Remembering the USS Liberty and Her Crew


USS Liberty after the deliberate Israeli attack: In addition to torpedo damage, 861 holes the size of a man’s hand and larger were found in the ship, along with thousands more from .50 caliber machine guns.

By the EoV Staff, May 29, 2017 •

It is tradition each Memorial Day to commemorate the sacrifices of our fallen American war veterans. Today we’d like to redirect your attention to the forgotten. The 8 June 1967 attack on the USS Liberty during the fourth day of the Six-Day War is a story worth retelling — and re-investigating.

The decorations for heroism bestowed upon the brave souls of the Liberty — including a Congressional Medal of Honor — were delivered under cloak of secrecy and accompanied by threats, should any crew member disclose what they had witnessed that day.

There is no doubt that LBJ, his defense secretary Robert McNamara, and Admiral John McCain Jr. (yes, father of that McCain) intended to take the truth to their graves. Yet the voices of the surviving Liberty sailors and families of the dead continue to speak out. Along with the facts.

The following is an excerpt of an article by Judy Morris, originally published in the Judy Morris Report, January 27, 2013:

The “official” story of the USS Liberty, according to the government and mainstream media version of the event, is that on June 8, 1967 the Israelis accidentally bombed the Liberty off the coast of Egypt and killed 34 American sailors.

The real story is that President Johnson, who was being battered in the polls over the Vietnam War and facing a general election loss and even losing the Democrat primary, [encouraged] the Israelis to bomb the Liberty to create a casus belli and to secure a Gulf-of-Tonkin-style resolution to explode the world into war — because in America everybody loves an outraged and indignant president who will use the full force of the military at the slightest provocation, even a government-planned false flag attack.

The USS Liberty, however, encompasses far more than a murderous psychopathic American president resorting to hideously evil deeds to get re-elected. In addition to ordering the total destruction of the USS Liberty and potentially sending 294 Americans to a watery grave in the Mediterranean Sea, LBJ also ordered the nuclear bombing of Cairo, an event specifically designed to create a nuclear war by blaming the entire USS Liberty affair on Russia or Egypt. More horrifying, it’s documented that US planes were on emergency standby orders as pilots waited on the runways in their planes armed with nuclear weapons. The nuclear bombing of Cairo was called off only three minutes before the nuclear bomb drops. Keep reading here.

Additional information about the attack on the USS Liberty is below.

Running Time: 10:55

Running Time: 1:08:32

Books on the USS Liberty:

Assault on the Liberty by James M. Ennes Jr. (survivor and Second in Command)

Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War Three by Peter Hounam

In Memoriam:

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Random Acts of Tyranny, The Aristocracy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Remembering the USS Liberty and Her Crew

Monthly Feature: The End of the Liberal Tradition?

A New Paper Suggests Young Americans Are Giving Up on Democracy

By Mark Movesian at First Things, August 17, 2016 •

About twenty-five years ago, The National Interest published “The End of History?”— Francis Fukuyama’s extremely influential article arguing that liberal democracy had defeated all rivals and become the only plausible form of politics for the nations of the world. Agreement had been reached, wrote Fukuyama, on the essential features of good government: rule of the people, tempered by a robust commitment to civil liberties; civilian control of the military; market economics; and free trade among nations. These ideas had shown themselves the guarantors of peace and prosperity, and it was only a matter of time before states everywhere endorsed them.

At the time, some people wondered whether religious and cultural differences might stymie the global triumph of liberal democracy. Liberalism did not comport well with the assumptions of all the world’s civilizations, Samuel Huntington objected; it was myopic to think that the Western traditions of rights and limited government, which themselves had evolved out of Christian tradition, particularly Western Christian tradition, were universal. Right-thinking people dismissed Huntington as a know-nothing, but, twenty-five years later, his understanding has proven correct. Hardly anyone could look at world politics today and argue that liberal democracy is sweeping the globe.

In fact, a fascinating new paper in The Journal of Democracy suggests that liberal democracy is losing ground even at home, in the West. Political scientists Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk review data from recent World Values Surveys and observe some truly remarkable trends, especially among young people. Young people often reject the traditions of their elders; that’s nothing new. What they seem to be rejecting nowadays, though, in increasing numbers, is the tradition of liberalism itself.

For example, the percentage of people in Western Europe and the United States who say it is “essential” for them to live in a democratically-governed country has declined dramatically across generations. In the United States, less than one-third of millennials—defined as people born since 1980—say it is essential for them. Think about that: More than two-thirds of American young people say democratic government is not a crucial factor in where they would want to live.

According to Foa and Mounk, these numbers do not reflect growing indifference to liberal democracy, but growing opposition. In the surveys, young people increasingly express openness to authoritarianism—especially young people who are rich. An astonishing 35 percent of wealthy young Americans say it would be “a ‘good’ thing for the army to take over” the country! This is a profound change from prior generations, in which “affluent citizens were much more likely than people of lower income groups to defend democratic institutions.”

Democracy and liberty are not necessarily linked; the mob can violate freedom, too. Perhaps young Americans are suspicious of popular majorities but remain committed to civil rights? This, also, turns out to be doubtful. The surveys reveal that younger Americans value civil liberties, such as free speech, less than their parents did. For example, only 32 percent of millennials say that civil rights are “absolutely essential” in a democracy, a steep drop from previous generations.

Now, as commentators have pointed out, this is just one set of data. It’s possible that the World Values Surveys overstate liberalism’s diminishing appeal and miss trends that favor its long-run prospects, such as “the high levels of social tolerance among young people.” But Foa and Mounk’s paper certainly seems plausible. In fact, the paper helps explains some of what is happening in American political culture.

Liberalism is often understood as propositional, as a series of abstract principles. This understanding has led scholars like Fukuyama to think that liberalism can be easily exported to other cultures; it has formed the basis for much American foreign policy, especially in recent decades. In important ways, this understanding is correct. Liberalism does justify itself largely on the basis of ideas. The Framers of the American Constitution, for example, were strongly influenced by Enlightenment concepts of reason and rational government.

In a deeper sense, though, liberalism generally, and American liberalism specifically, is a tradition, the organic working-out of precedent, over time, in a particular political culture. The American Framers were figures of the Enlightenment, true, but they also thought they were restoring the traditional rights of Englishmen, rights that could be traced back to Magna Carta and beyond. The American conception of religious liberty, for example, is deeply influenced by the historical experience of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, and also by the particular understanding of religion that took hold in a colonial, frontier society. This explains why it differs so much from its cousin on the European continent, the French doctrine of laïcité.

But American culture is changing. Our traditions are not so popular nowadays, including our political traditions; and when we discard our traditions, we can fall for many things, including, apparently, authoritarianism. That, it seems to me, is the upshot of this important paper. The authors identify authoritarianism in our politics with Donald Trump, and it’s easy to recognize Trump’s authoritarian appeal (“I alone can fix it”). But there is authoritarianism on the left, as well, which the authors ignore. American college students increasingly oppose free speech, at least with respect to certain viewpoints, and insist on shutting down speakers with whom they disagree, often with the approval of administrators and faculty who should know better. Not to mention the left’s continuing assaults on religious liberty, including attempts to get nuns to cover contraceptives for their employees and threats to remove the tax-exempt status of religious schools that disapprove of same-sex marriage.

Foa and Mounk’s paper is bracing. If the trends they identify continue, the West, including the United States, faces a political transformation unlike anything we have seen for generations. Liberal democracy doesn’t look like it’s about to collapse, they concede. But, then, neither did world communism, even right before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Mark L. Movsesian co-directs the Tradition Project at the St. John’s Center for Law and Religion.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Globalism, Learn Liberty, Progressivism, The Constitution, The Crisis, The Founders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Monthly Feature: The End of the Liberal Tradition?

How the U.S. Nurtures Jihadists on Its Own Soil

‘Welfare for ISIS’ story rocks Maine as governor blows whistle

Maine Governor Paul LePage

Maine Governor Paul LePage

By Leo Hohmann at WND, August 25, 2016 •

Maine Gov. Paul LePage is seeking sweeping changes in the way refugees are awarded welfare benefits after he blew the whistle on an “embarrassing” situation in his own state.

An Iranian refugee left Maine to fight for ISIS while he and his family received food stamps and other benefits for four years.

LePage is calling for an audit of all taxpayer-funded payouts to refugees in his state and nationwide, the Boston Herald reported in an article titled, “Welfare for ISIS: The outrageous case of Iranian refugee Adnan Fazeli.”

Fazeli, 38, came to Freeport, Maine, in 2009 and was killed last year on the battlefield in Lebanon after abandoning his wife and three kids to join the Caliphate’s army, according to federal court documents unsealed this week and disclosed by the Herald.

The family’s food stamps and welfare checks were cut off in 2013, Maine officials told the Herald, after Fazeli left the state for Turkey in his drive to become an ISIS fighter.

LePage said the outrageous revelation of an ISIS convert in his midst has left him “embarrassed” and outraged at President Obama’s “failed” vetting of immigrants, adding he’s fed up with states like his being left to deal with the refugee crisis.

“If people need to eat, I’ll feed them. But I want to keep Americans safe,” LePage told the Herald. “This is very embarrassing to the state of Maine, and I point the finger at the president and say, ‘How did this happen?’ If the federal government doesn’t do their job we don’t know what we’re getting.”

The free WND special report, “ISIS Rising,” by Middle East expert and former Department of Defense analyst Michael Maloof, will answer your questions about the jihadist army threatening the West.

Fazeli reportedly became “self-radicalized” over the Internet while living in the U.S., according to an affidavit written by a state police detective on an FBI task force.

Maine officials said Fazeli received thousands of dollars worth of food stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for at least four years until 2013. LePage is now calling for a review of all such benefits in his state.

The governor’s exposure of the “welfare for jihad” angle to the federal refugee resettlement program opens Pandora’s Box for other states where refugees have gone off the rails, boarding flights to Africa or the Middle East to fight for Islamic terror organizations.

The FBI has confirmed, for instance, that at least 35 Somalis have since 2007 left Minnesota and other states to join either al-Shabab in Somalia or ISIS in Syria, and certainly most would have been on welfare.

This is known because the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement’s 2014 Report to Congress shows (on Page 107) that 90 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps and 76 percent are on Medicaid. And 73 percent receive some form of cash assistance. The numbers for African refugees are only slightly lower.

The only difference is Minnesota is led by Democrat Gov. Mark Dayton, who has never had any qualms about paying out tax dollars to refugees on welfare.

LePage made a point of blasting Obama’s failed “vetting” system, but it remains unclear what type of system could have weeded out Fazeli, who became “radicalized” after he arrived in the U.S.

This has been the case with almost all of the refugees and children of refugees who have gone on to wage jihad either here in the U.S. or overseas.

“We raise them up, we pay for their school, we fixed their teeth and pay for their health care, we put roofs over their heads, all of this on our dime and then they become jihadists,” said Ann Corcoran, author of the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog and the book “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.”

“And what would have happened to them if we would have left them in the Middle East? That’s the truth of it. We’re paying to raise these jihadists here in the West.”

New congressional data released in June showed that hundreds of terror attacks have been foiled by the FBI since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, and a majority of them have involved immigrants from Muslim countries. Many others were plotted by second-generation American Muslims born to immigrant parents, indicating they were not assimilated into American culture.

Better vetting or a moratorium?

While President Obama has focused on trying to mainstream Islam, visiting mosques and claiming the religion is “peaceful” and “embedded in the fabric” of American culture, the Republicans in Congress and in the governors’ mansions have focused on the idea that all that is needed is better “vetting” of Muslim immigrants. Even GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who at first called for a moratorium on all Muslim immigration, has softened his stance to “extreme vetting” of migrants.

“Why not just have a moratorium instead of having to set up all these vetting systems that can’t work even at their best with people coming from all these failed states?” asked Dr. Andrew Bostom, an Islamic history scholar and author of several books including “Legacy of Jihad.”

And it’s not just terrorists who need to be screened out of the system, Bostom said. What about “peaceful” Muslims who believe in Shariah and its repression of women and homosexuals, justification of female genital mutilation and honor violence?

“We have a lot of global data on Muslim attitudes toward Shariah, and it’s not just those wanting to blow themselves up and kill people that we need to be worried about,” Bostom said. “If three-fourths of Muslims are Shariah-supremacist in their attitudes, that’s a problem too. It’s not a problem the moment they arrive, but it’s a long-term problem.”

Does the U.S. need more Muslim immigration?

