Ariadne gave Theseus the Golden Thread to unravel as he disappeared into the labyrinth, so he could find his way back after slaying the Minotaur. Have Americans lost their handle on the Golden Thread? The Minotaur devoured sacrificial Athenians for sustenance. Do Americans realize that today’s Minotaur is their own government? Most do not. If more did, the government would be held accountable. The Minotaur would be starved, if not slayed. There would be more peace and prosperity, because there would be more freedom.
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Here, Henry again struck a timeless truth. It rings especially true today, the 5th anniversary of we-have-to-pass-it-to-see-what’s-in-it Obamacare, and one week after the Obama administration exempted the executive office from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records requests. The exemption announcement cynically marked the beginning of “Sunshine Week” – a week-long media and watchdog advocacy effort for greater government transparency. According to The Associated Press this year’s Sunshine Week revealed that the administration has set a record for censoring and denying access to government files. This comes just weeks after the FCC’s “passing” of Net Neutrality, which essentially amounts to the federal government’s takeover of the internet. In a sense, this grants the government control over “the whole of recorded history” currently at Americans' fingertips.
On this day, March 23, 2015, remember Patrick Henry. Don’t lose hold of the Golden Thread. Henry’s words and actions – his perfect freedom – were seen as treasonous. “If this be treason, make the most of it” he said.
Someday perhaps sooner than later, your words and actions – your perfect freedom – may also be seen as treasonous. If so will you, like Henry, make the most of it?
By Jason Peirce
RUSSIANS TO PARTICIPATE IN JADE HELM 15 MARTIAL LAW DRILL/DISSIDENT ROUND UP DRILL
RUSSIANS TO PARTICIPATE IN JADE HELM 15 MARTIAL LAW DRILL/DISSIDENT ROUND UP DRILLI spoke with my best source and he has information that the Russians training at Ft. Carson, CO., will a part of the Jade Helm 15 drill. This is in line with the Russians being allowed to train for the highly sensitive Grid Ex II drills in November of 2013. Further, this is also consistent with the omnipresent treason of letting the Russians train in the highly secure war games drill known as RIMPAC.
In the following video, my BIN colleague, Lisa Haven, links Jade Helm 15 to the FEMA camps and Civilian Inmate Labor Camps.
In a previous article, I identified the fact that under FM 3-39.4, the Army Internment and Resettlement, document, the document declares that foreign troops, presumably Russian, will be running the camps.
Let’s cut right to the chase. Jade Helm 15 is about the subjugation of the American people, particularly dissidents, and they are going to use Russian troops in support of this activity. This is why the American-based Russian media is attacking American journalists who dare expose these connections.
by Dave Hodges
Friday, March 27, 2015
Top gov’t. scientists say no to vaccines for their kids
Top gov’t. scientists say no to vaccines for their kids
“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” —Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977
http://www.uvm.edu/~asnider/Ivan_Illich/Ivan_Illich_Medical_Nemesis.pdf
Albuquerque Journal, 3/20, “Los Alamos schools top NM in vaccine exemptions”, reports:
http://www.abqjournal.com/557820/news/los-alamos-top-in-nm-for-vaccine-exemptions.html
2.3% of kids in Los Alamos public schools don’t get vaccinated. Their parents have received exemptions.
That’s the highest rate of non-vaccination in the state.
We’re talking about parents who work at the US Los Alamos Labs.
People with advanced degrees in science.
People who work for the federal government.
You would think the vaccine rate in that environment would stand at 100%, no questions asked.
What do these people know? Why are they opting out of vaccinations for their kids?
Those are hard questions to answer. Very hard.
Hmm, let’s think. For example, have they done some actual research on their own, and have they decided that vaccines are unsafe and ineffective?
No, that couldn’t be it. Of course not. Who in his right mind would come to that conclusion?
It must be this: these sober PhD federal scientists are being driven into fear by wild-eyed anti-vaccine lunatics. Yes. That’s it. Of course.
These obey-the-government-at-all-costs scientists have gone off the rails.
At Los Alamos Labs, where they do nuclear- bomb and disease research, there must be a Terrorist, whose mission is to subvert “vaccinations for everybody” and, by this covert tactic, aid a revolt against vaccinations and thereby allow the whole USA to succumb and die off from…the measles and mumps.
Yes. That’s it.
Finally. We’ve gotten to the bottom of it.
Terrorism at work.
Call in the FBI and DHS. Surround Los Alamos Labs with tanks. Lock the place down.
Send in brave men and women wearing hazmat suits (protection against measles and mumps) to find the Terrorist and take him, dead or alive.
While I was writing my first book, AIDS Inc. (*), in 1987, I began interviewing people about their health. These interviews branched out into areas that had nothing to do with AIDS.
(*) (AIDS Inc. is included as a bonus in my The Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix collections.) http://marketplace.mybigcommerce.com/the-matrix-revealed-vol-1-mp3s-pdfs-by-jon-rappoport-mega-info/
http://marketplace.mybigcommerce.com/power-outside-the-matrix/
I discovered a number of people who were in excellent health and had never received a vaccination.
Of course, “medical science” rarely if ever concerns itself with people who are heathy and how they got that way.
One common factor emerged in my interviews with very healthy people: good nutrition.
Big surprise, right?
The more people I spoke to, the more obvious something became: non-medical, naturally acquired immunity to disease could become a serious problem—for the medical cartel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwtS-cfZL-U&t=8m47s
Its solution? Pretend such immunity doesn’t exist.
This is a quite insane approach.
Yes, many people around the world don’t have access to the foods that constitute good nutrition.
Regardless, if the goal is really excellent health, that underlying aspect must be addressed. There is no way around it.
You can’t say, “Well, for those unfortunate people, we’ll give them immunity with vaccines and guard their health with drugs.”
That’s preposterous. It doesn’t work. It only makes things worse.
The current rabid campaign in the US to inject every human with a whole host of vaccines is sheer madness (*). It intentionally ignores the fact that natural immunity should be the goal, which can only be achieved through non-medical means. http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/110-bills-currently-being-proposed-in-36-states-to-enact-medical-tyranny-regarding-vaccines/
(*) (And, I might add, the people at the National Vaccine Information Center Advocacy Portal are doing a superb job of tracking this rabid madness. I urge you to check them out.)
https://nvicadvocacy.org/
To cover up this essential fact about health, public health agencies, doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry assault the population with ceaseless propaganda implying that everyone is sick or on the verge of becoming sick all the time.
Well, guess what? Your body is your own. It’s undoubtedly more your own than anything else you possess.
Apparently, this fact needs reaffirming in these times.
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/down-the-memory-hole-health-care-workers-refused-vaccine/
Unless, of course, you believe the State owns your body and can inject it with anything it wants to.
