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.

# # #

Subscribe

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 www.bullionbullscanada.com.

# # #

Subscribe

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 OpenSecrets.org 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.”

# # #

Subscribe

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:]

COLUMN 1
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

COLUMN 2
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

# # #

Subscribe

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 BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

# # #

Subscribe

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

# # #

Subscribe

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.

# # #

Subscribe

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.

# # #

Subscribe

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

# # #

Subscribe

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.

# # #

Subscribe

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 SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

# # #

Subscribe

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”

The Klippenstein Interview: Seymour Hersh Dishes on Saudi Oil Money Bribes and the Killing of Osama Bin Laden

Wide-ranging interview tied to new book, “The Killing of Osama Bin Laden.”

By Ken Klippenstein for Alternet, April 20, 2016 •

64633778_2392ef36c0_zSeymour Hersh is an American investigative journalist who is the recipient of many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for his article exposing the My Lai massacre by the U.S. military in Vietnam. More recently, he exposed the U.S. government’s abuse of detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison facility.

Hersh’s new book, The Killing of Osama Bin Laden, is a corrective to the official account of the war on terror. Drawing from accounts of a number of high-level military officials, Hersh challenges a number of commonly accepted narratives: that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the Sarin gas attack in Ghouta; that the Pakistani government didn’t know Bin Laden was in the country; that the late ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in a solely diplomatic capacity; and that Assad did not want to give up his chemical weapons until the U.S. called on him to do so.

Ken Klippenstein: In the book you describe Saudi financial support for the compound in which Osama Bin Laden was being kept in Pakistan. Was that Saudi government officials, private individuals or both?

Seymour Hersh: The Saudis bribed the Pakistanis not to tell us [that the Pakistani government had Bin Laden] because they didn’t want us interrogating Bin Laden (that’s my best guess), because he would’ve talked to us, probably. My guess is, we don’t know anything really about 9/11. We just don’t know. We don’t know what role was played by whom.

KK: So you don’t know if the hush money was from the Saudi government or private individuals?

SH: The money was from the government … what the Saudis were doing, so I’ve been told, by reasonable people (I haven’t written this) is that they were also passing along tankers of oil for the Pakistanis to resell. That’s really a lot of money.

KK: For the Bin Laden compound?

SH: Yeah, in exchange for being quiet. The Paks traditionally have done security for both Saudi Arabia and UAE.

KK: Do you have any idea how much Saudi Arabia gave Pakistan in hush money?

SH: I have been given numbers, but I haven’t done the work on it so I’m just relaying. I know it was certainly many—you know, we’re talking about four or five years—hundreds of millions [of dollars]. But I don’t have enough to tell you.

KK: You quote a retired U.S. official as saying the Bin Laden killing was “clearly and absolutely a premeditated murder” and a former SEAL commander as saying “by law we know what we’re doing inside Pakistan is homicide.”

Do you think Bin Laden was deprived of due process?

SH: [Laughs] He was a prisoner of war! The SEALs weren’t proud of that mission; they were so mad it was outed…I know a lot about what they think and what they thought and what they were debriefed, I will tell you that. They were very unhappy about the attention paid to that because they went in and it was just a hit.

Look, they’ve done it before. We do targeted assassinations. That’s what we do. They understood—the SEALs—that if they were captured by the Pakistani police authorities, they could be tried for murder. They understood that.

KK: Why didn’t they apprehend Bin Laden? Can you imagine the intelligence we could have gotten from him?

SH: The Pakistani high command said go kill him, but for chrissake don’t leave a body, don’t arrest him, just tell them a week later that you killed him in Hindu Kush. That was the plan.

Many sections, particularly in the Urdu-speaking sections, were really very positive about Bin Laden. Significant percentages in some areas supported Bin Laden. They [the Pakistani government] would’ve been under great duress if the average person knew that they’d helped us kill him.

KK: How did it hurt U.S./Pakistan relations when, as you point out in your book, Obama violated his promise not to mention Pakistan’s cooperation with the assassination?

SH: We spend a lot of time with [Pakistani] generals Pasha and Kayani, the head of the army and ISI, the intelligence service. Why? Why are we so worried about Pakistan? Because they have [nuclear] bombs. … at least 100, probably more. And we want to think that they’re going to share what they know with us and they’re not hiding it.

We don’t really know everything we think we know and they don’t tell us everything… so when he [Obama] is doing that, he’s really messing around with the devil in a sense.

…. He [Bin Laden] had wives and children there. Did we ever get to them? No. We never got to them. Just think about all the things we didn’t do. We didn’t get to any of the wives, we didn’t do much interrogation, we let it go.

There are people that know much more about this and I wish they would talk, but they don’t.

KK: You write that Obama authorized a ratline wherein CIA funneled arms from Libya into Syria and they ended up in jihadi hands. [According to Hersh, this operation was coordinated via the Benghazi consulate where U.S. ambassador Stevens was killed.] What was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in this given her significant role in Libya?

SH: The only thing we know is that she was very close to Petraeus who was the CIA director at the time … she’s not out of the loop, she knows when there’s covert ops. … That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel.

KK: In the book you quote a former intelligence official as saying that the White House rejected 35 target sets provided by the Joint Chiefs as being insufficiently painful to the Assad regime. (You note that the original targets included military sites only—nothing by way of civilian infrastructure.) Later the White House proposed a target list that included civilian infrastructure.