Bostom believes the U.S. should be admitting the victims of global jihadism whether they be Christians from Syria or Pakistan or Yazidi or Bahai from Iraq. “Those are the people to take, the victims not the victimizers. It’s just a crazy policy, this whole idea of refugees.”

Focusing on vetting Muslims who can quickly get “radicalized” by merely looking at the Internet after arriving in U.S. cities will never protect American citizens from either terrorism or from Shariah, he said.

“What the hell does radicalized mean? I don’t know what it means,” Bostom said. “It’s the culture, so to me the only thing to do is to have a moratorium on these regions. By the way, we have enough Muslims in this country, and the ones who are here are not doing a good job of assimilating.”

The Obama administration has been bringing in at least 140,000 migrants per year from Muslim-dominated countries on permanent green-card status. At least that many more arrive every year on temporary visas, either as students or for work-related reasons.

Bostom points to polls commissioned by the Center for Security Policy that found 51 percent of U.S. Muslims said they wanted some form of Shariah, either in whole or in part, in the United States.

Bringing in more Muslims from countries where polls show even higher percentages who want Shariah to be the law of the land makes no sense, Bostom said.

“So what are we doing? Do you want to make that [51 percent] match Pakistan at 75 percent?”

Even Obama’s own FBI director, James Comey, has said vetting is impossible for refugees from Syria and other “failed states,” which would certainly include Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The current system of vetting only seeks to discover ties that immigrants may have to designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The issue of vetting becomes a straw man argument because in researching the backgrounds of Muslim migrants who go on to wage jihad one will find that most did not have any connections to formal organizations like ISIS or al-Qaida at the time they came to the U.S. In fact many were small children or teenagers when they arrived. It was only after they grew up and got serious in their faith, started reading the Quran and attending any one of the many Saudi-funded mosques in the U.S. that they became “radical” in their beliefs.

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killed five U.S. servicemen in Chattanooga last year. He was considered a model American Muslim citizen after migrating with his parents from Kuwait at the age of six.

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killed five U.S. servicemen in Chattanooga last year. He was considered a model American Muslim citizen after migrating with his parents from Kuwait at the age of six.

This was the case with Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the Chattanooga shooter who killed five unarmed U.S. servicemen last year. He came to the U.S. at the age of six, attended U.S. public schools, was popular in high school and earned a college degree. He could have been the poster boy for the successfully assimilated American Muslim immigrant. But at the age of 23 something changed. He got more religious, his friends said, he started attending mosque regularly and grew out his beard. He became more devout. The same could be said for the Tsarnaev brothers, who came to the U.S. as young boys and later carried out the Boston bombing.

Then there’s Omar Mateen, who killed 49 at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on June 12. He was not an immigrant, but he was born in the U.S. to immigrants from Afghanistan. How does the government “vet” against future babies born to Muslim immigrants?

LePage ‘haunted’ by current immigration system

LePage told the Herald that the immigration issue has haunted him since Mohamed Atta — one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — flew to Logan International Airport out of Portland, Maine. LePage was the general manager of Marden’s, a discount store where Atta was seen shopping.

“I’m having (the Maine Department of Health and Human Services) look at our welfare rolls closer,” LePage told the Herald. “All the other states should look at the eligibility, too.”

The governor also noted brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombers, were also self-radicalized while on welfare.

“Asylum seekers come here and we have to put them up, but the federal government is in control,” LePage said. “Once they get here, I can’t do anything about it. Obama says it’s my problem.”

LePage lashed out at Obama, saying the administration’s immigration policies “have been an utter failure and continue to jeopardize the safety of millions of Americans.”

Authorities said Fazeli came to Maine through Catholic Charities Refugee and Immigration Services.

# # #


Posted in Enemies of the State, Progressivism, Random Acts of Tyranny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the U.S. Nurtures Jihadists on Its Own Soil

Globalist Ideology Undermines National Identity, Sovereignty

By Wayne Hill for the Standard-Times, March 9, 2016 •

One World Trade Center has now replaced the old World Trade Center. “One” is an address, but the subliminal message is clear.

The political movement for world government has many facets. For example, we have so-called free-trade agreements that create supranational organizations that govern the agreements made and these supranational organizations supersede our nation’s own congressional authority, resulting in a loss of national sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats. Eventually these supranational organizations will be transformed into regional governing bodies.

What the globalists’ vision is a world similar to what the United States was, which is sovereign states that all agree to a common defense, with open borders and the free flow of goods and services across those borders and the freedom of citizens to move from state to state without hindrance. We have since lost our state sovereignty and are dictated to by a federal master and the coming world government will be master of all the nation states.

Another facet of world government is the creation of global citizens, which entails the loss of national identity and national interests. Ridding a nation of its national identity starts by re-educating its population to think in global terms. The younger generations don’t question globalism, since they’ve been hearing it all their lives, but most of their parents don’t question it either.

Globalist ideology is that all citizens of the world have the same status as all other citizens of the world, regardless of whether they are native to that nation or not. Both illegal immigrants and those who are brought here by United Nations mandates are given higher status for food, medical care, housing and education than our own citizens. Even our homeless veterans don’t have it as good as most illegal immigrants.

Mass immigration serves the globalist ideology by diluting the national identity. If immigration were a controlled process, like the one that existed decades ago, it can be beneficial to a nation, but when it’s out of control and immigrants are literally pouring in as they are today, it leads to a fragmented society of conflicting interests.

Another way that globalist ideology is served by mass immigration is to weaken our form of government. Most of the immigrants entering the U.S. today come from Third World nations who have little to no idea how our national government is designed to work. They come from nations with repressive regimes and would be happy as long as a gun isn’t pointed in their face. Their presence provides the opportunity for a government that no longer answers to constitutional law to continue to expand its power and authority over the true government of this nation, “We the people.”

Globalists pass themselves off as true humanitarians who care about these poor unfortunate people, but in reality their goal is evil in concept because they are imposing their will over you.

Globalist ideology has stolen the power from the people. We had a government of the people, for the people and by the people. That meant a government guided by God, because the true constitutional government of this nation is the people of this nation who overwhelmingly believe in God. Now that the people have lost that power, God is no longer guiding the decisions made in our nation’s capital. The lust for power and privilege, however, is. #

Wayne Hill lives in San Angelo.

# # #


Posted in 2030 Agenda, Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Globalism, Learn Liberty, Progressivism, Rule of Law, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Globalist Ideology Undermines National Identity, Sovereignty

Huma Abedin, Daughter of Jihad

Roger Stone says it’s time to focus on the Hillary Clinton aide whose family has ties to Osama bin Laden.

hillary-humaBy Matthew Vadum for Frontpage Magazine, June 15, 2016 •

Hillary Clinton longtime lieutenant Huma Abedin’s exhaustively documented connections to Islamic terror are receiving renewed attention thanks to a new column written by political gadfly Roger Stone.

Abedin, now vice-chairman of Clinton’s campaign, is the person “closest to the most powerful woman in American politics and perhaps the next President,” Stone writes at Breitbart. “Huma has been described variously as Hillary’s ‘body woman,’ a sort of glorified go-to personal maid, gentle confidant, and by others as an Islamic spy.”

“She may be all of these things,” writes Stone, who is close to GOP presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“Abedin was deeply involved with the establishment of Hillary’s private email server, which was used for all of her work as Secretary of State. Now, since we know Hillary had hundreds of classified or top-secret documents on her vulnerable server (despite her early lies saying she did not), any faith in Huma’s judgment — at the very least — has been demolished. You will soon ask yourself, ‘how did this woman get a security clearance?’”

Abedin’s background, including her suspect ties to Saudi Arabia, was previously examined by FrontPage but sounding the alarm about her connections to the Islamist underworld takes on a heightened urgency now that polls suggest Clinton is dangerously close to assuming the presidency. Abedin has been joined at the hip to Hillary for decades and would probably be a major figure such as policy director or chief of staff in the White House if she wins.

The power this daughter of jihad could — once again — wield over Americans and world affairs is truly frightening. For all we know, Abedin may have played a role in shutting down counter-terrorism measures that could have been useful in preventing Islamist attacks in the U.S. and abroad.

Stone’s report was part rebuttal to a lie-packed column earlier this year from Media Matters for America, the “conservative misinformation” monitoring group Clinton brags about founding. Placed in the unusual position of having to attack its liberal allies in the mainstream media, the MMfA post purported to debunk a relatively mild Vanity Fair profile that examined Abedin’s Islamist ties.

Stone’s report comes in the wake of the jihadist bloodbath perpetrated early Sunday morning by Omar Mir Siddique Mateen at Pulse, a popular gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Police said Mateen wielded a semiautomatic Sig Sauer MCX rifle and a Glock 17 handgun to kill 49 innocent victims and wound another 53 in what has been called the worst mass shooting in American history and the worst domestic terrorist attack since 9/11.

It was widely and incorrectly reported by the Second Amendment-hating media that an AR-15 rifle was used, probably because it fits the Left’s predetermined narrative. The Left fetishizes the wildly popular AR-15, portraying it as a monstrous weapon of mass destruction because in 2012 it was used in the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and the movie theater in Aurora, Colo. It was also used in the mass shootings last year at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., and in San Bernardino, Calif.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the weekend attack after it took place. Mateen himself “claimed allegiance to the Islamic State and praised the Boston Marathon bombers,” before being killed by police on the scene, the New York Times reports.

The Orlando attack is the 86th Islamist terror plot in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the Daily Signal. It is the 20th Islamist attack or plot “aimed at large public gatherings, such as bars and restaurants, shopping malls, parks, and conventions” and the sixth Islamist domestic terror plot or attack in 2016 alone.

FrontPage readers already know the basics about Abedin and her family’s generational ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Mich., Abedin’s mother is Pakistani-born Saleha Mahmood Abedin, widow of Indian-born Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Wahhabist Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz University. Mr. Abedin was affiliated with the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Western Michigan University. The MSA was founded in the 1960s by the Muslim World League (MWL), Saudi Arabia’s largest charity, which is also a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden.

In 1978 the Abedins moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Islamist Abdullah Omar Naseef hired Mr. Abedin to work at the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), an Islamic think tank. Huma’s parents became members of the editorial board of IMMA’s publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which Andrew C. McCarthy has said seeks “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”

Naseef himself is an extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the MWL, an organization McCarthy calls “the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” Huma’s mother became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA’s director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal, identified on its website as “Saleha S. Mahmood.” She is also a founding member of the related group called the Muslim Sisterhood.

When Huma returned to the U.S. and interned in the Clinton White House she was simultaneously a member of the executive board of George Washington University’s MSA. From 1996 to 2008, Abedin was assistant editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Her brother, Hassan Abedin, and sister, Heba Abedin Khalid, are both editors at the publication.

The MWL has received more than $1.3 billion from the Saudi government since 1962, Stone notes.

Naseef, the MWL, and Pakistan created the Rabita Trust in 1988 which a month after 9/11 was designated as a terrorist front and its assets frozen. The Treasury Department said the trust is run by Wa’el Hamza Jalaidan, who founded al-Qaeda with Osama bin Laden. Jalaidan’s assets are also frozen.

A radical cleric named Abdullah Azzam and his protégé, bin Laden, created an organization called Maktab al-Khidamat or MAK in Pakistan in the 1980s to recruit terrorists and raise money. Azzam subsisted on money from the MWL, Stone writes. MAK founders operated in Peshawar out of the office of the MWL and the Muslim Brotherhood. MWL funded MAK using Saudi money “that would eventually go to jihad against the West,” Stone adds. While bin Laden and Azzam rubbed elbows at the MWL’s office the league’s president was Naseef, benefactor of the Abedin family.

On 9/11, Huma was working for Clinton, then a U.S. senator from New York. As the Twin Towers fell Abedin failed to step forward “to shed light” on Naseef, the MWL, or the Rabita Trust. “Sen. Clinton and Huma Abedin betrayed every New Yorker and every American with their silence,” Stone writes.

He notes that on Sept. 18, 2006, while earning a $28,000 annual salary, Abedin purchased a $649,000 Washington, D.C. apartment. “[W]here did the money come from?”

Stone adds:

“We’ve caught the greatest spies due to their spending well beyond their salaries. At the least, what to make of someone who has lived for 17 years in Saudi Arabia, with parents who have close, long-standing ties with people connected to terrorist organizations, and then comes to the U.S. and within two years gets a job as the First Lady’s assistant?”

“This isn’t some minor aide,” Stone writes. “Huma Abedin has been at Clinton’s side for decades, and it’s time America got some answers.”