Propaganda operations are designed to elicit fear. The fear of getting sick and, therefore, the need for vaccines, is not enough to persuade the whole population to fold up and follow orders.
So the campaign has added a layer: many states are considering bills that would make vaccines mandatory. In this case, the fear of law enforcement would be the goal.
https://nvicadvocacy.org/
It’s called a Police State.
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/adult-immunization-push-medical-dictatorship/
For some, that equals Paradise.
But at Los Alamos Labs, that’s not the case, at least when it comes to vaccination. On every other issue, all the scientists there play strictly by the book.
But vaccination? Protecting their kids from injections of germs and toxic chemicals? Some of those scientists have figured that one out.
This is called a Clue.
Jon Rappoport
“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” —Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977
http://www.uvm.edu/~asnider/Ivan_Illich/Ivan_Illich_Medical_Nemesis.pdf
Albuquerque Journal, 3/20, “Los Alamos schools top NM in vaccine exemptions”, reports:
http://www.abqjournal.com/557820/news/los-alamos-top-in-nm-for-vaccine-exemptions.html
2.3% of kids in Los Alamos public schools don’t get vaccinated. Their parents have received exemptions.
That’s the highest rate of non-vaccination in the state.
We’re talking about parents who work at the US Los Alamos Labs.
People with advanced degrees in science.
People who work for the federal government.
You would think the vaccine rate in that environment would stand at 100%, no questions asked.
What do these people know? Why are they opting out of vaccinations for their kids?
Those are hard questions to answer. Very hard.
Hmm, let’s think. For example, have they done some actual research on their own, and have they decided that vaccines are unsafe and ineffective?
No, that couldn’t be it. Of course not. Who in his right mind would come to that conclusion?
It must be this: these sober PhD federal scientists are being driven into fear by wild-eyed anti-vaccine lunatics. Yes. That’s it. Of course.
These obey-the-government-at-all-costs scientists have gone off the rails.
At Los Alamos Labs, where they do nuclear- bomb and disease research, there must be a Terrorist, whose mission is to subvert “vaccinations for everybody” and, by this covert tactic, aid a revolt against vaccinations and thereby allow the whole USA to succumb and die off from…the measles and mumps.
Yes. That’s it.
Finally. We’ve gotten to the bottom of it.
Terrorism at work.
Call in the FBI and DHS. Surround Los Alamos Labs with tanks. Lock the place down.
Send in brave men and women wearing hazmat suits (protection against measles and mumps) to find the Terrorist and take him, dead or alive.
While I was writing my first book, AIDS Inc. (*), in 1987, I began interviewing people about their health. These interviews branched out into areas that had nothing to do with AIDS.
(*) (AIDS Inc. is included as a bonus in my The Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix collections.) http://marketplace.mybigcommerce.com/the-matrix-revealed-vol-1-mp3s-pdfs-by-jon-rappoport-mega-info/
http://marketplace.mybigcommerce.com/power-outside-the-matrix/
I discovered a number of people who were in excellent health and had never received a vaccination.
Of course, “medical science” rarely if ever concerns itself with people who are heathy and how they got that way.
One common factor emerged in my interviews with very healthy people: good nutrition.
Big surprise, right?
The more people I spoke to, the more obvious something became: non-medical, naturally acquired immunity to disease could become a serious problem—for the medical cartel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwtS-cfZL-U&t=8m47s
Its solution? Pretend such immunity doesn’t exist.
This is a quite insane approach.
Yes, many people around the world don’t have access to the foods that constitute good nutrition.
Regardless, if the goal is really excellent health, that underlying aspect must be addressed. There is no way around it.
You can’t say, “Well, for those unfortunate people, we’ll give them immunity with vaccines and guard their health with drugs.”
That’s preposterous. It doesn’t work. It only makes things worse.
The current rabid campaign in the US to inject every human with a whole host of vaccines is sheer madness (*). It intentionally ignores the fact that natural immunity should be the goal, which can only be achieved through non-medical means. http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/110-bills-currently-being-proposed-in-36-states-to-enact-medical-tyranny-regarding-vaccines/
(*) (And, I might add, the people at the National Vaccine Information Center Advocacy Portal are doing a superb job of tracking this rabid madness. I urge you to check them out.)
https://nvicadvocacy.org/
To cover up this essential fact about health, public health agencies, doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry assault the population with ceaseless propaganda implying that everyone is sick or on the verge of becoming sick all the time.
Well, guess what? Your body is your own. It’s undoubtedly more your own than anything else you possess.
Apparently, this fact needs reaffirming in these times.
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/down-the-memory-hole-health-care-workers-refused-vaccine/
Unless, of course, you believe the State owns your body and can inject it with anything it wants to.
Propaganda operations are designed to elicit fear. The fear of getting sick and, therefore, the need for vaccines, is not enough to persuade the whole population to fold up and follow orders.
So the campaign has added a layer: many states are considering bills that would make vaccines mandatory. In this case, the fear of law enforcement would be the goal.
https://nvicadvocacy.org/
It’s called a Police State.
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/adult-immunization-push-medical-dictatorship/
For some, that equals Paradise.
But at Los Alamos Labs, that’s not the case, at least when it comes to vaccination. On every other issue, all the scientists there play strictly by the book.
But vaccination? Protecting their kids from injections of germs and toxic chemicals? Some of those scientists have figured that one out.
This is called a Clue.
Jon Rappoport
US Terrorists Working Hard to Start World War 3
US Terrorists Working Hard to Start World War 3
This video exposes the US government's warmongering lies and its obvious provocations around the world. Who benefits from all of this manufactured conflict? The Bankster State. Time to wake up for peace.
By TNT
http://silvershieldxchange.com/
This video exposes the US government's warmongering lies and its obvious provocations around the world. Who benefits from all of this manufactured conflict? The Bankster State. Time to wake up for peace.
By TNT
http://silvershieldxchange.com/
Managing Obama’s war against Israel
Never before has Israel had to deal with such an openly hostile US administration. Very notion that a day would come when an American president would prefer an alliance with Khamenei's Iran to its traditional alliances with Israel
Managing Obama’s war against Israel
On Wednesday, the Jerusalem Municipality announced it is shelving plans to build 1,500 apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood. Officials gave no explanation for its sudden move. But none was needed.
Obviously the construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem was blocked in the hopes of appeasing US President Barack Obama.
But is there any reason to believe he can be appeased? Today the White House is issuing condemnations of Israel faster than the UN.
To determine how to handle what is happening, we need to understand the nature of what is happening.
First we need to understand that the administration’s hostility has little to do with Israel’s actions.
As Max Boot explained Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, the administration’s animosity toward Israel is a function of Obama’s twin strategic aims, both evident since he entered office: realigning US policy in the Middle East toward Iran and away from its traditional allies Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and ending the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.