What would the toll to civilians have been if the White House’s proposed strike had been carried out?

SH: Do you really think that at any time this is discussed? You know who’s sanest on this: Dan Ellsberg. When I first met Dan, it was way early—in ’70, ’71, during the Vietnam War. I think I met him before the Pentagon Papers were around. I remember him telling me that he asked that question at a meeting while planning the war [regarding B-52 targets] and nobody had even looked at it.

You really don’t get a very good hard, objective look. You can see a movie in which they seem to do it, but that’s not really so.

I don’t know if [regarding Syria] they looked at collateral damage and noncombatants, but I do know that in wars in the past, that’s never been a big issue. … you’re talking about the country that dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki.

KK: In a recent interview with the Atlantic, Obama characterized his foreign policy as “Don’t do stupid shit.”

SH: I read the Jeff Goldberg piece…and it of course drove me nuts, but that’s something else.

KK: As you point out in your book, Obama originally wanted to remove Assad. Isn’t that the definition of stupid? The power vacuum that would ensue would open Syria up to all kinds of jihadi groups.

SH: God knows I can’t tell you why anybody does anything. I’m not inside their head. I can tell you that the same question was asked by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs—Dempsey—which is why I was able to write that story about their going, indirectly, behind his [Obama’s] back because nobody could figure out why.

I don’t know why we persist on living in the Cold War, but we do. Russia actually did a very good job. They not only did the bombing that was more effective than what we do, I think that’s fair to say. Russia also did stuff that was sort of more subtle and more interesting: they renewed the Syrian army. They took many major units of the Syrian army offline, gave them R&R and re-equipped them. Got new arms, got a couple weeks off, then they came back, got more training and became a much better army.

I think in the beginning, there’s just no question, we wanted to get rid of Bashar. I think they misread the whole resistance. Wikileaks is very good on this…there’s enough State Department documents that show that from 2003 on, we really had a policy—not very subtle, not violent, but millions of dollars given to opposition people. We certainly were not a nonpartisan foreign government inside Syria.

Our policy has always been against him [Assad]. Period.

One of the things that comes across just in the current stories about all the travails we’re having about ISIS allegedly running all these terror teams in Brussels and in the suburbs of Paris… it’s very clear, ironically, that one of the things France and Belgium (and a lot of other countries) did was after the Syrian civil war began, if you wanted to go there and fight there in 2011-2013, ‘Go, go, go… overthrow Bashar!’

So they actually pushed a lot of people to go. I don’t think they were paying for them but they certainly gave visas. And they would spend four or five months, come back and do organized crime and get in jail and next thing you know they’re killing people. There’s a real pattern there.

I do remember when the war began in 2003, our war against Baghdad, I was in Damascus working for The New Yorker then and I saw Bashar and one of the things he told me, he said, ‘Look, we’ve got a bunch of radical kids and if they want to go fight, if they want to leave the mosque here in Damascus and go fight in Baghdad, we said fine! We even gave them buses!’

So there’s always been a tremendous, Why does America do what it does? Why do we not say to the Russians, Let’s work together?

KK: So why don’t we work closer with Russia? It seems so rational.

SH: I don’t know. I would also say, why wasn’t the first door we knocked on after 9/11, Russia’s? They just had a terrible 10-year war with Chechnya. Believe me, the Chechen influence in the Sunni world in terms of jihadism is strong. For example I’ve been told by my friends in the intelligence community that al-Baghdadi (who runs ISIS) is surrounded by a lot of guys with experience in Chechnya. A lot of people involved in that operation did.

So who knows the most about jihadism? You look at it from the Russian point of view—we never like looking at things from other people’s point of view.

KK: In the book you quote a Joint Chiefs of Staff adviser who said that Brennan told the Saudis to stop arming the extremist rebels in Syria and their weapons will dry up—which seems like a rational request—but then, you point out, the Saudis ramped up arms support.

Seymour Hersh: That’s true.

KK: Did the U.S. do anything to punish the Saudis for it?

SH: Nothing. Of course not. No, no. I’ll tell you what’s going on right now … al Nusra, certainly a jihadist group… has new arms. They’ve got some tanks now—I think the Saudis are supplying stuff. They’ve got tanks now, have a lot of arms, and are staging some operations around Aleppo. There’s a ceasefire and even though they’re not part of it, they obviously took advantage of the ceasefire to resupply. It’s going to be bloody.

KK: Just to be clear, the U.S. hasn’t done anything to punish or at least disincentivize the Saudis from arming our enemies in Syria?

SH: Quite the contrary. The Saudis and Qatar and the Turks put money into those arms [sent to Syrian jihadis].

You’re asking the right questions. Do we say anything? No. Turkey’s Erdogan has played a complete double game: for years he supported and accommodated ISIS. The border was wide open—Hatay Province—guys were going back and forth, bad guys. We know Erdogan’s deeply involved. He’s changing his tune slightly but he’s been deeply involved in this.

Let me talk to you about the sarin story [the sarin gas attack in Ghouta, a suburb near Damascus, which the U.S. government attributed to the Assad regime] because it really is in my craw. In this article that [sic] was this long series of interviews [of Obama] by Jeff Goldberg…he says, without citing the source (you have to presume it was the president because he’s talking to him all the time) that the head of National Intelligence, General [James] Clapper, said to him very early after the [sarin] incident took place, “Hey, it’s not a slam dunk.”