Recall that Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013, during which she poured gasoline on the Muslim world and lit a match. She failed to support the “green revolution” uprising in Iran in 2009. She engineered the “Arab Spring,” a period of civil unrest, wars, and revolutions in the Arab world that began in late 2010 and was followed by the Arab Winter, a backlash that made Islamism and authoritarianism ascendant in the region. She helped the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak in 2012 to clear the way for their candidate, Mohamed Morsi, to assume the Egyptian presidency.

Hillary helped to oust Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, a move that plunged Libya into chaos. In that anarchic environment Muslim terrorists attacked a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. Clinton failed to provide proper security and did not send U.S. armed forces to attempt a rescue, leaving four Americans dead. She also lied about the nature of the military-style attack, claiming it arose out of Muslims’ anger at an obscure anti-Islam video.

While Hillary was getting people including U.S. allies like Qaddafi killed, ruining lives, undermining American power, advancing political Islam, and lying to the faces of the Benghazi victims’ families, what exactly was Abedin doing behind the scenes?

Stone is right.

Americans need to know what, if any, role Abedin played in Clinton’s decisions that put Americans in harm’s way, started wars, and caused governments to fall.

The stakes are too high not to know. #

Related Reading:

Huma Abedin and the Declassified Saudi Arabia 9/11 Revelations

The State Department’s Muslim Sisterhood: Part 1

The State Department’s Muslim Sisterhood: Part 2

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Progressivism, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Huma Abedin, Daughter of Jihad

France Suppressed News of Gruesome Torture at the Bataclan Theatre Massacre in Paris

Terrorists gouged out eyes, disemboweled and castrated victims, shoved testicles in their mouths, stabbed women in genitals

Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

By Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, July 15, 2016  •

Again we ask, why are Western elites protecting the savage barbarians who are committing unspeakable acts of violence and torture in the cause of Allah?

Why scrub the evil from the evildoers? When is it going to stop? When are rational, civilized, freedom-loving peoples going to break the chains of the leftist/Islamic axis of evil?

People are woefully disarmed in the information battle-space, thanks to the left’s choke hold on media, academia, and culture. When Jesse Hughes, leader of the band Eagles of Death Metal, who was playing at the Bataclan the night of the monstrous jihad attack in Paris, spoke out about what he saw, he was demonized, marginalized and had gigs canceled. That is the world of those of us who speak up against jihad terror and sharia.

Read Exclusive Report here: France ‘Suppressed News of Gruesome Torture’ at Bataclan Massacre,” By Louise Mensch | Heatstreet, 10:50 am, July 15, 2016

bataclan-800x532# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on France Suppressed News of Gruesome Torture at the Bataclan Theatre Massacre in Paris

Smatterings: U.S. Official Can’t (or Won’t) Answer Any Questions About the Covert Arming of Syrian Rebels

If for some bizarre reason you still have any faith left in the U.S. government, this should take care of it.

Why hold a press conference at all?

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Random Acts of Tyranny, Smatterings, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Smatterings: U.S. Official Can’t (or Won’t) Answer Any Questions About the Covert Arming of Syrian Rebels

Decentralize Sovereignty

By Bruce Walker for American Thinker, June 23, 2016 •

Throughout the world, the fundamental problem we face is the hyper-centralization of sovereignty. In America, the vast majority of problems in government would begin at once to heal naturally if the limitless credit card of the federal government, the dimwitted bullying of federal courts and bureaucracies, and the myopia of national media were not consumed by the cesspool on the Potomac.

When Governor Perry began his campaign for the nomination in 2012, he had the best theme of any candidate since Reagan: make what happens in Washington the least important thing in the lives of ordinary Americans. That is the solution to our most pressing political problems: decentralize sovereignty back, where it was always supposed to be, with the states.

More and more conservatives ought to ask themselves what the federal government is doing that could better be done by others

Any currency – banknotes backed by gold, for example – would be better than the Monopoly money issued by that farcical creature, the Federal Reserve System.

The federal government does not protect our borders or keep out terrorists or wage war to win or protect our intellectual property or do anything but engage in destructive and malicious meddling with the American states and the American people. It is the tool of angry ideologues and the milk cow for the true plutocrats, the lobbying and government mafia.

The second part of that decentralization of sovereignty is, of course, to take as much sovereignty as can be possibly transferred and then give that back to individuals or to families or to small communities of like-minded folks who just want to be left alone. There are a few things we really need from state governments but even states are largely now bottomless pits of over-funded programs doing nothing anyone really wants.

Even those few things of value that government does today could be privatized or devolved to local governments, which are truly responsive to the voters and whose foul-ups would cause people to move across city lines and cause property values to plummet – creating a marketplace that works even when politicians did not.

It is a stunning and grim fact that in this presidential election year of profoundly disaffected voters, the most important issue, the radical decentralization of sovereignty, hardly registers a blip in the rhetoric of the candidates and federal politicians, and candidates talk as if problems not “solved” by Washington cannot be solved at all.

What is true in America is true everywhere. The decentralization of sovereignty in Europe has been profoundly liberating – just ask the Irish, the Croats, the Bosnians, the Slovaks, the Montenegrins, the Ukrainians, the Lithuanians…and so on.

The horror that is the European Union is held together now by invested national politicians, greedy pseudo-capitalists, and vast barracks of bureaucrats. These groups always howl at the imagined dangers of decentralization of power because the only value that they have is the calculated and murky manipulation of centralized power producing tawdry bribes and substitutes for the real blessing of liberty. The EU has degraded into a grinning goblin of that worst horror of internationalism, the United Nations, the enemy of truth and freedom everywhere.

Less noticed but no less important than the grave danger of hyper-centralization of sovereignty is the vital benefit of decentralizing sovereignty around the globe. Most of Africa and Asia consists of large nations that are really empires. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Nigeria, and Indonesia, among others, are empires that have many different languages, many different tribal groups, and many different regionally located religious minorities.

What would happen if America strongly supported the decentralization of sovereignty in the Iranian empire, whose Persian population is scarcely half the population? What if America supported the independence of the Azeris, the Baluchs, the Kurds, the Turkmens, the Lurs, and other oppressed subject nationalities trapped within that empire?

What if we supported the creation of small nations carved out of that evil empire as safe havens for the Yazidis, Mandeans, Zoroastrians, Bahá’í, and others who simply want to live in peace in the place they have always called home?

Why doesn’t anyone in Washington advocate this? Why doesn’t the left, that pretended champion of minorities, call for this dissolution into natural parts of the Iranian empire? The left loves to rant about “capitalism,” the real problem is rather “capitolism,” the complete inability to conceive of any solution which does not come from the elites within the ruling city of a huge land.

No politicians, no punditry class, no bureaucratic legions, no power-peddlers with deep pockets – no one who “counts,” in other words – supports the decentralization of sovereignty. It helps only that least important, most forgotten part of any governmental system: the governed.

# # #


Posted in Bill of Rights, Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Federal Reserve, Learn Liberty, Rule of Law, The Aristocracy, The Constitution, The Crisis, The Founders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Decentralize Sovereignty

DHS Secretary Sees All Americans As a Threat: “Gun Control Has To Be a Part of Homeland Security”

un-twisted-gunBy Mac Salvo at SHTFplan, June 15, 2016 •

The agency’s source of power has always been fear.

And now is the time to capitalize upon it.

Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson has seized upon the Orlando shooting and is… rather predictably… using the specter of terrorism as a pretext for instituting gun control on a wider scale. (Of course, he isn’t alone.)

Secretary Johnson told CBS News that:

Just days after the massacre in an Orlando nightclub left 49 people dead and 53 wounded, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Tuesday said that gun control is now a critical element of protecting the U.S. homeland and keeping Americans safe.

“We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security,” Johnson said in an interview on “CBS This Morning.” “We need to do something to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get a gun in this country.”


“I thought frankly after Sandy Hook where you have schoolchildren murdered in a classroom that maybe finally this will be the tipping point and we were not able to move the needle in Congress, unfortunately,” Johnson said.

It seems Jeh Johnson thought Sandy Hook would be all that was necessary to reign in gun rights. For him, it is all part of ‘public safety.’

But apparently, the powers-that-be will wait for a bigger and bigger tragedy until something too big to ignore happens, then they can push for their un-American agenda with the opposition pinned down and the rest of the population too afraid to think.

Maybe the Orlando mass murder is that event.

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson: Passing gun control is now ‘part and parcel of homeland security’:

Though quieter than than it has been under past heads, Homeland Security has clearly maintained the twisted view that all Americans are potential terrorists, and that a preemptive police state, complete with surveillance, data mining and social profile trolling is necessary in order to maintain relative peace.

This attitude is noted in recent meetings of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee, discussing in part its community partnership program for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE):

“Secretary Johnson said there is much left to accomplish in this final year of the Administration… Counterterrorism remains a cornerstone mission of the Department. There is a new environment when it comes to the global terrorism threat, which includes not only terrorist-directed attacks, but terrorist-inspired attacks. These threats call for a whole-of-government response, including military, law enforcement, and robust intelligence gathering and sharing efforts. These efforts extend to the private sector as well, and DHS is very active in this arena.”

It is clear that so-called “right-wing extremists” are still a leading concern for Homeland Security and the federal government agencies.

via Breitbart

One month after the San Bernardino terrorist attack that left 14 innocent people dead, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told advisors that right wing extremists pose just as much of a threat to the country as Islamic extremists.

Johnson made the comments during the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) January meeting. City of Austin Mayor Art Acevedo, whom Johnson appointed to HSACshifted the discussion to the threat of right-wing extremists, according to the official meeting minutes.

“Member Acevedo reminded the Council that the threat from right-wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism,” the minutes state.

The Homeland Security Advisory Committee reports:

“Secretary Johnson agreed and noted that CVE, by definition, is not solely focused on one religion. Member Goldenberg seconded Member Acevedo’s remarks and noted the importance of online sites in right wing extremist communities, not only in America but worldwide.”

Against all logic, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration and the borders in addition to law enforcement and national security issues, has vowed to ‘give voice to the plight’ of Muslims, rather than focusing on keep out radical and potentially violent members of that group – essentially welcoming another attack.

Instead, ordinary Americans, including those with dissident political views of any kind, are typically regarded as potential threats under Homeland Security watch lists.

Flags, firearms and incendiary conversations on social media have given ’cause’ to a government that is out of control and only wants a population that is ready to turn in its guns and be afraid of what the media tells them, not a population that is ready to challenge the unconstitutional actions of its government.

Changes are coming. Keep your eyes open and encourage those around you to stand up for their rights.

# # #


Posted in Bill of Rights, Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Police State, Progressivism, Random Acts of Tyranny, Rule of Law, Security Industrial Complex, The Constitution, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on DHS Secretary Sees All Americans As a Threat: “Gun Control Has To Be a Part of Homeland Security”

The Political Class vs. the Rest of Us

By William L. Anderson for Mises Institute, July 13, 2016 •

Screen Shot 2016-07-12 at 5.17.14 PMIn the end, whatever she did really didn’t matter. Had a bank camera captured footage of her robbing a bank at gunpoint, James Comey would have declared that while Hillary Clinton did a bad thing, no federal prosecutor would have indicted her. (This is to assume that the Clintons need to use weapons when extorting money for themselves while, in reality, a simple speech or a political favor couched in political threats will do just fine.)

The Clintons have been through this before. They break the law, they do what they want, they walk, and American Progressives pour out their adulation for them and excoriate others for doubting the Clinton’s innocence. Don’t you know? The Department of Justice just EXONERATED the Clintons!

For all of the analysis that is being done in the wake of Comey’s announcement that no reasonable prosecutor would seek a criminal case against someone who (in Comey’s own words) broke the law with impunity and lied about what she had done, this one point stands out: no one should be surprised at the outcome. Hillary Clinton is an American political elite, and political elites always are handed a free get-out-of-jail card no matter what they may do; all others may not apply.

It’s Not About Wealth, It’s About Politics 

We will hear, no doubt, that the justice standard depends upon one’s wealth. Please. Tell that to Martha Stewart, whom Jim Comey prosecuted when he was the George W. Bush-appointed US attorney and won a conviction against her in a Manhattan federal court in 2004. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who clearly broke statutory law, Comey fashioned “creative” charges of “securities fraud” against Stewart because she publicly declared her innocence and especially her innocence of breaking the “insider trading” statutes. (Comey, of course, never charged her with insider trading, so, instead, he charged her with the crime of telling the truth.)