Over the past six years we have seen how Obama has consistently, but gradually, taken steps to advance these two goals. Toward Iran, he has demonstrated an unflappable determination to accommodate the terrorism supporting, nuclear proliferating, human rights repressing and empire building mullahs.
Beginning last November, as the deadline for nuclear talks between the US and its partners and Tehran approached, Obama’s attempts to accommodate Tehran escalated steeply.
Obama has thrown caution to the winds in a last-ditch effort to convince Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei to sign a deal with him. Last month the administration published a top secret report on Israel’s nuclear installations. Last week, Obama’s director of national intelligence James Clapper published an annual terrorism threat assessment that failed to mention either Iran or Hezbollah as threats.
And this week, the administration accused Israel of spying on its talks with Iran in order to tell members of Congress the details of the nuclear deal that Obama and his advisers have been trying to hide from them.
In the regional context, the administration has had nothing to say in the face of Iran’s takeover of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden this week. With its Houthi-proxy now in charge of the strategic waterway, and with its own control over the Straits of Hormuz, Iran is poised to exercise naval control over the two choke points of access to Arab oil.
The administration is assisting Iranian Shi’ite proxies in their battle to defeat Islamic State forces in the Iraqi city of Tikrit. It has said nothing about the Shi’ite massacres of Sunnis that come under their control.
Parallel to its endless patience for Tehran, the Obama administration has been treating Israel with bristling and ever-escalating hostility. This hostility has been manifested among other things through strategic leaks of highly classified information, implementing an arms embargo on weapons exports to Israel in time of war, ending a 40-year agreement to provide Israel with fuel in times of emergency, blaming Israel for the absence of peace, expressing tolerance and understanding for Palestinian terrorism, providing indirect support for Europe’s economic war against Israel, and providing indirect support for the BDS movement by constantly accusing Israel of ill intentions and dishonesty.
Then there is the UN. Since he first entered office, Obama has been threatening to withhold support for Israel at the UN. To date, the administration has vetoed one anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council and convinced the Palestinians not to submit another one for a vote.
In the months that preceded these actions, the administration exploited Israel’s vulnerability to extort massive concessions to the Palestinians.
Obama forced Benjamin Netanyahu to announce his support for Palestinian statehood in September 2009. He used the UN threat to coerce Netanyahu to agree to negotiations based on the 1949 armistice lines, to deny Jews their property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to release scores of terrorist murderers from prison.
Following the nationalist camp’s victory in last week’s election, Obama brought to a head the crisis in relations he instigated. He has done so for two reasons.
First, next week is the deadline for signing a nuclear agreement with Iran. Obama views Netanyahu as the prospective deal’s most articulate and effective opponent.
As Obama sees it, Netanyahu threatens his nuclear diplomacy with Iran because he has a unique ability to communicate his concerns about the deal to US lawmakers and the American people, and mobilize them to join him in opposing Obama’s actions. The letters sent by 47 senators to the Iranian regime explaining the constitutional limitations on presidential power to conclude treaties without Senate approval, like the letter to Obama from 367 House members expressing grave and urgent concerns about the substance of the deal he seeks to conclude, are evidence of Netanyahu’s success.
The second reason Obama has gone to war against Israel is because he views the results of last week’s election as an opportunity to market his anti-Israel and pro-Iranian positions to the American public.
If Netanyahu can convince Americans to oppose Obama on Iran, Obama believes that by accusing Netanyahu of destroying chances for peace and calling him a racist, Obama will be able to win sufficient public support for his anti-Israel policies to intimidate pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers into accepting his pro-Iranian policies.
To this end, Obama has announced that the threat that he will abandon Israel at the UN has now become a certainty. There is no peace process, Obama says, because Netanyahu had the temerity to point out that there is no way for Israel to risk the transformation of Judea and Samaria into a new terror base. As a consequence, he has all but made it official that he is abandoning the peace process and joining the anti-Israel bandwagon at the UN.
Given Obama’s decision to abandon support for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, modes of appeasement aimed at showing Israel’s good faith, such as Jewish building freezes, are no longer relevant. Scrapping plans to build apartments in Jewish neighborhoods like Har Homa will make no difference.
Obama has reached a point in his presidency where he is prepared to give full expression to his plan to end the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.
He thinks that doing so is both an end to itself and a means of succeeding in his bid to achieve a rapprochement with Iran.
Given this dismal reality, Israel needs to develop ways to minimize the damage Obama can cause.
Israel needs to oppose Obama’s policies while preserving its relations with its US supporters, including its Democratic supporters. Doing so will ensure that it is in a position to renew its alliance with the US immediately after Obama leaves office.
With regards to Iran, such a policy requires Israel to act with the US’s spurned Arab allies to check Iran’s expansionism and nuclear progress. It also requires Israel to galvanize strong opposition to Obama’s goal of replacing Israel with Iran as America’s chief ally in the Middle East and enabling it to develop nuclear weapons.
As for the Palestinians, Israel needs to view Obama’s abandonment of the peace process as an opportunity to improve our diplomatic position by resetting our relations with the Palestinians. Since 1993, Israel has been entrapped by the chimerical promise of a “two-state solution.”
By late 2000, the majority of Israelis had recognized that there is no way to achieve the two-state solution. There is no way to make peace with the PLO. But due to successive governments’ aversion to risking a crisis in relations with Washington, no one dared abandon the failed two-state strategy.
Now, with Obama himself declaring the peace process dead and replacing it with a policy of pure hostility toward Israel, Israel has nothing to gain from upholding a policy that blames it for the absence of peace.
No matter how loudly Netanyahu declares his allegiance to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, Obama will keep castigating him and Israel as the destroyer of peace.
The prevailing, 23-year-old view among our leadership posits that if we abandon the two-state model, we will lose American support, particularly liberal American support. But the truth is more complicated.
Inspired by the White House and the Israeli Left, pro-Israel Democrats now have difficulty believing Netanyahu’s statements of support for the establishment of a Palestinians state. But those who truly uphold liberal values of human rights can be convinced of the rightness of Israel’s conviction that peace is currently impossible and as a consequence, the two-state model must be put on the back burner.
We can maintain support among Republicans and Democrats alike if we present an alternative policy that makes sense in the absence of an option for the two-state model.
Such a policy is the Israeli sovereignty model. If the government adopts a policy of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in whole—as I recommend in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, or in part, in Area C, as Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recommends, our leaders will be able to defend their actions before the American people, including pro-Israel Democrats.
Israel must base its policy of sovereignty on two principles. First, this is a liberal policy that will ensure the civil rights of Palestinians and Israelis alike, and improve the Palestinians’ standard of living.