You have to understand in the intelligence community—Tenet [Bush-era CIA director who infamously said Iraqi WMD was a “slam dunk”] is the one who said that about the war in Baghdad—that’s a serious comment. That means you’ve got a problem with the intelligence. As you know I wrote a story that said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs told the president that information the same day. I now know more about it.

The president’s explanation for [not bombing Syria] was that the Syrians agreed that night, rather than be bombed, they’d give up their chemical weapons arsenal, which in this article in the Atlantic, Goldberg said they [the Syrians] had never disclosed before. This is ludicrous. Lavrov [Russia’s Foreign Minister] and Kerry had talked about it for a year—getting rid of the arsenal—because it was under threat from the rebels.

The issue was not that they [the Syrians] suddenly caved in. [Before the Ghouta attack] there was a G-20 summit and Putin and Bashar met for an hour. There was an official briefing from Ben Rhodes and he said they talked about the chemical weapons issue and what to do. The issue was that Bashar couldn’t pay for it—it cost more than a billion bucks. The Russians said, ‘Hey, we can’t pay it all. Oil prices are going down and we’re hurt for money.’ And so, all that happened was we agreed to handle it. We took care of a lot of the costs of it.

Guess what? We had a ship, it was called the Cape Maid, it was parked out in the Med. The Syrians would let us destroy this stuff [the chemical weapons]… there was 1,308 tons that was shipped to the port…and we had, guess what, a forensic unit out there. Wouldn’t we like to really prove—here we have all his sarin and we had sarin from what happened in Ghouta, the UN had a team there and got samples—guess what?

It didn’t match. But we didn’t hear that. I now know it, I’m going to write a lot about it.

Guess what else we know from the forensic analysis we have (we had all the missiles in their arsenal). Nothing in their arsenal had anything close to what was on the ground in Ghouta. A lot of people I know, nobody’s going to go on the record, but the people I know said we couldn’t make a connection, there was no connection between what was given to us by Bashar and what was used in Ghouta. That to me is interesting. That doesn’t prove anything, but it opens up a door to further investigation and further questioning.

This interview was lightly edited for readability. #

Ken Klippenstein is an American journalist who can be reached on Twitter @kenklippenstein or email: kenneth.klippenstein@gmail.com.

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Random Acts of Tyranny, The Founders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Klippenstein Interview: Seymour Hersh Dishes on Saudi Oil Money Bribes and the Killing of Osama Bin Laden

Monthly Feature: Apologists for Islam and History

Once again, Obama skips over a few important details.

la_rendicion_de_granada_-_pradillaBy Hugh Fitzgerald for Frontpage Magazine, March 24, 2016 •

Apologists for Islam are a varied bunch – some reveal ignorance, others deploy deliberate taqiyya – but all play fast and loose with history.

Here are three examples:

Karen Armstrong on the Expulsion of the Moors

In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era, three very important events happened in Spain. In January, the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the city of Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe; later, Muslims were given the choice of conversion to Christianity or exile. In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between baptism and deportation. Finally, in August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a protégé of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered the West Indies. One of his objectives had been to find a new route to India, where Christians could establish a military base for another crusade against Islam. As they sailed into the new world, western people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their identity.

In 1492, “the Catholic monarchs conquered Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe.” What then should we call all those lands in southern and eastern Europe that the Ottomans were at that very moment busy conquering and seizing, including Constantinople, the richest, most populous, most important city in all of Christendom for 800 years (taken by the Turks on a Tuesday – May 29, 1453), and the Balkans (including the then-vast Serbian lands)? And what are modern-day Albania, Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria? The Ottomans continued to press northward and westward, later seizing much of Hungary and threatening Vienna twice. Were these not parts of Europe, and was not a good deal of Europe, including what had been its most important city for a millennium, Constantinople, firmly in Muslim hands before Granada fell – and after?

But it would not do to remind readers that while the Muslim invaders and conquerors of Spain lost their last “stronghold” in Granada, other Muslim invaders and conquerors were busy at the other end of Europe, seizing lands and subjugating the native populations to the devshirme (the forced levy of Christian children) as well as to the jizya (the tax on non-Muslims) and all the other disabilities that, wherever Muslims conquered, were imposed, as part of a clearly elaborated system, and not merely the whim a ruler, on all non-Muslims.

Now having begun with that year 1492, Armstrong has a bit of a problem. It was that year that Jews were forced to be baptized or to leave. But though Granada had fallen, nothing then happened to the Muslims. In fact, they were treated with the same gentleness that all the Mudejares (Spanish Muslims) who had been defeated, in successive campaigns, were always treated by the Christian victors. Henry Lea, the pioneering historian of the Inquisition, who was hardly looking for ways to exculpate Christianity, describes the generosity with which the defeated Muslims were treated in Granada, and after the prior victories:

It was the Jews against whom was directed the growing intolerance of the fifteenth century and, in the massacres that occurred, there appears to have been no hostility manifested against the Mudéjares. When Alfonso de Borja, Archbishop of Valencia (afterwards Calixtus III), supported by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, urged their [the Mudejars] expulsion on Juan II of Aragon, although he appointed a term for their exile, he reconsidered the matter and left them undisturbed. So when, in 1480, Isabella ordered the expulsion from Andalusia of all Jews who refused baptism and when, in 1486, Ferdinand did the same in Aragon, they both respected the old capitulations and left the Mudéjares alone. The time-honored policy was followed in the conquest of Granada, and nothing could be more liberal than the terms conceded to the cities and districts that surrendered. The final capitulation of the city of Granada was a solemn agreement, signed November 25, 1491, in which Ferdinand and Isabella, for themselves, for their son the Infante Juan and for all their successors, received the Moors of all places that should come into the agreement as vassals and natural subjects under the royal protection, and as such to be honored and respected. Religion, property, freedom to trade, laws and customs were all guaranteed, and even renegades from Christianity among them were not to be maltreated, while Christian women marrying Moors were free to choose their religion. For three years, those desiring expatriation were to be transported to Barbary at the royal expense, and refugees in Barbary were allowed to return. When, after the execution of this agreement, the Moors, with not unnatural distrust, wanted further guarantees, the sovereigns made a solemn declaration in which they swore by God that all Moors should have full liberty to work on their lands, or to go wherever they desired through the kingdoms, and to maintain their mosques and religious observances as heretofore, while those who desired to emigrate to Barbary could sell their property and depart.

It was not until 1502, after difficulties ensued between Spanish authorities, including the famous Cardinal Ximenes (he of the Complutensian Polyglot), and the Muslims (Mudejares) that they were given the choice of expulsion or conversion. And a great many of them pretended to convert, and remained in Spain – far more Muslims were capable of engaging in dissimulation of their faith than were the hapless Jews, who were expelled, in 1492, virtually overnight. It was much later, not until the late 16th century, under Philip II, that the last of the Muslims (“Moors”) in Spain were finally expelled, having before that risen in revolt more than once, and been subject to several incomplete expulsions.

Armstrong manages to smuggle in that first, rather ineffective expulsion of 1502: “later [i.e. in a different year altogether] Muslims were given the choice of Christianity or exile.” She does not add, and may not know, that Muslims in Spain after the fall of Granada in 1492 were not under any danger of expulsion, and it was only when they showed signs of refusing to integrate as asked (and it was assumed that over time they would share the Christian faith, though at first nothing was done to demand such a sign) that they were presented with the choice of expulsion or conversion. She may not know, either, that Muslims in a Spain now everywhere ruled by Christians, asked members of the ulema in North Africa (in present-day Morocco) to determine whether under Islamic law they might continue to live in Spain under non-Muslim rule. They were told that it was not licit, that it was important for them not to be ruled by non-Muslims, and that they must, therefore, return to the Muslim-ruled lands of North Africa. Such details provide a rather different slant on what Karen Armstrong offers – she takes the real tragedy, the overnight expulsion of the hapless and inoffensive Jews, and attempts to make the reader think that the Muslims were equally inoffensive, equally harmless, and also treated with equal ferocity, as the Jews. But they were not equally inoffensive, not equally harmless, and not treated with equal ferocity. The danger of a military uprising by the Mudejares, possibly helped by Muslims from North Africa, was real, while Jews never were militarily powerful enough to pose a similar threat.

First, in 1492, comes the fall of Granada. Then, second in time, and certainly in Karen Armstrong’s indignation, came the expulsion of the Jews: “In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between conversion and exile.” Note how that “also” is dropped in, as if the real event, the main event, was the nonexistent (in 1492) expulsion of the Moors, which she had taken care to slip into her discussion of the Fall of Granada, so that she could diminish the significance of the expulsion of the Jews with that afterthoughtish “also.”

But the Muslims were invaders and conquerors, who had been resisted for 700 years of the Reconquista, and when expelled, not all at once as were the Jews, they simple went across the Straits of Gibraltar from whence they had originally come, to live again among fellow Muslims, under Muslim rule. Armstrong never says that. Nor does she point out, as she would if she were trying to compare the quite different treatments of Jews and Muslims, that the Jews of Spain never invaded, never conquered, never represented a threat to the political or social order of Christian Spain. And when they were expelled, they were not to find refuge, like the Muslims, in lands ruled by coreligionists, but again, to be scattered, both to Ottoman domains and to Christian ones, to Salonika or Amsterdam, to be treated indifferently, or kindly, or with contumely, or worse.

Under Muslim rule, despite their sometimes horrendous treatment, as recorded by Maimonides in his “Epistle to the Yemen” (Maimonides fled Islamic Spain and reported to his coreligionists in the Yemen), the Jews managed to make important cultural contributions as translators (along with Christians), as physicians, and as poets (the name Judah Halevi comes to mind). They were perfectly willing to live in Spain under Christian rule. They posed no military or political threat, in contradistinction to the Muslims. They did nothing to deserve their expulsion. But Karen Armstrong has sympathy for the Jews only insofar as that sympathy can be transferred to the real objects of her pity, the Muslims, and she will do nothing to cause readers to recognize the difference in the two cases, that of the Jews one of clear mistreatment, that of the Muslims a matter of geopolitical prudence. It took a full decade for the Spanish rulers and clerics to realize that the Muslims, though conquered, were not, as had been hoped, eventually going to convert to the Christian faith, and the signs they gave of continued insubmission could only disturb the Christian monarchs. It had taken 500 years for the Reconquista. Why should the Spanish Christians, now that they had been militarily victorious everywhere on the Iberian Peninsula, need to worry that the Muslims might rise in revolt when they could remove the problem once and for all?