Like Hillary Clinton, Martha Stewart allegedly lied to FBI officers who interviewed her; unlike Clinton, Stewart built up her wealth via successful entrepreneurial decisions made in the marketplace, not in Washington, D.C. While the Clintons have built up a financial empire solely on their political connections, Stewart did not have the same political cover and found that her wealth could not overcome Comey’s prosecutorial misconduct, a judge who was in the government tank, and a hostile news media that hates entrepreneurship outside the political realm.

If there was a legal standard to which Comey appealed, it was that of mens rea, which for centuries undergirded Anglo-American criminal law. Meaning “a guilty mind,” mens rea standards mean that those charged with crimes had to know (1) they were breaking the law, and (2) they intended to break the law. During his announcement not to prosecute, Comey said that while Clinton and her aides were “reckless” and no doubt put US government “secrets” at risk of being discovered by outside parties (which did happen), nonetheless they had no intention of breaking the law.

The Political Class vs. Everyone Else

If one wants to understand the difference between the government’s legal standards for the political classes versus everyone else, it is the use of mens rea. Even Comey acknowledged (and everyone else understood) that Clinton’s motives for handling emails outside the government’s legal system were to protect her politically and to protect her political viability for when she ran again for president. Furthermore, as Rudy Giuliani pointed out (granted, Giuliani was one of the most abusive, dishonest, and politically-motivated federal prosecutors ever), the statute which Clinton allegedly broke does not even require criminal intent for a prosecutor to pursue criminal charges.

Instead, the criminal standard for her actions fell under the “recklessness” category, which means that the person who engaged in the illegal actions did so, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, with “a state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions.” In other words, the person knew that possible harm could come to others through one’s actions, but did so anyway without regard to possible consequences.

Comey, however, chose to ignore the part of the legal statute permitting criminal charges on the basis of recklessness and chose the more rigorous category of “intent.” That is, he said that since he believed that Clinton and her associates did not openly “intend” to commit a crime, he could not charge her.

Compare Comey’s treatment of Hillary Clinton with his treatment of Martha Stewart. In charging Stewart with securities fraud, Comey was claiming that Stewart intended to break the specific laws that define such fraud. To put it another way, when Stewart publicly said that she had not engaged in insider trading (because, after all, she had not violated the statute, even one as vague as the one governing such practices), Comey claims that she knew she was defrauding people who held stock in her company. This is utterly laughable and was an abuse of the law. Furthermore, although Stewart’s trial judge dismissed the securities fraud charges, one suspects that the jury would have convicted Stewart of that charge, too.

(The Stewart jury, to put it mildly, came to the trial predisposed to convict her. One of the most outspoken jury members even bragged about lying on his jury form so that he could get onto the jury and vote to convict. In normal situations, that would have been enough for an appeals court to overturn her conviction, but the Stewart case was anything but normal and the courts gave Comey and company carte blanche in prosecuting her, including putting on a prosecution witness who committed perjury during testimony.)

I make this point because James Comey was applying entirely different legal standards to Clinton than he did to Stewart, and I am sure that he had the backing of his boss, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. In fact, just before Comey made his announcement, Lynch met with Bill Clinton in a meeting in Phoenix that at best can be termed “suspicious,” despite Lynch’s claim that they met just to talk about golf and their grandchildren. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton’s campaign already had floated a proposal to retain Lynch as AG, which certainly would seem to be more suspicious behavior than anything Stewart had done.

Or compare Comey’s treatment of Hillary Clinton with how he dealt with Frank Quattrone, the banker whom Comey charged with “obstruction of justice” and “witness tampering” for a series of emails that Quattrone sent to employees and associates preceding a federal investigation of Quattrone and Credit Suisse First Boston. The government never proved that Quattrone and his associates ever destroyed any documents pertinent to the investigation (which proved fruitless in itself for finding criminal behavior among those being investigated), but Comey got a short-lived conviction with the help of a friendly federal judge that essentially told jurors in final instructions to convict the defendant. (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and the feds never retried Quattrone.)

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, destroyed evidence, lied to investigators, made public statements about her email servers that clearly were untrue, and did everything she could to mislead the FBI. Comey admitted all of these things under oath in testimony to Congress, yet he showed Clinton legal deference that others did not receive.

Not that the US Department of Justice does not prosecute people who run afoul of its so-called “security” laws — even if it is clear that the accused did not intend to commit a crime. Writes Judge Andrew Napolitano:

Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

Yes, federal prosecutors are powerful people who can and will engage in lawbreaking themselves. When Rudy Giuliani was US Attorney in Manhattan, his Wall Street prosecutions had the backing of the political and financial establishment there. When Giuliani illegally (and feloniously) leaked grand jury information to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, no one held Giuliani to account. (The NYT did prattle on about “obeying the law” when it came to Wall Street financial people such as Michael Milken, but it ignored the lawbreaking of Giuliani and his associates.)

However, that same media and political establishment would have gone after Lynch and DOJ prosecutors if they ever had charged Hillary Clinton with crimes, and the attacks would have been so brutal and so relentless that no one who was targeted could survive professionally, and even their families would be outcasts.

The Two Americas

As I wrote during the 2004 presidential campaign, there really are “two Americas,” but not the ones that leftists like to claim. Instead, there is the America for political elites and the America for the rest of us. Regarding prosecutorial privileges in the Martha Stewart case, I wrote:

… federal prosecutors suborned perjury. That is a felony, but no one on the prosecutorial staff faces danger of being indicted. When federal authorities questioned Stewart about her stock sale, she was required to be “truthful” (tell the investigators what they wanted to hear), but at no time were the authorities required to tell the truth on their end. In other words, the demand for truth-telling is one-sided in the federal system.

The Stewart sale of ImClone came about because someone on a congressional staff illegally leaked information to the New York Times. That was a felony, but no one who was responsible for the crime need fear indictment. Federal prosecutors leaked sealed grand jury information to the New York Times. This, too, is a felony, but no prosecutors will find themselves in the dock. By the way, the New York Times editorial writers gushed with praise for prosecutors and Stewart’s accusers, making itself little more than the publicity arm for the feds. Rule of law at the Times goes only one way, too.

The fix was in from the beginning, and it should have been obvious that (1) Clinton broke the law, and (2) she would not face legal consequences for it. Likewise, in the event she is the next president of the United States, at some time in her administration, she or one of her subordinates, or perhaps her husband, will openly commit a crime and, after a bit of a public outcry, the accused will skate. Politics is ugly even in good times, and these are not good times, as the political classes gain power and lead the rest of us into poverty, ruin, and even prison.

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Random Acts of Tyranny, Rule of Law, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Political Class vs. the Rest of Us

The Mystery of the One Bank: Its Owners? — Jeff Nielson

A few months ago, I published an extensive indictment of the current world order and its chief architects, the banking cabal: The People versus the Banks (also available here). That article derived its title from a quote that ought to be emblazoned on any revolutionary flag:

The issue which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the people versus the banks.”

— John Acton (1834-1902)

Besides many other insider quotes provided in that article, its summary provides the background for the current posting:

“A successful revolution against tyrants presupposes familiarity with the tyrants’ arsenal. Earlier articles analyzed a few weapons in this arsenal: Sunshine Bribery, Cloak-and-Dagger, Contrived Terror, False-Flag Operations, Absence of Real Democracy, and the Conspiracy Theory Bogeyman. That massive arsenal, in turn, points to just one promising revolutionary strategy. The present article explores an additional weapon in this stupendous arsenal: banking. To begin with, we live now in an upside-down world of perpetual war, tyranny, injustice, materialism, selfishness, starvation, monstrous income inequalities, and ever-growing prospects of human extinction. But this, by itself, constitutes a paradox, because our planet can comfortably provide a decent life for every soul on it. The chaos and suffering must therefore be traced, at least in part, to our rulers.

“The ruling clique controlling the U.S., U.K., and most other countries in the world is probably made up of billionaires, generals, and spooks. The best guess is that, at the apex of the pyramid of power and riches, there resides a handful of banking families (bankers for short) dedicated to an inter-generational project of enslaving, and perhaps even exterminating, humanity. We have been warned repeatedly over the centuries that, sooner or later, humanity will have to wage an all-out war on these villainous bankers. A brief history of Central Banking shows that in their war against us, the bankers have not only relied on mind control, human failings, co-option, sunshine bribery, rigged elections, contrived terror, and false flag operations, but that they often murdered influential opponents and just about anyone else who could possibly impede their project of world domination.

“Originally, the bankers acquired wealth through the fractional reserve scam. This in turn gave rise to numerous other scams, hoaxes, and machinations, needlessly dragging us to wars, fascism, poverty, helplessness, massive transfer of wealth from the people to the bankers, declining health, and a probable environmental catastrophe. Our first post-revolutionary act ought to involve the utter, irreversible, disempowerment of the banking cabal and—as the framers of the American Constitution intended—entrusting the vital function of coining and issuing money to none other than the people themselves.”

I was working on a rough draft of a sequel, in which I planned to address two topics:

  1. Showing that the mainstream’s repeated references to the richest people in the world is a smokescreen. The richest people in the world, I planned to show, control that list and make sure that their names are not mentioned or mentioned somewhere at the bottom. From a revolutionary perspective, this is a critical point: You can’t launch a revolution without knowing who your enemies are!
  2. My second, far more difficult, goal was trying to pinpoint more accurately the identities of these secretive trillionaires.

By a lucky coincidence, today an astute friend sent me a link to an article by Jeff Nielson, an article which brilliantly explores the above two points. That project of mine has now been gratefully shelved. Instead, Jeff Nielson’s article is reproduced below.

But first, I’d like to raise one question about that article. Nielson identifies the Rothschild clan as the only puppeteers. It’s possible however that a few other families belong to the very exclusive Trillionaire Club. The British Royals? A few other banking families traditionally linked to the Rothschilds?

Another bloodline that meets Nielson’s requirements is the Rockefellers. David Rockefeller in particular, in rare moments of overweening hubris, likes to brag about his control of the media and his plans. Here is one famous boast:

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

And then, in another careless moment, David Rockefeller allowed these lines to be inserted into his own encyclopedia:

Rockefeller has met with and advised every American President since Eisenhower… President Jimmy Carter offered him the positions of United States Secretary of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Chairman but he declined both instead preferring a private role… Rockefeller has been able to act as bridge to various interests around the world, including Saddam Hussein and Communist leaders such as Fidel Castro, Nikita Khrushchev, and Mikhail Gorbachev… Rockefeller also reportedly has connections to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). David was extensively briefed on covert intelligence… Additionally, he serves as the only member of the Advisory Board for the Bilderberg Group… In 1992, he was selected as a leading member of the Russian-American Bankers Forum, an advisory group set up by the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to advise Russia on the modernization of its banking system, with the full endorsement of President Boris Yeltsin… Rockefeller began a lifelong association with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) when he joined as a director in 1949, the youngest member appointed to that position yet. He would later become head of the nominating committee for future membership and after that the chairman of this foreign policy think-tank. In 1965, Rockefeller and other businessmen formed the Council of the Americas to stimulate and support economic integration in the Americas. In 1992, at a Council sponsored forum, Rockefeller proposed a “Western Hemisphere free trade area”, which subsequently became the Free Trade Area of the Americas in a Miami summit in 1994… Rockefeller helped found the Trilateral Commission in July 1973.

Given this web of control, given the Rockefellers’ century-long dominance of American politics, it seems reasonable to suspect that Nielson’s One Bank is comprised, at the very least, of both R&R (Rothschilds and Rockefellers).

Moti Nissani, a former professor of biology at Wayne State University, Michigan, is the compiler of “A Revolutionary’s Toolkit.”

[The original Jeff Nielson article follows here.]

bd1bf145a9b6e235b2af5517e2636e86The Mystery of the One Bank: Its Owners?

By Jeff Nielson, posted at Sprott Money, February 12, 2016 •

Roughly 2 ½ years ago ; readers were introduced to a paradigm of crime, corruption, and control which they now know as “the One Bank”. First they were presented with a definition and description of this crime syndicate.

That definition came via a massive computer model constructed by a trio of Swiss academics, and cited with favor by Forbes magazine. The computer model was based upon data involving more than 10 million “economic actors”, both individuals and corporations, and the conclusions which that model produced were nothing less than shocking.