Second, such a policy is not necessarily a longterm or permanent “solution,” but it is a stable equilibrium for now.
Just as Israel’s decision to apply its laws to united Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the past didn’t prevent it from conducting negotiations regarding the possible transfer of control over the areas to the Palestinians and Syrians, respectively, so an administrative decision to apply Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria will not block the path for negotiations with the Palestinians when regional and internal Palestinian conditions render them practicable.
The sovereignty policy is both liberal and strategically viable. If the government adopts it, the move will rebuild Israel’s credibility and preserve Israel’s standing on both sides of the aisle in Washington.
Never before has Israel had to deal with such an openly hostile US administration. Indeed, until 2009, the very notion that a day would come when an American president would prefer an alliance with Khamenei’s Iran to its traditional alliances with Israel and the Sunni Arab states was never even considered. But here we are.
Our current situation is unpleasant. But it isn’t the end of the world. We aren’t helpless. If we act wisely, we can stem Iran’s nuclear and regional advance. If we act boldly, we can preserve our alliance with the US while adopting a policy toward the Palestinians that for the first time in decades will advance our interests and our liberal values on the world stage.
By Caroline Glick
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Managing-Obamas-war-against-Israel-395282
Managing Obama’s war against Israel
On Wednesday, the Jerusalem Municipality announced it is shelving plans to build 1,500 apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood. Officials gave no explanation for its sudden move. But none was needed.
Obviously the construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem was blocked in the hopes of appeasing US President Barack Obama.
But is there any reason to believe he can be appeased? Today the White House is issuing condemnations of Israel faster than the UN.
To determine how to handle what is happening, we need to understand the nature of what is happening.
First we need to understand that the administration’s hostility has little to do with Israel’s actions.
As Max Boot explained Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, the administration’s animosity toward Israel is a function of Obama’s twin strategic aims, both evident since he entered office: realigning US policy in the Middle East toward Iran and away from its traditional allies Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and ending the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.
Over the past six years we have seen how Obama has consistently, but gradually, taken steps to advance these two goals. Toward Iran, he has demonstrated an unflappable determination to accommodate the terrorism supporting, nuclear proliferating, human rights repressing and empire building mullahs.
Beginning last November, as the deadline for nuclear talks between the US and its partners and Tehran approached, Obama’s attempts to accommodate Tehran escalated steeply.
Obama has thrown caution to the winds in a last-ditch effort to convince Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei to sign a deal with him. Last month the administration published a top secret report on Israel’s nuclear installations. Last week, Obama’s director of national intelligence James Clapper published an annual terrorism threat assessment that failed to mention either Iran or Hezbollah as threats.
And this week, the administration accused Israel of spying on its talks with Iran in order to tell members of Congress the details of the nuclear deal that Obama and his advisers have been trying to hide from them.
In the regional context, the administration has had nothing to say in the face of Iran’s takeover of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden this week. With its Houthi-proxy now in charge of the strategic waterway, and with its own control over the Straits of Hormuz, Iran is poised to exercise naval control over the two choke points of access to Arab oil.
The administration is assisting Iranian Shi’ite proxies in their battle to defeat Islamic State forces in the Iraqi city of Tikrit. It has said nothing about the Shi’ite massacres of Sunnis that come under their control.
Parallel to its endless patience for Tehran, the Obama administration has been treating Israel with bristling and ever-escalating hostility. This hostility has been manifested among other things through strategic leaks of highly classified information, implementing an arms embargo on weapons exports to Israel in time of war, ending a 40-year agreement to provide Israel with fuel in times of emergency, blaming Israel for the absence of peace, expressing tolerance and understanding for Palestinian terrorism, providing indirect support for Europe’s economic war against Israel, and providing indirect support for the BDS movement by constantly accusing Israel of ill intentions and dishonesty.
Then there is the UN. Since he first entered office, Obama has been threatening to withhold support for Israel at the UN. To date, the administration has vetoed one anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council and convinced the Palestinians not to submit another one for a vote.
In the months that preceded these actions, the administration exploited Israel’s vulnerability to extort massive concessions to the Palestinians.
Obama forced Benjamin Netanyahu to announce his support for Palestinian statehood in September 2009. He used the UN threat to coerce Netanyahu to agree to negotiations based on the 1949 armistice lines, to deny Jews their property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to release scores of terrorist murderers from prison.
Following the nationalist camp’s victory in last week’s election, Obama brought to a head the crisis in relations he instigated. He has done so for two reasons.
First, next week is the deadline for signing a nuclear agreement with Iran. Obama views Netanyahu as the prospective deal’s most articulate and effective opponent.
As Obama sees it, Netanyahu threatens his nuclear diplomacy with Iran because he has a unique ability to communicate his concerns about the deal to US lawmakers and the American people, and mobilize them to join him in opposing Obama’s actions. The letters sent by 47 senators to the Iranian regime explaining the constitutional limitations on presidential power to conclude treaties without Senate approval, like the letter to Obama from 367 House members expressing grave and urgent concerns about the substance of the deal he seeks to conclude, are evidence of Netanyahu’s success.
The second reason Obama has gone to war against Israel is because he views the results of last week’s election as an opportunity to market his anti-Israel and pro-Iranian positions to the American public.
If Netanyahu can convince Americans to oppose Obama on Iran, Obama believes that by accusing Netanyahu of destroying chances for peace and calling him a racist, Obama will be able to win sufficient public support for his anti-Israel policies to intimidate pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers into accepting his pro-Iranian policies.
To this end, Obama has announced that the threat that he will abandon Israel at the UN has now become a certainty. There is no peace process, Obama says, because Netanyahu had the temerity to point out that there is no way for Israel to risk the transformation of Judea and Samaria into a new terror base. As a consequence, he has all but made it official that he is abandoning the peace process and joining the anti-Israel bandwagon at the UN.
Given Obama’s decision to abandon support for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, modes of appeasement aimed at showing Israel’s good faith, such as Jewish building freezes, are no longer relevant. Scrapping plans to build apartments in Jewish neighborhoods like Har Homa will make no difference.
Obama has reached a point in his presidency where he is prepared to give full expression to his plan to end the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.
He thinks that doing so is both an end to itself and a means of succeeding in his bid to achieve a rapprochement with Iran.
Given this dismal reality, Israel needs to develop ways to minimize the damage Obama can cause.
Israel needs to oppose Obama’s policies while preserving its relations with its US supporters, including its Democratic supporters. Doing so will ensure that it is in a position to renew its alliance with the US immediately after Obama leaves office.
With regards to Iran, such a policy requires Israel to act with the US’s spurned Arab allies to check Iran’s expansionism and nuclear progress. It also requires Israel to galvanize strong opposition to Obama’s goal of replacing Israel with Iran as America’s chief ally in the Middle East and enabling it to develop nuclear weapons.