And such local Muslim revolts did take place in Spain in the sixteenth century, but it was not until the Morisco revolt of the Alpujarras in Granada in 1568 that official attitudes hardened. That war lasted until 1570; at the end of it, Grenadan Moriscos were relocated to the interior, and scattered among “Old Christians,” that is, people who were not descended from Jewish or Muslim converts to Islam, and, it was assumed, were the most trustworthy Christians of them all.

But still there were worries about the failure of hundreds of thousands of Moriscos to assimilate, and the fear that they might be in contact with Barbary pirates or the Ottomans (or even Protestants!) led the Spanish monarch in 1609 to order the expulsion of the last remaining Moriscos.

Both Jews and Moors were expelled from Spain, but not on the same date, and not at all in the same way. However determined Armstrong may be to convince us (most unconvincingly) that these were identical historical events, both prompted in her modish view by the demonization of “the Other” (a phenomenon which apparently results from the peculiar psychic deficiency of Christian Europe), they were not identical. The Moors were treated by Spanish officials much more leniently than the Jews, even though they were a greater geopolitical threat, with powerful coreligionists just across the Strait of Gibraltar in North Africa, than were the Jews, who posed no threat whatsoever. The phrase “the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors in 1492” does violence to the truth, but furthers Armstrong’s desire to win sympathy for Muslims.

Armstrong has been retelling, in her inimitable fashion, the story of European Christendom’s relations with Islam and with Muslims. In her retelling, the Muslims are innocent victims, and as innocent victims, likened misleadingly to the Jews. They are also the only people who provided, in that bright shining moment of European history known as Islamic Spain, the only real tolerance and humanity to be found anywhere in Europe before the modern era, a veritable paradise of convivencia. It is a tough job, but Karen Armstrong proves equal to the task. And her real theme is not history, but to make Europeans feel ashamed of themselves for showing any signs of wariness or suspicion about the millions of Muslims who now live in Europe, having come among the indigenous Infidels to settle, but not, pace Armstrong, to settle down.

Barack Obama on Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner” and Muslims In America

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.  Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ., which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

And Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Muslim invention, and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or bida, is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply  involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunky who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

When Obama quotes that single phrase from John Adams, made at the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty designed to free American ships and seaman from the ever-present threat from the marauding Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean that attacked Christian shipping at will (and when America became independent, it could no longer count on the Royal Navy to protect its ships), he wants us to think that our second president was approving of Islam. But that is to misinterpret his statement, clearly meant to be taken to have this meaning: we in the United States, have a priori nothing against Islam. Rhetoric designed to diplomatically please. But based on his subsequent experiences with the North African Muslims, including his experiences with them after various treaties were made and then broken, Adams came to a different and negative view of Islam, a view that  was shared by all those Americans who, whether diplomats or seized seamen, had any direct dealings  with Muslims. America’s first encounter with Muslims was that with the Barbary Pirates, from Morocco to Algiers to Tunis to Tripoli, and their behavior rendered Adams’s initial “the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims” null and void. And it was not John Adams himself, but his son John Quincy Adams (our most learned President), who studied Islam in depth, and it was he to whom Obama ought to have turned to find out more about Islam. For he would have found, among other piercing and accurate remarks by J. Q. Adams, the following:

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Isn’t it amazing that not a single American official — and not just Obama — has ever alluded to the study of Islam that one of our most illustrious presidents produced?

Again, Obama, with a jumble of Jefferson, Ellison, and Holy Koran:

And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.

When Obama notes that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his “personal” library, he is subtly implying that Jefferson approved of its contents. Keith Ellison did much the same when he ostentatiously used that very copy of the Qur’an for his own swearing-in as the first Muslim Congressman. But Jefferson, a curious and cultivated man, with a large library, had a copy of the Qur’an for the same reason you or I might possess a copy, that is, simply to find out what was in it. And we might note in passing that it was not the “Holy Koran” that Jefferson possessed and Ellison borrowed, but an English translation by George Sale of the “Koran.” According to Muslims, the epithet “Holy” can only be attached to a Koran written and read in the original Arabic. White House, for the next time, take note.

There is not a single American statesman or traveler or diplomat in the days of the early Republic who had a good word for Islam once he had studied it, or had had dealings with Muslims or had travelled to their countries. Look high, look low, consult whatever records you want in the National Archives or the Library of Congress, and you will not find any such testimony. And the very idea that an American President would someday praise Islam to the skies in Obama’s fulsome manner would have astounded them all.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance.

Also sprach Obama. But Islam is based on an uncompromising division of humanity into Muslims and Non-Muslims, Believers and Unbelievers, and Unbelievers, at best, can be allowed to live in a Muslim polity — be “tolerated” — only if they accept a position of permanent and humiliating inferiority. It would be fascinating if Obama could name even one example of Islam demonstrating through words and deeds “the possibilities of religious tolerance.”

But let’s return to Obama’s assertion about Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner,” or rather, to that dinner that Barack Obama would have us all believe was the first “Iftar Dinner” at the White House, way back in 1805.