The One Bank is “a super-entity” comprised of 144 corporate fronts, with approximately ¾ of these corporate fronts being financial intermediaries (i.e. “banks”). According to the Swiss computer model; via these 144 corporate tentacles, the One Bank controls approximately 40% of the global economy. The only thing more appalling than the massive size of this crime syndicate is its massive illegality.

Some of the strongest laws in the Western world were created precisely to prevent such corporate concentration from ever coming into existence, and thus the crime, corruption, and conspiracy which automatically accompanies it. These are our “anti-trust laws”, laws which our puppet governments have long since ceased to enforce. The evidence of this crime/corruption/conspiracy is all around us.

On a near weekly basis; the Big Banks of the West are caught-and-convicted (but never punished), perpetrating criminal conspiracies literally thousands of times larger than any other financial crimes in human history. The U.S. government has now publicly proclaimed that its Big Banks have a license to steal.

All of these Big Banks are tentacles of the One Bank, and the list of names here (as identified by the Swiss researchers) is almost as infamous as the mega-crimes which they commit: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Credit Suisse, and UBS – for starters. But for many readers, this is now old news.

We observe the crimes of these corporate fronts, every day of our lives. We feel the impact of their crimes (on our standard of living) every day of our lives. However, these “banks” are ultimately merely the inanimate tools of crime. What many readers are now intent upon knowing goes beyond these tools, or even the mega-crimes which they are used to commit.

What people want to know is more basic. Who are the Criminals – the real Criminals? In this respect; we are not talking about the mere bankers, themselves. From the lowliest market-manipulating thugs to the upper stratosphere of CEO’s and central bankers, these are all merely foot soldiers, the psychopathic employees of the real Criminals.

The information wanted by readers is not the names of these employees. They are all nothing more than easily replaceable parts. The information of real value can be encapsulated in one, simple question: who owns the One Bank?

At first glance; the question appears elementary. The One Bank is a financial crime syndicate which controls 40% of the global economy – a global economy with annual GDP of roughly $70 trillion. Clearly the owners of the One Bank would have to be “the world’s richest people” (richest men?).

Here the Corporate media is only too happy to be of service to us. Once a year; we are presented with a “world’s richest list”, which is then parroted by all of the other outlets of the Big Media oligopoly, ad nauseam. Thus, we simply peruse this list for the names at the top, and we have our “owners” of the One Bank. Et voila!

Not so fast. As most regular readers are already well aware; the mainstream media oligopoly is nothing but more of the One Bank’s tentacles. Perhaps we should look a little more closely, before we simply pluck the names from the top of the list, and hail them as the One Bank’s owner-criminals?

In fact, such skepticism is well-justified. These supposed “world’s richest” lists, produced by the propaganda arm of the One Bank, are not worth the virtual paper on which they are written. Exposing the absurdity of such lists requires nothing more than accumulating some aggregate financial data, and then pulling out a calculator.

Fortunately, all of that work has already been done in a previous piece. Skipping to the bottom line; if we take the “world’s richest list” data, along with aggregate data on global wealth (all supplied by the Corporate media), we are presented with a world where total global wealth is supposedly a number in the low $10’s of trillions.

Meanwhile, if we look no further than the oceans of paper “wealth” fabricated by the financial sector (and the One Bank crime syndicate), already we approach a quantum somewhere around ½ quadrillion dollars, i.e. $500 trillion, and this completely excludes all real wealth in the world, in the form of hard assets.

The conclusion is obvious: more than 90% of the actual wealth in the world today (real and paper) is hidden from us, in terms of any data made readily available to the general public. This unimaginable hoard of wealth is certainly not being hidden by the vast majority of people at the bottom of the wealth totem-pole, therefore it can only be hidden at the top.

Equally clear; 90+% of all humanity’s wealth won’t be found by simply closer scrutiny of the supposed “world’s richest” people. If all of their fortunes were more than ten times larger than what is currently being reported, even the mathematically-challenged dolts of the mainstream media would quickly figure out that there was something amiss.

Instead, the only rational answer is that there is another, entire tier of the “world’s richest”, an echelon above all the B-List Billionaires on the official lists. The real “world’s richest” are, in fact, not billionaires at all, but rather trillionaires: the Oligarch Trillionaires who own (among other things) the One Bank.

How wealthy are these Oligarchs? Not only are these Oligarchs wealthy enough to be able to hide their names (and fortunes) from all public scrutiny, these trillionaires wield enough power to even prevent the word “trillionaire” from being recognized as an official word in our dictionaries. This absurdity was also noted in that prior commentary.

Consider this. We live in a world of banker-created, fraudulent, paper currencies, where the amount of paper instruments merely sloshing around in the world’s markets is in the thousands of trillions, yet, officially we have no word for “trillionaire”. This is like imagining a world where large numbers of (fat) sheep, cows, and pigs roamed the plains, but there was no word for “carnivore”. If you have one, you must have the other.

The Oligarch Trillionaires may be able to hide in the shadows, even in a world where every inch of the planet is regularly scanned by spy satellites, because they control (most of) the governments who own/operate these satellites. They may be able to cover up most traces of their obscene hoards of wealth, and even prevent us from learning the precise quantum of those hoards.

However, this doesn’t mean that the Oligarch Trillionaires have managed to erase all knowledge of their existence. For those looking for names which are at least probable candidates for the (real) “world’s richest” list, there is no better place to start than Charles Savoie’s historical chronology, The Silver Stealers.

In that compendium; Savoie has traced the deeds of many of these Oligarch families over the past 100+ years. He also identifies many of the (heavily overlapping) “organizations” which they have created, as vehicles for the administration/control of their Empire. For those who are skeptical that such a conspiracy-of-the-wealthy could trace back so far, we also have historical references.

In 1907, U.S. Congressman (and career prosecutor) Charles Lindbergh Sr. presented “The Bankers Manifesto of 1892” to the U.S. Congress. This grandiose declaration of the oligarchs of the 19 th century, antecedents of the Oligarch Trillionaires of today, is as prophetic as it is despicable.

In part, it reads:

When through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

Look around us. The numbers of Homeless people in North America today already total in the millions, ignored by puppet governments which serve the Trillionaires, ignored by a mainstream media controlled by the Trillionaires. Meanwhile, a “central power of imperial wealth” rampages across the globe: the United States. Equally, there can be absolutely no doubt that it is “under the control of the leading financiers”, the Trillionaires.

Beyond the cast of suspects presented by Charles Savoie as the owning families behind the One Bank, one name (and clan) stands out above all others: the Rothschilds. We reach this conclusion via two, entirely separate lines of reasoning.

The One Bank is a crime syndicate which ultimately derives virtually all of its wealth/control via the power of the printing press, in the form of all of the West’s (and the world’s) private central banks, and primarily the Federal Reserve. When we search for some criminal clan most likely to base its empire of crime on the money-printing might (and corruption) of a central bank, we don’t have to look very far.

Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes its laws.

  • Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812)

Alternately, we reach this same conclusion via simple logic. We live in a world being (deliberately) drowned in debt. This is a process which, again, traces back roughly a century and more. In a world of debt, whoever starts with the largest fortune collects the most interest. In a world with total GDP of $70 trillion but total, outstanding debt in excess of $200 trillion, whoever collects the most interest will be the richest person on the planet.

Therefore, whoever was the richest person yesterday will be the richest person today. Whoever was the richest person a hundred years ago would almost certainly be the richest person today. In the 19th century; the Rothschild clan was universally regarded as the wealthiest “house” on the planet. Then any/all precise records of their wealth simply disappeared – not the wealth itself.

The One Bank is a crime syndicate which is literally a blight against all humanity. Its owners are guilty of the worst crimes-against-humanity. And, ultimately, as the One Bank strips humanity bare of all its wealth, these Owners make it harder and harder for themselves to continue to hide. #

JeffNielson4-150x150Jeff Nielson is co-founder and managing partner of Bullion Bulls Canada; a website which provides precious metals commentary, economic analysis, and mining information to readers/investors. Jeff originally came to the precious metals sector as an investor around the middle of last decade, but soon decided this was where he wanted to make the focus of his career. His website is

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Economy, Enemies of the State, Federal Reserve, Learn Liberty, The Aristocracy, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Mystery of the One Bank: Its Owners? — Jeff Nielson

Activists Expose Monsanto’s Senate Lackeys Minutes Before DARK Act Vote

Actions highlight how senators who took money from Big Ag companies are voting against majority public opinion on GMO labeling

monsanto_3By Nadia Prupis at CommonDreams, July 6, 2016 •

Just before a controversial genetically modified (GM or GMO) labeling bill came up for a cloture vote in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, food and consumer advocates dropped over $2,000 on the chamber floor in a symbolic protest against what they are calling the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” (DARK) Act.

The action aimed to highlight the fact that senators who took money from biotechnology giants like Monsanto are voting against majority public opinion, as recent polls have found that roughly 90 percent of Americans want labels on GMO foods.

The legislation, a so-called “compromise” bill introduced in June by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), would mandate GMO labeling nationwide but allow food companies to choose between using symbols, electronic codes, or packaging language—an unnecessary and confusing method, according to critics. The bill would also undo Vermont’s landmark labeling law, which went into effect July 1.

Roberts and Stabenow are reportedly pulling out all the lobbying stops to get the bill passed in the days before the Senate breaks for the summer. According to Politico, that includes “letters being sent, staffs briefed, reports and FDA assessments flaunted, and farmers and consumers are being encouraged to inundate lawmakers with phone calls.”

Politico notes that “The cloture vote is expected sometime after 3 p.m. If successful in winning the 60 votes needed, lawmakers can limit debate to 30 hours, setting up a floor vote as soon as Thursday.” If they can’t reach 60 votes, Sen. Bernie Sanders has vowed to put a hold on the bill.

“The American people have a right to know what they’re eating,” Sanders said during a press conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. “The timing of this legislation is not an accident. Its goal is to overturn and rescind the very significant legislation passed in the state of Vermont. I will do everything that I can to see that it’s defeated.”

Activists say the legislation was negotiated behind closed doors with executives from Monsanto as well as other corporate organic companies, including Whole Foods, Stonyfield, and Smucker’s. Lobbyists from the Organic Trade Association were also involved.

“This bill was written and approved by Monsanto and America’s most corrupt food companies in a last ditch effort to avoid common sense, mandatory labeling of GMOs, while keeping the doors wide open for a flood of campaign cash,” Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!, said Wednesday.

Murphy’s group, along with other advocacy organizations, also staged protests in New Hampshire this week targeting the state’s Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte and the Londonderry-based Stonyfield Yogurt’s headquarters for their central roles in the lobbying blitz. The activists say Ayotte has taken more than $10,000 from Monsanto in campaign donations.

The Senate last week approved the bill 68-29 in a procedural vote. According to an analysis of data by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), senators who voted ‘Yes’ received more than twice as much in contributions from the agriculture lobby than those who voted ‘No’ ($867,518 for the supporters vs. $350,877 for opponents).

OCA political director Alexis Baden-Mayer, who participated in the money drop, said, “When Congress moves to crush the will of 9 out of 10 Americans because they need companies like Monsanto to fund their campaigns, you know our democracy is in real trouble.”

“The corporate lobbyists are totally corrupt,” Baden-Mayer said. “These companies have organic brands, but they also sell a lot of GMOs that they don’t want to label.”

# # #


Posted in Down on the Farm, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Activists Expose Monsanto’s Senate Lackeys Minutes Before DARK Act Vote

Happy Independence Day: Teach Your Children Well

declaration_stone_thumb_295_dark_gray_bgBy Thom, July 4, 2016 •

Virtually every American is familiar with the preamble of the American Declaration of Independence.

“…That all men are created equal” is known the world over, and stands as one of the most beloved and enduring phrases ever written in the course of human history.

Equally important are the actual Causes that compelled the colonists to separate from Britain, for it serves as the road map to Independence then — and now.

In this current period of American political revolution, we should take note of the trials and tribulations, as well as the patience and persistence of the founding generation. And pass these lessons on to our own children, the next generation to inherit the struggle for Freedom and Liberty.

The summary causes for separation, listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration, were in large part the genesis for the Bill of Rights, in particular the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech and the Press does not mean that you can say whatever you want or trash any private individual in a blog without consequence. Nor is Freedom of Assembly about your guest list for today’s Independence Day cookout.

Religious freedom aside, the intention of the First Amendment is to protect the rights of Americans to criticize their government without penalty, and the Right to Petition for redress of grievances, when our elected and unelected officials run afoul of the federal Constitution — the rule book by which government must operate. It’s no accident the First Amendment is first, and the Second Amendment is second.