As for the Palestinians, Israel needs to view Obama’s abandonment of the peace process as an opportunity to improve our diplomatic position by resetting our relations with the Palestinians. Since 1993, Israel has been entrapped by the chimerical promise of a “two-state solution.”
By late 2000, the majority of Israelis had recognized that there is no way to achieve the two-state solution. There is no way to make peace with the PLO. But due to successive governments’ aversion to risking a crisis in relations with Washington, no one dared abandon the failed two-state strategy.
Now, with Obama himself declaring the peace process dead and replacing it with a policy of pure hostility toward Israel, Israel has nothing to gain from upholding a policy that blames it for the absence of peace.
No matter how loudly Netanyahu declares his allegiance to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, Obama will keep castigating him and Israel as the destroyer of peace.
The prevailing, 23-year-old view among our leadership posits that if we abandon the two-state model, we will lose American support, particularly liberal American support. But the truth is more complicated.
Inspired by the White House and the Israeli Left, pro-Israel Democrats now have difficulty believing Netanyahu’s statements of support for the establishment of a Palestinians state. But those who truly uphold liberal values of human rights can be convinced of the rightness of Israel’s conviction that peace is currently impossible and as a consequence, the two-state model must be put on the back burner.
We can maintain support among Republicans and Democrats alike if we present an alternative policy that makes sense in the absence of an option for the two-state model.
Such a policy is the Israeli sovereignty model. If the government adopts a policy of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in whole—as I recommend in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, or in part, in Area C, as Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recommends, our leaders will be able to defend their actions before the American people, including pro-Israel Democrats.
Israel must base its policy of sovereignty on two principles. First, this is a liberal policy that will ensure the civil rights of Palestinians and Israelis alike, and improve the Palestinians’ standard of living.
Second, such a policy is not necessarily a longterm or permanent “solution,” but it is a stable equilibrium for now.
Just as Israel’s decision to apply its laws to united Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the past didn’t prevent it from conducting negotiations regarding the possible transfer of control over the areas to the Palestinians and Syrians, respectively, so an administrative decision to apply Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria will not block the path for negotiations with the Palestinians when regional and internal Palestinian conditions render them practicable.
The sovereignty policy is both liberal and strategically viable. If the government adopts it, the move will rebuild Israel’s credibility and preserve Israel’s standing on both sides of the aisle in Washington.
Never before has Israel had to deal with such an openly hostile US administration. Indeed, until 2009, the very notion that a day would come when an American president would prefer an alliance with Khamenei’s Iran to its traditional alliances with Israel and the Sunni Arab states was never even considered. But here we are.
Our current situation is unpleasant. But it isn’t the end of the world. We aren’t helpless. If we act wisely, we can stem Iran’s nuclear and regional advance. If we act boldly, we can preserve our alliance with the US while adopting a policy toward the Palestinians that for the first time in decades will advance our interests and our liberal values on the world stage.
By Caroline Glick
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Managing-Obamas-war-against-Israel-395282
Population Control in the Name of Sustainable Development
New documentary exposes radical agenda, says Steven Mosher
Population Control in the Name of Sustainable Development
FRONT ROYAL, Va.,—“It’s Easy Being Green When You Have No Choice,” a controversial new documentary, exposes how our world today is being influenced to believe that humans are responsible for the assured destruction of the world by “climate change.” The proffered solution to such assured destruction is something called “sustainable development.”
But “sustainable development” is really nothing more than a tool, inspired by communist ideals, to indoctrinate us to accept a highly-controlled society in which human activity is closely monitored in the name of preserving the planet.
In the documentary, population control expert Steven Mosher explains the lengths to which the environmental movement will go to normalize population control as a means to save the planet. In reality, population control helps the environmentalists achieve their ultimate goal - total control of global resources-including the ultimate source: human beings.
Mosher says, “Ask the population controllers what-in the name of sustainable development or in the name of reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses-are they prepared to do? The answer? They’re prepared to do anything: they’re prepared to arrest women for the crime of being pregnant, give them Caesarean section abortions and sterilize them for life. This is happening in China as we speak.”
“One of the tools that they use very successfully, is sexualizing children-teaching them all about the mechanics of sex and nothing about the higher purpose of the sexual act -taking sex out of the context of marriage, out of the context of having children, and reducing it to an animal act.
“Why do they do this? Because sexualizing children helps to reduce the population because there are lots of young people who grow up thinking, ‘I’m really not interested in marrying and if I do, I’m not interested in having children’ because the emphasis is entirely on seeking pleasure out of the sexual act and not in having children. Children are a form of pollution, children are carbon-emitters.”
About the Author: Steven W. Mosher is an internationally recognized authority on China and population issues, as well as an acclaimed author and speaker. He has worked tirelessly since 1979 to fight coercive population control programs and has helped hundreds of thousands of women and families worldwide over the years. He has appeared numerous times before Congress as an expert in world population, China, and human rights abuses He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation.
By Christian Newswire
Population Control in the Name of Sustainable Development
FRONT ROYAL, Va.,—“It’s Easy Being Green When You Have No Choice,” a controversial new documentary, exposes how our world today is being influenced to believe that humans are responsible for the assured destruction of the world by “climate change.” The proffered solution to such assured destruction is something called “sustainable development.”
But “sustainable development” is really nothing more than a tool, inspired by communist ideals, to indoctrinate us to accept a highly-controlled society in which human activity is closely monitored in the name of preserving the planet.
In the documentary, population control expert Steven Mosher explains the lengths to which the environmental movement will go to normalize population control as a means to save the planet. In reality, population control helps the environmentalists achieve their ultimate goal - total control of global resources-including the ultimate source: human beings.
Mosher says, “Ask the population controllers what-in the name of sustainable development or in the name of reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses-are they prepared to do? The answer? They’re prepared to do anything: they’re prepared to arrest women for the crime of being pregnant, give them Caesarean section abortions and sterilize them for life. This is happening in China as we speak.”
“One of the tools that they use very successfully, is sexualizing children-teaching them all about the mechanics of sex and nothing about the higher purpose of the sexual act -taking sex out of the context of marriage, out of the context of having children, and reducing it to an animal act.
“Why do they do this? Because sexualizing children helps to reduce the population because there are lots of young people who grow up thinking, ‘I’m really not interested in marrying and if I do, I’m not interested in having children’ because the emphasis is entirely on seeking pleasure out of the sexual act and not in having children. Children are a form of pollution, children are carbon-emitters.”
About the Author: Steven W. Mosher is an internationally recognized authority on China and population issues, as well as an acclaimed author and speaker. He has worked tirelessly since 1979 to fight coercive population control programs and has helped hundreds of thousands of women and families worldwide over the years. He has appeared numerous times before Congress as an expert in world population, China, and human rights abuses He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation.