Here is the background to that meal in 1805 which not Jefferson, but Obama, calls an “Iftar Dinner”:

In the Mediterranean, American ships, now deprived of the protection formerly offered by the Royal Navy, suffered constant depredations by Muslim corsairs, who were not so much pirates acting alone but were officially encouraged to prey on Christian shipping, and at times even recorded the areas of the Mediterranean where they planned to go in search of Christian prey. Under Jefferson, America took a more aggressive line:

Soon after the Revolutionary War and the consequent loss of the British navy’s protection, American merchant vessels had become prey for Barbary corsairs. Jefferson was outraged by the demands of ransom for civilians captured from American vessels and the Barbary states’ expectation of annual tribute.

The crisis with Tunis erupted when the USS Constitution captured Tunisian vessels attempting to run the American blockade of Tripoli. The bey of Tunis threatened war and sent Mellimelli [Sidi Soliman Mellimelli] to the United States to negotiate full restitution for the captured vessels and to barter for tribute.

Mellimelli was not, pace Obama, “the first Muslim ambassador to the United States” — there was no official exchange of ambassadors – but a temporary envoy with a single limited task: to get an agreement that would set free the Tunisian vessels and come to an agreement about future payment – if any — of tribute by, or to Tripoli. At the end of six months, that envoy was to return home.

The Muslim envoy made some unexpected personal demands in Washington:

Jefferson balked at paying tribute but accepted the expectation that the host government would cover all expenses for such an emissary. He arranged for Mellimelli and his 11 attendants to be housed at a Washington hotel, and rationalized that the sale of the four horses and other fine gifts sent by the bey of Tunis would cover costs. Mellimelli’s request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to “pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.

Some readers will no doubt be reminded by this request for “concubines” of how the State Department has supplied female companions to much more recent Arab visitors, including the late King Hussein of Jordan.

Mellimelli proved to be the exotic cynosure of all eyes, with his American hosts not really understanding some of his reactions, as his “surprise” at the “social freedom women enjoyed in America” and his belief that only Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed were acceptable “prophets” to follow, for they lacked the understanding of Islam that would have explained such reactions:

Despite whispers regarding his conduct, Mellimelli received invitations to numerous dinners and balls, and according to one Washington hostess was “the lion of the season.” At the president’s New Year’s Day levee the Tunisian envoy provided “its most brilliant and splendid spectacle,” and added to his melodramatic image at a later dinner party hosted by the secretary of state. Upon learning that the Madisons were unhappy at being childless, Mellimelli flung his “magical” cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work.

Differences in culture and customs stirred interest on both sides. Mellimelli’s generous use of scented rose oil was noted by many of those who met him, and guards had to be posted outside his lodgings to turn away the curious. For his part, the Tunisian was surprised at the social freedom women enjoyed in America and was especially intrigued by several delegations of Native Americans from the western territories then visiting Washington. Mellimelli inquired which prophet the Indians followed: Moses, Jesus Christ or Mohammed. When he was told none of them, that they worshiped “the Great Spirit” alone, he was reported to have pronounced them “vile hereticks.”

So that’s it. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli installed himself for six months at a Washington hotel, for which the American government apparently picked up the tab including, very likely, that for the requested “concubines.” He cut a dashing figure:

The curious were not to be disappointed by the appearance of the first Muslim envoy to the United States – a large figure with a full dark beard dressed in robes of richly embroidered fabrics and a turban of fine white muslin.

Over the next six months, this exotic representative from a distant and unfamiliar culture would add spice to the Washington social season but also test the diplomatic abilities of President Jefferson.

During the time Mellimelli was here, Ramadan occurred. And as it happens, during that Ramadan observed by Mellimelli, President Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli for dinner at the White House. The dinner was not meant to be an “Iftar dinner” but just a dinner, albeit at the White House; it was originally set for three thirty in the afternoon (our founding fathers dined early in the pre-Edison days of their existence). Mellimelli said he could not come at that appointed hour of three thirty p.m., but only after sundown.

Jefferson, a courteous man, simply moved the dinner forward by a few hours. He didn’t change the menu, he didn’t change anything else, he did not see himself as offering an “Iftar Dinner,” and there are no records to hint that he did. Barack Obama, 200 years later, is trying to rewrite American history, with some nunc-pro-tunc backdating, in order to flatter or please his Muslim guests. But he is misrepresenting American history to Americans, including schoolchildren who are now being subject to all kinds of Islamic propaganda, in newly-mandated textbooks, that so favorably depict Islam, and present it as so integral a part of American life.

Now there is a kind of coda to this dismal tale, and it is provided by the New York Times, which likes to put on airs and think of itself as “the newspaper of record,” whatever that means. The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama’s remarks a few days before at the “Annual Iftar Dinner.” Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.

Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a “White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson.” I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition of Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, did not think he was providing what he thought of as an “Iftar Dinner,” but simply a dinner, at a time his guest requested. And to describe as a “White House tradition” and the first of the “Annual Iftar Dinners” that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson’s non-existent “Iftar Dinner,” have been observed “sporadically,” has absolutely no basis in fact.

When, then, was the next in this long, but “sporadic” series of Iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their orthodox understanding of the very same texts — Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — that all Muslims rely on for authority. It was President George W. Bush who decided that, to win Muslim “trust” or to end Muslim “mistrust” — I forget which — so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those “violent extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion,” started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did what he set out to do, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner just a month after the attacks on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane’s doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.

And thus it is that, ever since 2001, we have had Iftar dinner after Iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our learned Presidents who started this “tradition” that has been observed only “sporadically” — unless we were to count as an “Iftar dinner” what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his exotic guest.