Indeed, these are our primary tools to govern the government, and peacefully bring about remedies and change when federal administrators have overstepped their authority. These are our Natural Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, not given to us by the government. And they are rooted in the Declaration of Independence.

Please take a moment to read the entire Declaration with your friends and family today, especially the younger ones. Resistance to tyranny is not only our right, it is our Duty.

You may download and print your own image of the original Declaration of Independence, along with complete printed text (courtesy of Hillsdale College), or simply refer below.


The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:]

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn,                                             South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr.Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts: John Hancock
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin. John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple
Massachusetts: Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton

# # #


Posted in Bill of Rights, Education, Learn Liberty, The Constitution, The Founders, Words of Wisdom | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Happy Independence Day: Teach Your Children Well

U.N. Vehicles, Mysterious Troop Movement Spotted in Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Ohio

By Brandon Turbeville for The Daily Sheeple, June 27, 2016 •

In the midst of reports circulating around an uptick in U.S. military movement inside the United States, a recent sighting of U.N. vehicles being carried on flatbed trucks is now making its rounds on the Internet and alternative media networks.

The U.N. vehicles were spotted near I-81 near Lexington, VA and were being carried by flatbed, two to a trailer.

Not much information exists beyond the sighting, except to say that there have been numerous reports of an increase in military movement in the NC, VA, West VA, and Ohio region.

For the past day or so, military convoys have been witnessed traveling both North and South, with lines of equipment ranging from Humvees, troop transport trucks, and tankers to military personnel following the convoy in civilian vehicles. Interestingly enough, many of the soldiers traveling in the convoy were seen wearing helmets, an unusual procedure for a simple convoy. In addition, the convoys were carrying what appeared to be construction equipment.

Although the troop movement may indeed have been a routine convoy and the United Nations vehicles may also have been a routine shipment from a manufacturing facility or even a simple and benign transport, the controversy brewing in the United States elections and the potential for civil unrest, the dangers of economic collapse, and the potential conflict with Russia are all potentials for use of United Nations “peace keepers” inside the United States as many have posited in the past as well as for some type of “martial law” scenario.

The fact that the sightings of the new military movements carrying construction equipment are taking place at the same time that U.N. vehicles are being sighted in the same vicinity have many wondering whether or not the U.S. military is working with the U.N. in setting up some type of field base. Others, however, are taking a more relaxed view pointing to the regularity of military convoys and the need to transport new U.N. vehicles in some way or other.

At this point, we must be clear that all we have is speculation regarding the sightings and that the purpose of this article is only to report the sightings and the theories being put forward by commenters and commentators.

If you have any other information regarding the mysterious troop movements seen in the South and Midwest or the U.N. vehicles and their destinations or purpose, please feel free to post in the comments below. #

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Random Acts of Tyranny, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.N. Vehicles, Mysterious Troop Movement Spotted in Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Ohio

Saudis Kept Two Terror Groups Off U.S. List

And Hillary Clinton adjutant Huma Abedin has ties to both of them.

lv8acl62cacrtwgmaa60By Matthew Vadum for Frontpage Mag, June 20, 2016 •

The Saudi Arabian government apparently had so much clout with previous U.S. administrations that they refused to designate as terrorist organizations two terror-funding Islamofascist groups linked to Huma Abedin, now the vice-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Abedin is joined at the hip to Hillary. She is to Mrs. Clinton what Valerie Jarrett is to President Obama.

That two deadly terrorist groups avoided proper scrutiny for years is a chilling reminder of how close Mrs. Clinton’s political network is to the brutal Muslim Brotherhood, possibly the Left’s favorite Islamist operation. It also underlines the extent to which Islamist enemies of the United States have infiltrated the American political establishment. And it takes on added importance now that polls show the pathologically dishonest Alinskyite radical who wrote the communitarian manifesto It Takes A Village has a significant lead over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Sifting through archived media reports, Breitbart’s Lee Stranahan discovered it was known in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks that the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and its parent entity the Muslim World League (MWL), both of which are directly funded by Saudi authorities, were financial backers of al-Qaeda.

“The Saudis have probably done more to penetrate Al Qaeda than any other foreign intelligence service, but Al Qaeda in turn has penetrated the Saudi regime,” Newsweek reported the month after 9/11.

Although the IIRO, whose website calls the group the International Islamic Relief Organization of Saudi Arabia (IIROSA), and MWL “have been used by bin Laden to finance his operations,” they were “left off the list of groups sanctioned by the United States last week, U.S. officials hinted … in order to avoid embarrassing the Saudi government.”

The League acknowledges on its website that it is “engaged in propagating the religion of Islam” and “elucidating its principles and tenets.” It also engages in strategic lying, known in the Islamic world as taqiyya. The League “is well known for rejecting all acts of violence and promoting dialogue with the people of other cultures,” its website claims, adding that it does “not intend to undermine, dominate or practice hegemony over anyone else.”

It claims on the site that it has “external centers,” “external offices,” and “Islamic centers” in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Congo, Denmark, Egypt, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, United Kingdom, and other countries.

IIRO describes itself as “a charity organization emanating from the Muslim World League.”

Its annual report from 2011/2012 indicates that “thousands of mosques have been built with an average of one mosque a day” and that it has “1,222 staff” worldwide. Under its “Holy Qur’an and Da’wa Program” it has “8,044 male and female students memorizing Qur’an and learning Islamic studies in 306 centres and Qur’an circles.” IIRO has “304 Qur’an teachers and supervisors” in “these centres in 29 countries around the world” and sponsors “338 Islamic preachers” in those 29 countries.

Clinton protégé and campaign vice-chairman Huma Abedin, her parents, and her siblings all have intimate ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim World League has reportedly taken in more than $1.3 billion since 1962 from the Saudi government to promote Wahhabism. The League, warns Andrew C. McCarthy, is the Brotherhood’s “principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

Abedin, who is married to disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), has never publicly explained her disturbing connections to the people who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 or why, despite those ties, she ought to be trusted with state secrets. And when courageous politicians like former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) have tried to sound the alarm about who Abedin really is, they have been relentlessly mocked by the media and politicians from both parties. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) famously suffered from an acute outbreak of faux chivalry on the Senate floor when congressional colleagues dared to ask legitimate questions about Abedin’s loyalty to this country.

Few recall that when Bill Clinton was president in 1996, the CIA believed the International Islamic Relief Organization helped to underwrite six terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan. Harper’s reported in 2004 that the former head of IIRO’s office in the Philippines, who happened to be Obama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, “had been linked to plots to ‘target the pope and U.S. airlines.’”

The year 1996 was also eventful for Abedin. That year the young Michigan-born woman returned to the U.S. after years of living with her jihadist parents and soaking up the militant Islamic culture of Saudi Arabia. She promptly began working for then-first lady Hillary as an intern in the White House. At the same time Abedin was a member of the executive board of the George Washington University chapter of the Muslims Students Association, which was created by the MWL in the 1960s. In 1996 Abedin also began working as assistant editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, an Islamist publication of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA).

The Institute was founded in 1979 by the entrepreneurial Islamist Abdullah Omar Naseef who at the time was vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. Naseef, who became MWL secretary-general in 1983, hired the late Dr. Zyed Abedin, Huma’s father, as managing editor of the Journal, and the Abedins relocated to the repressive Saudi kingdom. Huma’s mother is the publication’s editor-in-chief and her brother and sister also work there as editors.

The Harper’s article from 12 years ago added that the U.S. intelligence community believed MWL employees took part in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Even though both MWL and IIRO funded al-Qaeda, Newsweek reported in October 2001, the Bush administration “left the two organizations off the list of designated terrorist groups in order to spare the Saudi government from embarrassment.” It’s not clear why the Clinton administration suppressed the truth about the two organizations.

Stranahan is optimistic that despite the frantic lies of the Left, the facts about Hillary and Huma will receive proper attention in the current election cycle.

“Defenders of Clinton and Abedin have attempted to spin concerns about Abedin’s disturbing connections as a crazed right-wing conspiracy theory, but the facts are coming out, and with America focused on the presidential race and terrorism, it is just a matter of time before the truth comes out.”

Meanwhile, even as the nation grieves for the 49 innocent Americans gunned down June 12 by Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen at a gay club in Orlando, Fla., members of the media seem blissfully unaware that for five years Hillary Clinton had a real live jihad-loving terrorist on the payroll at her family foundation.

Gehad el-Haddad, an Islamic terrorist leader who jumped straight from his job at the terrorist-friendly international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation to a post with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, received a life sentence back home last year for seditious Islamist activities.

The professional propagandist may have learned about forcing Sharia law on Egyptians while he was “city director,” a senior communications post, at the Clintons’ charity from August 2007 to August 2012. (Note: Gehad is the Egyptian version of the Arabic word jihad.) Haddad was the lead English-language spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood and a frequent apologist for the since-ousted President Mohamed Morsi’s violent crackdowns on civil liberties. He put his spin doctoring skills to use downplaying Brotherhood supporters’ attacks on women and children.

Hillary Clinton, of course, headed the U.S. Department of State during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 that ousted longtime U.S. ally and anti-Islamist Hosni Mubarak and cleared the way for Morsi, an Obama ally.

It beggars belief that Clinton didn’t know about Haddad’s employment with the Brotherhood. A mere month after Haddad quit his Clinton Foundation job for full-time employment with the Brotherhood in 2012, Morsi received an invitation to deliver a major address at the Clinton Global Initiative, a high-profile project of the foundation.

These things are all just incredible coincidences, Clinton’s defenders will insist.

Related Reading:

The State Department’s Muslim Sisterhood: Part 1

The State Department’s Muslim Sisterhood: Part 2

Agents of Influence? — Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Progressivism, Religion, The Aristocracy, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Saudis Kept Two Terror Groups Off U.S. List

Colonel Allen West Talks About Black Lives Matter

By Alex Nitzberg for Accuracy in Media, May 24, 2016 •

allen-west-picThe Black Lives Matter movement is a tool used by the left to maintain their “…90 percent plus hold on the black political electorate,” according to Colonel Allen West.

“I think that their whole existence is just a liberal progressive socialist movement to make sure that they keep the black community on the 21st century economic plantation that’s been created by the left.”

While the organization purports to protest societal discrimination and violence against black Americans, Colonel West exposed the movement’s hypocrisy by noting its profound silence on a multitude of issues wreaking havoc in black communities.

“If it really was about black lives mattering, then they would be in Chicago, they would be at many of the inner cities, they would be talking about better education opportunities, they would be talking about the fact that since Roe versus Wade there have been 13 to 15 million black children who have lost their lives, been killed.”

Colonel West also said that Black Lives Matter ignores other significant problems including the demise of the black family unit and the necessity of a strong economy to support business opportunities for black citizens.

In his estimation, Black Lives Matter’s politically motivated determination of which lives matter and its complete failure to discuss crucial issues delegitimize the organization.

Employing an expression popularized by Vladimir Lenin, Colonel West identifies Black Lives Matter protestors as “useful idiots,” describing an activist involved in a recent incident as “…nothing more than a progressive socialist political pawn in an insidious game of distracting the black community from the failures of progressive socialism and its horrific adverse effects.”

When asked what person or group is pulling the strings to manipulate these “useful idiots,” he advised, “…follow the money…it’s coming from the far left progressive movement.”

James Simpson did just that in AIM’s report, “Reds Exploiting Blacks: The Roots of Black Lives Matter.” The report includes details about the complex web of organizations involved in funding Black Lives Matter.

Colonel West believes that while the left’s protest movements change their name and shift their focus over time, they remain fundamentally the same: He avers that Black Lives Matter is “…another iteration of what we saw with Occupy Wall Street and it’ll morph itself into something else in the next political cycle.” #

Alex Nitzberg is an intern at the American Journalism Center at Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

# # #


Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Economy, Education, Enemies of the State, Progressivism, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Colonel Allen West Talks About Black Lives Matter

Keynes Must Die

By at Mises Institute, May 26, 2016 •

In 2012, Barack Obama warned that the United States would fall into a depression if Ron Paul’s plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget were enacted.

Wait, I beg your pardon. It wasn’t Obama who warned that budget cuts would lead to a depression.

It was Mitt Romney.

Romney went on to become the nominee of the self-described free-market party.

An ideological rout is complete when both sides of respectable opinion take its basic ideas for granted. That’s how complete the Keynesian victory has been.

In fact, Keynesianism had swept the boards a decade before Romney was even born.