By Christian Newswire
VIDEO] Roads Blockaded To Highlight Missing & Murdered Women
VIDEO] Roads Blockaded To Highlight Missing & Murdered Women
RESIST! CANADA, INDIGENOUS WOMEN
On February 13th, 2015, thousands of people across Canada blockaded roads to spread awareness regarding (especially in Winnipeg) the lack of inquiries into the absurd number of missing and murdered indigenous women.
Here’s an excerpt from the national event page:
“There is no democracy and we the people have an obligation to demand justice for all. The current status quo in so called Canada serves only the elite few while the majority of Canadians are financial slaves to the system. Politicians do not represent the people, nor have they ever. Indigenous communities know this all too well and have been actively resisting subjugation since contact with the first colonizers who illegally imposed their jurisdiction through covert biological warfare and the ongoing genocide implemented with the residential school system.”
Despite the blockade happening far east in the city nearly out of city limits on a bitter cold and windy day, it had a profound effect on the city. It hit all of the news stations, was all over the radio and there were calls coming in from people asking what was happening on Portage. There weren’t huge numbers, but it had its own impact.
While there were several racist remarks coming from angry drivers who had a small reroute, the point of the rally was larger than the driver’s need to get somewhere 3 or 4 minutes earlier. This isn’t about propping up one race, WAM isn’t collectivist, this is about justice for the clearly ignored missing and murdered indigenous women. Against a corrupt government that’s slowly enslaving us with the destruction of one civil liberty after another.
The blockade happened a day before The 8th Annual Memorial March for All Missing and Murdered.
Video take and edited by Josh Sigurdson
Featuring:
Sandy Banman
Harrison Friesen Powder
Kylo Prince
Graphics by Bryan Foerster
Music:
Floodways Part 2: Return to Lake Agassiz – Illusive Mind
For all WAM updates and reports, visit our website, register for free and get our newsletter emailed to you weekly!
http://winnipegalternativemedia.com
By Winnipeg Alternative Media, www.youtube.com
RESIST! CANADA, INDIGENOUS WOMEN
On February 13th, 2015, thousands of people across Canada blockaded roads to spread awareness regarding (especially in Winnipeg) the lack of inquiries into the absurd number of missing and murdered indigenous women.
Here’s an excerpt from the national event page:
“There is no democracy and we the people have an obligation to demand justice for all. The current status quo in so called Canada serves only the elite few while the majority of Canadians are financial slaves to the system. Politicians do not represent the people, nor have they ever. Indigenous communities know this all too well and have been actively resisting subjugation since contact with the first colonizers who illegally imposed their jurisdiction through covert biological warfare and the ongoing genocide implemented with the residential school system.”
Despite the blockade happening far east in the city nearly out of city limits on a bitter cold and windy day, it had a profound effect on the city. It hit all of the news stations, was all over the radio and there were calls coming in from people asking what was happening on Portage. There weren’t huge numbers, but it had its own impact.
While there were several racist remarks coming from angry drivers who had a small reroute, the point of the rally was larger than the driver’s need to get somewhere 3 or 4 minutes earlier. This isn’t about propping up one race, WAM isn’t collectivist, this is about justice for the clearly ignored missing and murdered indigenous women. Against a corrupt government that’s slowly enslaving us with the destruction of one civil liberty after another.
The blockade happened a day before The 8th Annual Memorial March for All Missing and Murdered.
Video take and edited by Josh Sigurdson
Featuring:
Sandy Banman
Harrison Friesen Powder
Kylo Prince
Graphics by Bryan Foerster
Music:
Floodways Part 2: Return to Lake Agassiz – Illusive Mind
For all WAM updates and reports, visit our website, register for free and get our newsletter emailed to you weekly!
http://winnipegalternativemedia.com
By Winnipeg Alternative Media, www.youtube.com
Capitalism Is Just A Story And Other Dangerous Thoughts, Part I
Capitalism Is Just A Story And Other Dangerous Thoughts, Part I
CREATE! CAPITALISM, GLOBALIZATION, IDEOLOGY
“That is, there are no dangerous thoughts for the simple reason that thinking itself is such a dangerous enterprise…. nonthinking is even more dangerous.” - Hannah Arendt
Wherever we turn, it seems that there is a great narrowing. Ideas that have engaged great leaders, philosophers, poets and visionaries through the ages are being boxed away as if they are obvious, and settled. What is human progress? What do we mean by “growth”? What is freedom? How do we balance our wants and needs against those of future generations? These ideas are the foundations of human life and society and yet there is ever less interest in them in the corridors of global power.
The front edge of this wave is that mesh of political and corporate actors who wield material global power; this includes the leaders of G20 nations and Fortune 500 companies and the vast majority of parliamentarians and executives that surround them. Each of them will give you the same basic answers. They will say that progress is, first and foremost, economic growth. Everything – by which they mean everything – else is secondary because it’s necessarily an offshoot of that growth; it’s the economy, stupid!
Growth, in turn, is the increase of profit or the national equivalent, Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Ergo, GDP is progress. Freedom is the capacity of me and mine to have and to own, to progress and to grow according to the above. Our wants and needs are paramount; sacrificing an inch of that freedom is unconscionable.
And that’s if they’re moderates. It matters little, now, whether they are nominally on the left or right of any aisle; everyone with direct access to global power believes the above to be so obvious as to preclude alternatives. How else, they say, could it possibly be?
The answer to which should be, how long have you got?
This narrowing is happening at a time when what is required is a great expansion. Is this truly the best/worst system human beings can create? Does economic growth really capture who we are? Does vast inequality represent the best humanity can do? Is destruction of our planetary habitat inevitable? To answer these sorts of questions we need more options, not more uniformity; more deep thinking, not more rote acceptance; more opposition, not more repetition of the cold, dry lie that there is no alternative.
We would like to suggest that our only absolute limitation is our collective imagination, expressed through our will to change the mythologies that hold this house of cards together. We believe there is an emergent consciousness, stretching out against this narrowing, gradually becoming aware of itself and its awesome power.
We can hear its insurgent voice in social movements as diverse as the Arab Spring, the Chilean Winter, the Idle No More Indigenous movement, the anti-corruption movements in Brazil and India, the gentle but insistent dissent of Occupy Central in Hong Kong, the furious disbelief of protestors in Ferguson and New York City, and the dozens of African Awakenings happening across the Continent.
They are each different and specific, but at the heart of all of them is a voice saying that we have a system that is failing 99% of us. As whole populations are learning to communicate and think together in order to cope with whole-world problems, it says, we can do much, much better.