George W. Bush, that profound student of history and of ideas, kept telling us, in those first few months after 9/11/2001, that as far as he was concerned, by gum, Islam was a religion of “peace and tolerance.” He and Obama agree on that. And just to prove it, by golly, he’d put on an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. And that’s just what he did. And that’s how the long “tradition” that Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and her many vetting editors at the newspaper of comical record, The New York Times, referred to, began. It’s all of fourteen years old now, having survived and thrived through the differently-disastrous presidencies of Bush and of Obama.

Craig Considine on Religious Pluralism and Civic Rights in a “Muslim Nation”: An Analysis of Prophet Muhammad’s Covenants with Christians

According to The Daily Mail article about him, Craig Considine is a “professor,” but of what is not specified. This might lead an unsuspecting reader to conclude that his “professorship” must surely be in the field about which he now publishes in the popular press — to wit, the history of early Islam. How surprising, then, to discover that his doctoral thesis, completed just last year, is not about the history of early Islam, but about Pakistani immigrants in the West: “Family, Religion, and Identity in the Pakistani Diaspora: A Case Study of Young Pakistani Men in Dublin and Boston,” a subject having nothing whatever to do with covenants supposedly entered into by Muhammad with Christians before 632 A.D. And he turns out to be not a professor of Islamic studies, but a lean lecturer in sociology.

Considine promises readers of this “covenants with Christians” paper that he will “share….what I have learned about Muhammad and how his legacy informs my understanding of Islam. Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and the right for[sic] minorities to have protection during times of strife.” In other words, we are about to discover a Muhammad-we-hardly-knew-ye kind of Muhammad, an interfaith-healing Muhammad, whose fondest desire is to protect freedom of religion and to be a “champion of human rights.”

And then begins his magical-mystery-tour through early Islam. Considine starts by assuming the historical truth of a document which Muhammad purportedly made with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai:

Muhammad initiated many legal covenants with Christians and Jews after establishing his Muslim community. For example, in one covenant with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai, Egypt, Muhammad called on Muslims to respect Christian judges and churches, and for no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister. Through this agreement, Muhammad made it clear that Islam, as a political and philosophical way of life, respected and protected Christians.

All very fine, were there sufficient evidence to support any of it, but as Robert Spencer showed in a devastating review, this “covenant” must surely be a forgery, very likely made by the monks themselves, in order to ensure their good treatment by Muslims on the invoked authority of Muhammad.

Here’s Spencer:

The document to which Considine is referring, the Achtiname, is of even more doubtful authenticity than everything else about Muhammad’s life. Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632; the Muslims conquered Egypt between 639 and 641. The document says of the Christians, “No one shall bear arms against them.” So were the conquerors transgressing against Muhammad’s command for, as Considine puts it, “no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister”? Did Muhammad draw up this document because he foresaw the Muslim invasion of Egypt? There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a).

The Achtiname, in short, bears all the earmarks of being an early medieval Christian forgery, perhaps developed by the monks themselves in order to protect the monastery and Egyptian Christians from the depredations of zealous Muslims.

Considine doesn’t mention any of the questions about the Achtiname’s authenticity. Instead, he just piles on more:

Similarly, in the Constitution of Medina, a key document which laid out a societal vision for Muslims, Muhammad also singled out Jews, who, he wrote, “shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs… The close friends of Jews are as themselves.”

Spencer:

Here again, both the Treaty of Maqnah and the Constitution of Medina are of doubtful authenticity. The Constitution is first mentioned in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, which was written over 125 years after the accepted date for Muhammad’s death. Unfortunately for Considine, Ibn Ishaq also details what happened to three Jewish tribes of Arabia after the Constitution of Medina: Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, massacred the Banu Qurayza after they (understandably) made a pact with his enemies during the pagan Meccans’ siege of Medina, and then massacred the exiles at the Khaybar oasis, giving Muslims even today a bloodthirsty war chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” Funny how we never hear Muslims chanting, “Relax, relax, O Jews, the Constitution of Medina will return.”

What responsibility did Considine have to his readers? He had at least to recognize that Western scholars of Islam have known for a long time about all four the covenants he dealt with in his paper (Spencer discussed three of them):

Considine said documents have been located in obscure monasteries around the world and books that have been out of print for centuries.

It almost sounds as if he, Craig Considine, lecturer in sociology, had located them himself and been responsible for their recent unearthing.

Considine had a responsibility to present the arguments impugning the authenticity of the documents and to attempt to refute them. He does not have to accept the arguments, but surely he owes readers a duty to discuss thoroughly the issue of authenticity.He does do some of this, but not nearly enough. He surely knew what Spencer wrote, for example, about the problems with the dating of the Achtiname, a document which would have had to have been written before Muhammad’s death in 632 A.D., which makes provisions for the good treatment of Egypt’s Christians by Muslims. Such provisions would only be needed after a Muslim invasion, and the Muslim invasion of Egypt did not take place until 639. That’s only one example of hysteron-proteron, or cart-before-horseness, in Considine’s chronology.

He preens himself on his own learnedness, and presumes to pass judgment on the scholarship of others. Yet he writes about the historian and diplomat Paul Ricaut: “It is also worth pointing out that he [Ricaut] himself used the phrase ‘On dit’, which is Latin for ‘It is alleged’” — thereby unwittingly making us aware that he, Considine, is at home in neither Latin nor French, for “on dit” is not Latin, but one of the commonest of French phrases, meaning “it is said” (the Latin would be “dicitur”), rather than the doubt-casting “it is alleged.”