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, the seminal treatise by John Maynard Keynes, appeared during the Great Depression, a time when a great many people were beginning to doubt the merits and resilience of capitalism. It was a work of economic theory, but its boosters insisted that it also offered practical answers to urgent, contemporary questions like: how had the Depression occurred, and why was it lasting so long?

The answer to both questions, according to Keynes and his followers, was the same: not enough government intervention.

Now as Murray N. Rothbard showed in his 1963 book America’s Great Depression, and as Lionel Robbins and others had written at the time, the Depression had certainly not been caused by too little government intervention. It was caused by the world’s government-privileged central banks, and it was prolonged by the various quack remedies that governments kept trotting out.

But that wasn’t a thesis governments were eager to hear. Government officials were rather more attracted to the message Keynes was sending them: the free market can lead to depressions, and prosperity requires more government spending and intervention.

Let’s say a brief word about the book that launched this ideological revolution. If I may put it kindly, the General Theory was not the kind of text one might expect to sweep the boards.

Paul Samuelson, who went on to become one of the most notable American popularizers of Keynesianism, admitted in a candid moment that when he first read the book, he “did not at all understand what it was about.” “I think I am giving away no secrets,” he went on, “when I solemnly aver — upon the basis of vivid personal recollection — that no one else in Cambridge, Massachusetts, really knew what it was all about for some twelve to eighteen months after publication.”

The General Theory, he said,

is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who, beguiled by the author’s previous reputation bought the book, was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use. It is arrogant, bad-tempered, polemical, and not overly generous in its acknowledgments. It abounds in mares’ nests and confusions. … In short, it is a work of genius.

Murray N. Rothbard, who after the death of Ludwig von Mises was considered the dean of the Austrian school of economics, wrote several major economic critiques of Keynes, along with a lengthy and revealing biographical essay about the man. The first of these critiques came in the form of an essay written when Murray was just 21 years old: “Spotlight on Keynesian Economics.” The second appeared in his 1962 treatise Man, Economy and State,and the third as a chapter in his book For a New Liberty.

Murray minced no words, referring to Keynesianism as “the most successful and pernicious hoax in the history of economic thought.” “All of the Keynesian thinking,” he added, “is a tissue of distortions, fallacies, and drastically unrealistic assumptions.”

Beyond the problems with the Keynesian system were the unfortunate traits of Keynes himself. I will let Murray describe them to you:

The first was his overweening egotism, which assured him that he could handle all intellectual problems quickly and accurately and led him to scorn any general principles that might curb his unbridled ego. The second was his strong sense that he was born into, and destined to be a leader of, Great Britain’s ruling elite. …

The third element was his deep hatred and contempt for the values and virtues of the bourgeoisie, for conventional morality, for savings and thrift, and for the basic institutions of family life.

While a student at Cambridge University, Keynes belonged to an exclusive and secretive group called the Apostles. This membership fed his egotism and his contempt for others. He wrote in a private letter, “Is it monomania — this colossal moral superiority that we feel? I get the feeling that most of the rest [of the world outside the Apostles] never see anything at all — too stupid or too wicked.”

As a young man, Keynes and his friends became what he himself described as “immoralists.” In a 1938 paper called “My Early Beliefs,” he wrote:

We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its merits, and the wisdom to do so successfully. This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held, and for the outer world it was our most obvious and dangerous characteristic. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdom. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term, immoralists.

Keynes was 55 years old when he delivered that paper. And even at that advanced stage of his life he could affirm that immoralism is “still my religion under the surface. … I remain and always will remain an immoralist.”

In economics, Keynes exhibited the same kind of approach he had taken toward philosophy and life in general. “I am afraid of ‘principle,’” he told a parliamentary committee in 1930. That, of course, is the attitude of anyone who craves influence and the exercise of power; principle would only get in the way of these things.

Thus, Keynes supported free trade, then turned on a dime in 1931 and became a protectionist, then during World War II favored free trade again. As Murray puts it, “Never did any soul-searching or even hesitation hobble his lightning-fast changes.”

The General Theory broke down the world’s population into several groups, each with its own characteristics. Here Keynes was able to vent his lifelong hatreds.

First, there was the great mass of consumers, dumb and robotic, whose consumption decisions were fixed and determined by outside forces, such that Keynes could reduce them to a “consumption function.”

Then there was a subset of consumers, the bourgeois savers, whom Keynes especially despised. In the past, such people had been praised for their thrift, which made possible the investment that raised living standards. But the Keynesian system severed the link between savings and investment, claiming that the two had nothing to do with each other. Savings were, in fact, a drag on the system, Keynes said, and could generate recessions and depressions.

Thus, did Keynes dethrone the bourgeoisie and their traditional claim to moral respectability. Thrift was foolishness, not wisdom.

The third group was the investors. Here Keynes was somewhat more favorable. The activities of these people could not be reduced to a mathematical function. They were dynamic and free. Unfortunately, they were also given to wild, irrational swings in behavior and outlook. These irrational swings set the economy on a roller coaster.

And now we arrive at a fourth and final group. This group is supremely rational, economically knowledgeable, and indispensable to economic stability. This group can override the foolish decisions of the others and keep the economy from falling into depressions or inflationary excess.

You probably won’t be shocked to learn that the far-seeing wizards who comprise Keynes’s fourth group are government officials.

To understand exactly what Keynes expected government officials to do, let’s say a brief word about the economic system Keynes developed in the General Theory. His primary claim is that the market economy is given to a chronic state of underemployment of resources. If it is not to descend into and remain mired in depression, it requires the wise supervision and interventions of the political class.

Again, we may safely reject the possibility that the political classes of the Western world embraced Keynesianism because politicians had made a profound study of the works of Keynes. To the contrary, Keynesianism appealed to two overriding motivations of government officials: their need to appear indispensable, and their urge to wield power. Keynesianism dangled these ideas before the political class, who in turn responded like salivating dogs. There wasn’t anything more romantic or dignified to it than that, I am sorry to report.

By the early 1970s, however, Keynesian economics had suffered a devastating blow. Or, to adopt Murray’s more colorful phrase, it had become “dead from the neck up.”

Keynesianism could not account for the stagflation, or inflationary recession, that the US experienced in the ’70s.

It was supposed to be the role of the Keynesian planners to steer the economy in such a way as to avoid the twin threats of an overheating, inflationary economy and an underperforming, depressed economy. During a boom, Keynesian planners were to “sop up excess purchasing power” by raising taxes and taking spending out of the economy. During a depression, Keynesians were to lower taxes and increase government spending in order to inject spending into the economy.

But in an inflationary recession, this entire approach had to be thrown out. The inflationary part meant spending had to be reduced, but the recession part meant spending had to be increased. How, Murray asked, could the Keynesian planners do both at once?

They couldn’t, of course, which is why Keynesianism began to wane in the 1970s, though it has made an unwelcome comeback since the 2008 financial crisis.

Murray had dismantled the Keynesian system on a more fundamental level in Man, Economy, and State. He showed that the relationships between large economic aggregates that Keynesians posited, and which were essential to their system, did not hold after all. And he exploded the major concepts employed in the Keynesian analysis: the consumption function, the multiplier, and the accelerator, for starters.

Now, why does any of this matter today?

The errors of Keynes have empowered sociopathic political classes all over the world and deprived the world of the economic progress we would otherwise have enjoyed.

Japan is a great example of Keynesian devastation: the Nikkei 225, which hit 38,500 in 1990, has never managed to reach even half that level since. A quarter century ago the index of industrial production in Japan was at 96.8; after 25 years of aggressive Keynesian policy that gave Japan the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world, the index of industrial production is … still 96.8.

The United States, meanwhile, has had sixteen years of fiscal stimulus or preposterously low-interest rates, all of which Keynesians have cheered. The result? Two million fewer breadwinner jobs than when Bill Clinton left office.

No amount of stimulus ever seems to be quite enough. And when the stimulus fails, the blinkered Keynesian establishment can only think to double down, never to question the policy itself.

But there is an alternative, and it’s the one Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises championed: the Austrian school of economics and its analysis of the pure market economy.

Against the entire edifice of establishment opinion, the Mises Institute stands as a rebuke. To the dissidents, to the intellectually curious, to those inclined to be skeptical of so-called experts who have brought us nothing but ruin, the Mises Institute has been a beacon.

We have trained an entire generation of Austrian scholars, journalists, and financial professionals. We put in the hard work so that when a catastrophe like the 2008 crisis occurred, an Austrian response was ready.

But with your help, we can do so much more. The Keynesians are pretending they have everything under control, but we know that’s a fantasy. An even greater opportunity than 2008 awaits us, and we want to help guide public opinion and train a cadre of bright young scholars for that day. With your help, we can, at last, awaken from the Keynesian nightmare.

As the Korean translator of an Austrian text put it, “Keynes must die so the economy may live.” With your help, we can hasten that glorious day.

# # #


Posted in Economy, Enemies of the State, The Aristocracy, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Keynes Must Die

Oregon Senator Warns – The U.S. Government is Dramatically Expanding its Hacking and Surveillance Authority

31057_large_Patriot_Act_Spying_WideBy Michael Krieger at Liberty Blitzkrieg, May 27, 2016 •

The Patriot Act continues to wreak its havoc on civil liberties. Section 213 was included in the Patriot Act over the protests of privacy advocates and granted law enforcement the power to conduct a search while delaying notice to the suspect of the search. Known as a “sneak and peek” warrant, law enforcement was adamant Section 213 was needed to protect against terrorism. But the latest government report detailing the numbers of “sneak and peek” warrants reveals that out of a total of over 11,000 sneak and peek requests, only 51 were used for terrorism. Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties.

– From the post: More “War on Terror” Abuses – Spying Powers Are Used for Terrorism Only 0.5% of the Time

Ron Wyden, a Senator from Oregon, has been one of the most influential and significant champions of Americans’ embattled 4th Amendment rights in the digital age. Recall that it was Sen. Wyden who caught Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, lying under oath about government surveillance of U.S. citizens.

Mr. Wyden continues to be a courageous voice for the public when it comes to pushing back against Big Brother spying. His latest post at Medium is a perfect example.

Here it is in full:

Shaking My Head

The government will dramatically expand surveillance powers unless Congress acts.

Last month, at the request of the Department of Justice, the Courts approved changes to the obscure Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs search and seizure. By the nature of this obscure bureaucratic process, these rules become law unless Congress rejects the changes before December 1, 2016.

Today I, along with my colleagues Senators Paul from Kentucky, Baldwin from Wisconsin, and Daines and Tester from Montana, am introducing the Stopping Mass Hacking (SMH) Act (billsummary), a bill to protect millions of law-abiding Americans from a massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance. Join the conversation with #SMHact.

What’s the problem here?

For law enforcement to conduct a remote electronic search, they generally need to plant malware in — i.e. hack — a device. These rule changes will allow the government to search millions of computers with the warrant of a single judge. To me, that’s clearly a policy change that’s outside the scope of an “administrative change,” and it is something that Congress should consider. An agency with the record of the Justice Department shouldn’t be able to wave its arms and grant itself entirely new powers.

Let’s get into the details

These changes say that if law enforcement doesn’t know where an electronic device is located, a magistrate judge will now have the the authority to issue a warrant to remotely search the device, anywhere in the world. While it may be appropriate to address the issue of allowing a remote electronic search for a device at an unknown location, Congress needs to consider what protections must be in place to protect Americans’ digital security and privacy. This is a new and uncertain area of law, so there needs to be full and careful debate. The ACLU has a thorough discussion of the Fourth Amendment ramifications and the technological questions at issue with these kinds of searches.

The second part of the change to Rule 41 would give a magistrate judge the authority to issue a single warrant that would authorize the search of an unlimited number — potentially thousands or millions — of devices, located anywhere in the world. These changes would dramatically expand the government’s hacking and surveillance authority. The American public should understand that these changes won’t just affect criminals: computer security experts and civil liberties advocates say the amendments would also dramatically expand the government’s ability to hack the electronic devices of law-abiding Americans if their devices were affected by a computer attack. Devices will be subject to search if their owners were victims of a botnet attack — so the government will be treating victims of hacking the same way they treat the perpetrators.

As the Center on Democracy and Technology has noted, there are approximately 500 million computers that fall under this rule. The public doesn’t know nearly enough about how law enforcement executes these hacks, and what risks these types of searches will pose. By compromising the computer’s system, the search might leave it open to other attackers or damage the computer they are searching.

Don’t take it from me that this will impact your security, read more from security researchers Steven Bellovin, Matt Blaze and Susan Landau.