Our system of modern capitalism is just one story; it is not the only one there is. It’s not inherent within us. It isn’t some inevitable expression of predefined Human Nature. It was invented by human beings and so human beings can change it. But in order to get there, we first have to engage in some “dangerous thinking.”
Dangerous Thought One: Ideology Rules
Those in power have always told us to beware of ideology. There is a strong inference that it represents a warping of our pragmatic ability to get things done by whatever means necessary. But that’s just plain wrong. And a necessary distraction, of course. Ideology is the set of ideas and ideals we all must hold to operate in the world. It is not a weakness of those who don’t agree with us.
The deep irony is that by demonizing ideology they are clearing space for their ideology in particular. If only bad or stupid people are ideological, the logic goes, those we vote for and buy from, who fill our TV screens and make our laptops, somehow can’t be ideologues themselves. The ideas that bind them must be above ideology. That is their story.
But is there any way in which the U.S. spending $400 billion annually on the military is not a statement of ideology? Or the subsidization of very large, very rich corporations like Exxon Mobil or GE with taxpayers’ money? Or the failure to regulate the casino banks of Wall Street? These are all active strategies for success by some measure, grounded in ideas and ideals, and so are, by definition, deeply ideological. Simply saying your ideals float above ideology doesn’t make it so. It merely turns our fear of “being ideological” into a means of reinforcing the potency of the status quo. As the philosopher Slavoj Zizek says, “Ideology is always a background condition.”
The dominant ideology in the world today is called neoliberal capitalism. Some call it the Washington Consensus or Market Fundamentalism, but for the sake of this conversation, we’ll call it Neoliberalism.
Quite simply, it is a practical expression of three philosophical premises. First, that our relationship to others is best filtered through a competitive lens (am I better, richer, etc.), which inevitably leads to rigid hierarchies, zero-sum logic and a lot of unthinking dogma.
Second, it equates wealth with life success, which is then equated to virtue (e.g. rich people are good, poor people are bad, therefore poverty is a moral failing). Finally, the individual is the primary unit of power (e.g. Thatcher’s famous line: “There is no such thing as society, just individuals and families”). People are responsible to themselves first, peers second, and possibly their God, in that order. Classic Ayn Rand.
The implications for this “moral philosophy” are diabolical. It leads directly to the economics of the self-obsessed individual, which leads to the atomization of our society and the focus on personal consumption as salvation. It justifies the bankrupt notion of trickle down economics, smuggling in notions such as: “self-interest benefits everyone,” “there’s an all-knowing invisible hand,” “there is supreme efficiency in the market,” “the more rich people the better,” etc. And it prioritizes private property rather than the collective ownership, which in turn leads to what the late Harvard economist J.K. Galbraith called “private affluence and public squalor.”
Neoliberalism can be summarized by this equation: selfishness is rational and rationality is everything; therefore selfishness is everything.
Dangerous Thought Two: Climate Change and Inequality are Created by Our Current Economic System
How many of us truly believe the old economists’ trope that the world’s major issues such as climate change and inequality are “externalities” of our current system; things that have come to be entirely alongside or even in spite of what humans have been doing? It is self-evident that they are the logical outcome of a system that requires ever more consumption to drive perpetual material growth, and that is fueled by the extraction of a finite supply of natural resources.
Bloomberg recently reported that for every dollar of income created in the U.S. since 2008, 93 cents of the income growth has gone to top 1%. So it doesn’t matter where that money is made, 93 cents is going to the top 1%. Therefore, every dollar of wealth created by definition creates more inequality. As coders would say, this is not a bug in the system, but a feature of the system.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-02/top-1-got-93-of-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened
Relatedly, the activist and scholar Firoze Manji has suggested that climate change is not man made, but capital made. Every dollar of wealth created in the world heats up our planet because we have an extractives and fossil fuel based economy.
Capitalism turns natural resources into commodities in order to attract more capital. That’s its sole purpose. As the recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has shown, we are now on course for a 3-4 degree rise in temperature by 2050, which is correlated to a 40%-50% loss of biodiversity. In other words, half of all plant and animal life on this planet will no longer be with us in under 40 years because of the voracious human appetite for more growth. Scientists tell us that we are already in sixth great planetary extinctionwith 150 to 200 species dying every day. This is 1,000 times the baseline rate of extinction.http://truth-out.org/news/item/27869-extinction-rate-rivals-that-of-dinosaurs-2014-likely-hottest-year-ever
The logic of neoliberalism and our current economic system locks us into this path dependency, so it feels like we can never risk slowing growth. We even subsidize our own destruction by giving more money to fossil fuel companies and expanding their ability to destroy the planet through additional infrastructure like new pipelines and oil exploration projects. Exxon made over $40 billion in profit last year, the highest profit in the history of money, while the U.S. government gave them over $1 billion of taxpayer money in subsidies in the same year. And they are paying less than 15% in tax while paying zero federal tax.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/01/1525441/exxon-chevron-2012-profit/
Most of us understand these links and the logic, but with the great narrowing in the corridors of power there is seemingly no way to turn that knowledge into concerted action. At least, that is what the power elites would like us to believe.
We will explore the final three “dangerous thoughts” and what possibilities exist for radical change in part two of this series, which runs Friday.
Alnoor Ladha and Martin Kirk are founding members of “/The Rules,” a global network of activists, organizers, designers, coders, researchers and writers dedicated to changing the rules that create inequality and poverty around the world.
By Alnoor Ladha and Martin Kerk, www.occupy.com
CREATE! CAPITALISM, GLOBALIZATION, IDEOLOGY
“That is, there are no dangerous thoughts for the simple reason that thinking itself is such a dangerous enterprise…. nonthinking is even more dangerous.” - Hannah Arendt
Wherever we turn, it seems that there is a great narrowing. Ideas that have engaged great leaders, philosophers, poets and visionaries through the ages are being boxed away as if they are obvious, and settled. What is human progress? What do we mean by “growth”? What is freedom? How do we balance our wants and needs against those of future generations? These ideas are the foundations of human life and society and yet there is ever less interest in them in the corridors of global power.
The front edge of this wave is that mesh of political and corporate actors who wield material global power; this includes the leaders of G20 nations and Fortune 500 companies and the vast majority of parliamentarians and executives that surround them. Each of them will give you the same basic answers. They will say that progress is, first and foremost, economic growth. Everything – by which they mean everything – else is secondary because it’s necessarily an offshoot of that growth; it’s the economy, stupid!
Growth, in turn, is the increase of profit or the national equivalent, Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Ergo, GDP is progress. Freedom is the capacity of me and mine to have and to own, to progress and to grow according to the above. Our wants and needs are paramount; sacrificing an inch of that freedom is unconscionable.
And that’s if they’re moderates. It matters little, now, whether they are nominally on the left or right of any aisle; everyone with direct access to global power believes the above to be so obvious as to preclude alternatives. How else, they say, could it possibly be?
The answer to which should be, how long have you got?
This narrowing is happening at a time when what is required is a great expansion. Is this truly the best/worst system human beings can create? Does economic growth really capture who we are? Does vast inequality represent the best humanity can do? Is destruction of our planetary habitat inevitable? To answer these sorts of questions we need more options, not more uniformity; more deep thinking, not more rote acceptance; more opposition, not more repetition of the cold, dry lie that there is no alternative.
We would like to suggest that our only absolute limitation is our collective imagination, expressed through our will to change the mythologies that hold this house of cards together. We believe there is an emergent consciousness, stretching out against this narrowing, gradually becoming aware of itself and its awesome power.
We can hear its insurgent voice in social movements as diverse as the Arab Spring, the Chilean Winter, the Idle No More Indigenous movement, the anti-corruption movements in Brazil and India, the gentle but insistent dissent of Occupy Central in Hong Kong, the furious disbelief of protestors in Ferguson and New York City, and the dozens of African Awakenings happening across the Continent.
They are each different and specific, but at the heart of all of them is a voice saying that we have a system that is failing 99% of us. As whole populations are learning to communicate and think together in order to cope with whole-world problems, it says, we can do much, much better.
Our system of modern capitalism is just one story; it is not the only one there is. It’s not inherent within us. It isn’t some inevitable expression of predefined Human Nature. It was invented by human beings and so human beings can change it. But in order to get there, we first have to engage in some “dangerous thinking.”
Dangerous Thought One: Ideology Rules
Those in power have always told us to beware of ideology. There is a strong inference that it represents a warping of our pragmatic ability to get things done by whatever means necessary. But that’s just plain wrong. And a necessary distraction, of course. Ideology is the set of ideas and ideals we all must hold to operate in the world. It is not a weakness of those who don’t agree with us.
The deep irony is that by demonizing ideology they are clearing space for their ideology in particular. If only bad or stupid people are ideological, the logic goes, those we vote for and buy from, who fill our TV screens and make our laptops, somehow can’t be ideologues themselves. The ideas that bind them must be above ideology. That is their story.
But is there any way in which the U.S. spending $400 billion annually on the military is not a statement of ideology? Or the subsidization of very large, very rich corporations like Exxon Mobil or GE with taxpayers’ money? Or the failure to regulate the casino banks of Wall Street? These are all active strategies for success by some measure, grounded in ideas and ideals, and so are, by definition, deeply ideological. Simply saying your ideals float above ideology doesn’t make it so. It merely turns our fear of “being ideological” into a means of reinforcing the potency of the status quo. As the philosopher Slavoj Zizek says, “Ideology is always a background condition.”
The dominant ideology in the world today is called neoliberal capitalism. Some call it the Washington Consensus or Market Fundamentalism, but for the sake of this conversation, we’ll call it Neoliberalism.
Quite simply, it is a practical expression of three philosophical premises. First, that our relationship to others is best filtered through a competitive lens (am I better, richer, etc.), which inevitably leads to rigid hierarchies, zero-sum logic and a lot of unthinking dogma.
Second, it equates wealth with life success, which is then equated to virtue (e.g. rich people are good, poor people are bad, therefore poverty is a moral failing). Finally, the individual is the primary unit of power (e.g. Thatcher’s famous line: “There is no such thing as society, just individuals and families”). People are responsible to themselves first, peers second, and possibly their God, in that order. Classic Ayn Rand.
The implications for this “moral philosophy” are diabolical. It leads directly to the economics of the self-obsessed individual, which leads to the atomization of our society and the focus on personal consumption as salvation. It justifies the bankrupt notion of trickle down economics, smuggling in notions such as: “self-interest benefits everyone,” “there’s an all-knowing invisible hand,” “there is supreme efficiency in the market,” “the more rich people the better,” etc. And it prioritizes private property rather than the collective ownership, which in turn leads to what the late Harvard economist J.K. Galbraith called “private affluence and public squalor.”
Neoliberalism can be summarized by this equation: selfishness is rational and rationality is everything; therefore selfishness is everything.
Dangerous Thought Two: Climate Change and Inequality are Created by Our Current Economic System
How many of us truly believe the old economists’ trope that the world’s major issues such as climate change and inequality are “externalities” of our current system; things that have come to be entirely alongside or even in spite of what humans have been doing? It is self-evident that they are the logical outcome of a system that requires ever more consumption to drive perpetual material growth, and that is fueled by the extraction of a finite supply of natural resources.
Bloomberg recently reported that for every dollar of income created in the U.S. since 2008, 93 cents of the income growth has gone to top 1%. So it doesn’t matter where that money is made, 93 cents is going to the top 1%. Therefore, every dollar of wealth created by definition creates more inequality. As coders would say, this is not a bug in the system, but a feature of the system.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-02/top-1-got-93-of-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened
Relatedly, the activist and scholar Firoze Manji has suggested that climate change is not man made, but capital made. Every dollar of wealth created in the world heats up our planet because we have an extractives and fossil fuel based economy.
Capitalism turns natural resources into commodities in order to attract more capital. That’s its sole purpose. As the recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has shown, we are now on course for a 3-4 degree rise in temperature by 2050, which is correlated to a 40%-50% loss of biodiversity. In other words, half of all plant and animal life on this planet will no longer be with us in under 40 years because of the voracious human appetite for more growth. Scientists tell us that we are already in sixth great planetary extinctionwith 150 to 200 species dying every day. This is 1,000 times the baseline rate of extinction.http://truth-out.org/news/item/27869-extinction-rate-rivals-that-of-dinosaurs-2014-likely-hottest-year-ever
The logic of neoliberalism and our current economic system locks us into this path dependency, so it feels like we can never risk slowing growth. We even subsidize our own destruction by giving more money to fossil fuel companies and expanding their ability to destroy the planet through additional infrastructure like new pipelines and oil exploration projects. Exxon made over $40 billion in profit last year, the highest profit in the history of money, while the U.S. government gave them over $1 billion of taxpayer money in subsidies in the same year. And they are paying less than 15% in tax while paying zero federal tax.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/01/1525441/exxon-chevron-2012-profit/
Most of us understand these links and the logic, but with the great narrowing in the corridors of power there is seemingly no way to turn that knowledge into concerted action. At least, that is what the power elites would like us to believe.
We will explore the final three “dangerous thoughts” and what possibilities exist for radical change in part two of this series, which runs Friday.
Alnoor Ladha and Martin Kirk are founding members of “/The Rules,” a global network of activists, organizers, designers, coders, researchers and writers dedicated to changing the rules that create inequality and poverty around the world.
By Alnoor Ladha and Martin Kerk, www.occupy.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