Finally, these changes to Rule 41 would also give some types of electronic searches different, weaker notification requirements than physical searches. Under this new Rule, they are only required to make “reasonable efforts” to notify people that their computers were searched. This raises the possibility of the FBI hacking into a cyber attack victim’s computer and not telling them about it until afterward, if at all.

A job for Congress — not the Justice Department

These changes are a major policy shift that will impact Americans’ digital security, expand the government’s surveillance powers and pose serious Fourth Amendment questions. Part of the problem is the simple fact that both the American public and security experts know so little about how the government goes about hacking a computer to search it. If a victim’s Fourth Amendment rights are violated, it might not be readily apparent because of the highly technical nature of the methods used to execute the warrant.

It is Congress’ job to make sure we do not let the Executive Branch run roughshod over our constituents’ rights. That is why action is so important: this is a policy question that should be debated by Congress. Although the Department of Justice has tried to describe this rule change as simply a matter of judicial venue, sometimes a difference in scale really is a difference in kind. By allowing so many searches with the order of just a single judge, Congress’s failure to act on this issue would be a disaster for law-abiding Americans.

When the public realizes what is at stake, I think there is going to be a massive outcry: Americans will look at Congress and say, “What were you thinking?”

By failing to act, Congress is once again demonstrating that it is not just useless, it’s also dangerously corrupt and incompetent. #

For related articles, see:

As the Apple vs. FBI Debate Rages, Congress Plots to Mandate Encryption Backdoors

 Congress Guts Anti-NSA Spying Bill Beyond Recognition; Original Cosponsor Justin Amash Votes No

Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak Discusses The Constitution, NSA Spying and Torture

It’s Not Just Spying – How the NSA Has Turned Into a Giant Profit Center for Corrupt Insiders

War on Terror Turns Inward – NSA Surveillance Will Be Used Against American Citizens

# # #


Posted in Bill of Rights, Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Police State, Random Acts of Tyranny, Security Industrial Complex, The Constitution, The Crisis, The Founders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oregon Senator Warns – The U.S. Government is Dramatically Expanding its Hacking and Surveillance Authority

Brexit: Welcome, Britain, to Our Revolution

The issue in the Brexit is the same as the one behind the American Revolution: the consent of the governed.

(Photo by Robert Tracinski)

(Photo: Robert Tracinski)

By for The Federalist, June 20, 2016 •

As an American, the Brexit — Britain’s upcoming referendum on whether to exit the European Union — does not directly affect me, nor do I have a vote on it. But from the perspective of American history, I think I can offer some relevant context and advice.

The Brexit is a good opportunity to welcome the mother country to our revolution, because the fundamental issue in the Brexit is exactly the same as the one that impelled us to separate from Britain more than two centuries ago.

I recently took the kids to Colonial Williamsburg, a reconstruction of Virginia’s colonial capital that has been turned into a kind of living museum of revolutionary era America, where you can see re-enactors take the stage in the personae of Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of that crowd, and debate the big political issues relating to the Amerexit.

Oh yes, and we also got together in a mob outside Raleigh Tavern and hanged Lord North in effigy. See the photo at the top of this article. Most of you, I suspect, will not know who Lord North was or why we were (symbolically) hanging him. But it’s entirely relevant today.

Lord North was His Majesty’s Prime Minister during the crucial years of the American Revolution, from 1770 to 1782. The specific infractions for which he was subjected to mock trial and hanging in effigy were the Intolerable Acts, a series of punitive measures against Boston that were widely interpreted as a declaration of war against colonial America.

Today, we tend to think of the American Revolution as a war against King George III. But it was just as much a war against the British Parliament and its leadership, which was increasingly regarded by Americans as a “foreign” body that did not represent them. We already had our own, long-established legislatures (Virginia’s General Assembly, for example, will soon celebrate its 400th anniversary and is one of the oldest in the world), and we considered them to be our proper representatives, solely authorized to approve legislation on our behalf.

That was the key issue of the American Revolution: the consent of the governed. The question was whether we were to be subject to laws passed by representatives elected by and accountable to us or whether we were to be subject to the decisions of an institution that was not answerable to the people it governed. So it’s not just about rejecting the sovereignty of a hereditary monarch. It’s also about rejecting control by a distant and unaccountable bureaucracy.

Which, in an interesting historical irony, is precisely the issue Britain faces in its relationship with the European Union.

The Telegraph‘s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard puts the issue succinctly and in terms that are totally recognizable to a student of American history:

Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.

The effect of the European Union, as currently organized, is to send the mother of parliaments to a rest home. As Evans-Pritchard has recently pointed out, Britain’s judicial system has already been put into an impossible position, forced to issue a warning to the European Court that it will resist its mandates if they conflict with such ancient guarantees as the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights.

The key issue — the breaking point — is the European Union’s practice of seeking to validate its authority through popular referendums then ignoring them when they don’t get the result they wanted.

The EU crossed a fatal line when it smuggled through the Treaty of Lisbon, by executive cabal, after the text had already been rejected by French and Dutch voters in its earlier guise. It is one thing to advance the Project by stealth and the Monnet method, it is another to call a plebiscite and then to override the outcome.

He is referring to the 2005 attempt to push through the European Constitution, which was resoundingly rejected by France and the Netherlands, only to be substantially resurrected as the Lisbon Treaty in 2008.

The whole premise of the EU has become the idea of a bureaucratic clerisy holding power beyond the reach of the people. It’s the great dream of the party of big government here, too. They want to impose their policies on every issue — global warming, immigration, gun control, transgender bathrooms, and on and on — by way of regulatory rulings by an entrenched civil service, without ever having to put anything up for an actual vote by the people’s representatives. The European Union takes that idea farther, placing the bureaucratic aristocracy at an even greater remove from its subjects.
The whole premise of the EU has become the idea of a bureaucratic clerisy holding power beyond the reach of the people.

The pro-EU side of Britain’s debate makes it sound as if the Brexit would be an act of destruction carried out in a fit of irrational anger. But this is not about destroying institutions. It’s about preserving them.

It was no different for America. After I recently defended the idea of the right to depose tyrants, a friend of mine who is an historian sent me an interesting, minor correction. The Founding Fathers, he told me, described the creation of America as a “revolution,” not a “rebellion.” It’s a distinction that has largely been lost today, but they viewed a rebellion as an insurrection against legitimate authority, while a revolution was a legitimate exercise of the people’s right to change their government and its leadership, in this case by firing their “chief magistrate,” the king. But they viewed this as a way of re-establishing and reforming the legitimate authority of their own, long-established colonial legislatures.

And when you think of it, we were just following the British example. Britain had faced its own conflicts between the authority of Parliament and the overreaching ambitions of its kings, and they had already set the example of removing the king to preserve the power of Parliament. Before we did it in the 18th century, they did it in the 17th century — twice. Britain itself had established the precedents of the rule of law and the consent of the governed. I don’t know why they would want to throw that away now.

British citizens shouldn’t fear that leaving the EU will cause Britain to be “isolated.” The American example is instructive. After a little more unpleasantness (let’s not mention that unfortunate incident with the White House in 1814), Britain and America eventually settled down into our “special relationship.” Our common bonds of commerce and culture were too strong and deep to be disrupted permanently. The same will be true of Britain and Europe, only more so, since its departure will be on friendlier terms. There is no reason Britain cannot do as other European nations have done and remain part of a common market without submitting to the authority of the European Union.

That’s the choice Britain faces: to maintain the legitimate authority of its own government or to turn the country into a mere colony of Brussels. If the British want to preserve their ability to govern themselves, they will vote to leave the European Union. #

Follow Robert here on Twitter.

# # #


Posted in Bill of Rights, Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Learn Liberty, The Constitution, The Crisis, The Founders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Brexit: Welcome, Britain, to Our Revolution

The Push For Disarmament Begins: “The Globalists Are Waiting in the Wings To Take Down America And Confiscate Firearms”

america-burnsBy Jeremiah Johnson for SHTFplan, June 14, 2016 •

The headlines and news networks are awash with the shooting that occurred on Sunday in Florida – 50 dead and 53 hospitalized in the largest single mass-shooting incident in the history of the U.S.  History in the making, and as Rahm Emmanuel put it, never let a crisis go to waste.  The governor of Florida quickly declared a state of emergency, and as the FBI is labeling it as a “terrorist incident,” undoubtedly the federal presence is going to increase.

All of the machinery is in place and has been in place for quite some time, now.  The harbinger of things to come was already outlined by Obama, on January 14, 2014 in a White House Press Conference:

“…we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need.  I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward…”

— Barack Hussein Obama I

Now in case anyone hasn’t noticed, the tempo of “town hall” meetings has been picked up quite a bit, especially Obama’s push for more gun control.  In between using taxpayer dollars to campaign for Hillary Clinton and vacationing at Martha’s Vineyard, Obama has “resurrected” the push for gun control.  Coincidentally, this mass shooting occurs barely even a week after Obama met with his plants and puppets to “discuss” gun control policies.  This on the heels of the 9th Circuit Court on which on June 9, 2016 struck down the right to carry concealed as a right given under the U.S. Constitution.  Undoubtedly this one will run right up to the Supreme Court for a liberal “reinterpretation” of the Second Amendment.

This latest incident will give him the juice to proceed with an executive order.  We knew that it was inevitable: a pretext would be created to provide “justification” for either some form of gun registration (this always leads to gun confiscation) or the emplacement of martial law.  Remember, the UN and the globalists are just waiting in the wings for the ability to take down the United States and confiscate the firearms.

On September 25, 2013 John Kerry signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty, “On behalf of President Obama and the United States of America.”  Seems to this author that the United States of America didn’t really have much of a say-so on this issue.  There are many who will say, “Well, in order for that treaty to be exercised, it will have to have the Senate approve it.  Even then, it is onerous to the Constitution…Marbury vs. Madison, and all.”

Let us remind ourselves that Obamacare was not able to be rammed through as commerce, so they confirmed that it is a tax.  Only trouble is…it didn’t originate in the House of Representatives, now, did it?  Yet here it is.  This next round is for the firearms, and they’re ramping up for it from every angle: domestic terrorism, and the constant global threat of terrorism. Some catch phrases here that will come into play: “In the interests of national security,” and “in the interests of public safety.”

The bottom line: they can’t take the U.S. down without taking the guns out of the hands of its citizens.

Don’t forget some of the other wonderful agreements, pacts, and statements of understanding Obama has drawn up with countries such as Canada, Russia, and others to bring their forces onto American soil to help “enforce order” if the President of the United States – Obama – is unable to enforce the laws under his administration.  According to the UN, only “authorized state parties” (referring to the governments and their armed forces and police apparatuses) are to have any firearms.

Executive Order 13603 is the one that confiscates all of the resources under an emergency (men and materials, the former being forced labor).  The NDAA provides direction for the inculcation of martial law during an emergency and the indefinite detention of American citizens with neither a writ of Habeas Corpus or a trial.  We are seeing the draconian measures taken in the private sector and the banks in terms of limiting cash withdrawals from the institutions and the ATM’s.

We are seeing the positioning of military equipment throughout the United States, the federalization of National Guard Troops, the federalization of municipal, local, and state police forces, and all of the above coming under the blanket of the federal government and activated by FEMA and the DHS.

They need a war or a false flag to start the whole ball rolling and this shooting is just the beginning.  “Wag the Dog” never really stopped playing…only in the theaters.  The federal government picked up the movie and has been writing the sequels and following them as policy, both foreign and domestic.

They are telegraphing the left hook: they are going to use this incident to come for the guns, starting out with “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Hillary will use her clout and get behind it, but it is Obama who will make it happen.  Why?

Obama is the outgoing president: he’ll make the gun control happen, so that it isn’t an uphill battle for Hillary.  What can’t be obtained through Congress will be obtained by EO, and “justified” by the false flag incident where he “had to act for the public good.”

This is just the beginning, and it may very well be that it isn’t just the firearms that come under fire with an EO.  One or two more of these type of incidents and they’ll roll out the martial law juggernaut.  They didn’t put all of these measures into place as a hobby, and with 315 million Muppets, the faster they act with a situation such as this, the easier it will be to control the public and inculcate these measures before they even realize what has happened. #

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at or contact him here.

# # #


Posted in Bill of Rights, Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Progressivism, The Constitution, The Crisis, The Founders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Push For Disarmament Begins: “The Globalists Are Waiting in the Wings To Take Down America And Confiscate Firearms”