Considine’s paper is based almost entirely on one source, “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad” by John Andrew Morrow, and like Morrow, Considine presents not so much an overlooked historical truth as a forlorn hope that Islam could be other than it is, based on these “covenants” of doubtful authenticity. The goal may be laudable – convincing Muslims to be kinder to non-Muslims, and for that both Considine and Morrow know you need to ground your appeal not on human decency but on Muhammad’s authority – but the evidence adduced for such covenants remains unconvincing. As Robert Hunt wrote in a review of Morrow’s book:

these documents [the covenants] represent not the aspirations of the Prophet Muhammad, but of those religious minorities who fell under the rule of his successors.

And, continues Hunt, “what are the chances that any Muslim, including those who endorse this book [or Considine’s paper], will give these documents, completely unattested by proper isnad, the status of even the weakest hadith? None. So they will remain to the Muslim community historical curiosities with no religious authority whatsoever.”

At his website, Craig Considine tells the world about himself: “My passions include thinking, teaching, writing, speaking, traveling, and fostering peace.” Perhaps his thinking has been a bit too wishful, and that peace he fondly fosters too much a peace that passeth understanding. #

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Progressivism, Smatterings, The Crisis, The Founders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Monthly Feature: Apologists for Islam and History

Sheriff David A. Clarke Addresses New York Oath Keepers at 2nd Annual Awards Dinner

Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., honored for leadership, gives Keynote Address to the New York Oath Keepers 2nd Annual Awards Dinner in Albany, New York. June 11, 2016

Clarke is a lifelong resident of the City of Milwaukee and in March 2002 was appointed Sheriff by Governor Scott McCallum, and eight months later was elected to his first four-year term, earning 64% of the vote. His later victory margins up to 73% and 74% of the vote.

Clarke graduated summa cum laude from Concordia University Wisconsin with a degree in Criminal Justice Management, and in May 2003, Concordia honored him with their Alumnus of the Year Award. Sheriff Clarke also is a graduate of the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. This prestigious school trains law enforcement executives from all over the world, and provides management and leadership instruction. In July 2004, he completed the intensive three-week Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government, at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Sheriff Clarke was honored in May 2013, with the Sheriff of the Year Award from the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association for, “demonstrating true leadership and courage. . . staying true to his oath, true to his badge, and true to the people he has promised to serve and protect.”

Sheriff Clarke spoke about Black Lies (Lives) Matter, Baltimore, Ferguson, politics, law enforcement, and the courts.

For more about New York Oath Keepers, please visit: www.NewYorkOathKeepers.com

Here are Sheriff Clarke’s statements:

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in Learn Liberty, The Crisis, The People Speak | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sheriff David A. Clarke Addresses New York Oath Keepers at 2nd Annual Awards Dinner

The Terrorists Are Here: U.S. Border Patrol Confirms They’ve Been Smuggled in Through Mexico

terrorists-borderBy Mac Salvo for SHTFplan, June 3, 2016 •

For years we’ve warned of the OTM, or Other-Than-Mexican, threat to our southern border. And while suggesting that border security must be reformed during such a politically charged environment has led to accusations of racism for those who support tough border policy and even a wall, the fact is that we now have confirmation from the U.S. government that exactly what we warned would happen has actually happened.

According to the Washington Times, immigration officials have now confirmed that smuggling rings operating from Brazil to Mexico have been moving “migrants” from middle east terror hot beds into the United States via the southern border.

A smuggling network has managed to sneak illegal immigrants from Middle Eastern terrorism hotbeds straight to the doorstep of the U.S., including helping one Afghan who authorities say was part of an attack plot in North America.

Immigration officials have identified at least a dozen Middle Eastern men smuggled into the Western Hemisphere by a Brazilian-based network that connected them with Mexicans who guided them to the U.S. border, according to internal government documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

Those smuggled included Palestinians, Pakistanis and the Afghan man who Homeland Security officials said had family ties to the Taliban and was “involved in a plot to conduct an attack in the U.S. and/or Canada.” He is in custody, but The Times is withholding his name at the request of law enforcement to protect investigations.

In 2014 we reported that terrorists have been captured at our southern border. The report was completely denied by the Department of Homeland Security, which at the time claimed there were “no credible threats.”

It appears that those reports were, in fact, accurate, and that credible threats did exist.

But that’s not even the half of it.  We have repeatedly warned that since terrorists have what amounts to nothing short of unfettered access to America’s soft targets because of the Obama administration’s lax policies, they could well be smuggling weapons of mass destruction into the United States when they are crossing over.

It has been confirmed that gunmen have stolen radioactive materials, including Cesium-37, in Mexico on multiple occasions, a threat that was so serious that the Texas Rangers were dispatched to secure the border.

What’s more, last month we reported that game wardens in Texas have been issued radiation detectors as part of their standard uniform because of fears that terrorists “could try to smuggle radioactive material into the country.”

As further evidence of just how grave the threat really is, the Obama administration in March released a report outlining the four ways terrorists could use a nuclear device to strike targets in the United States.

The most devastating but improbable scenario involves a group stealing a fully functional bomb from a nuclear-armed country. Most nuclear experts point to Pakistan as the likeliest source, though that would require cooperation with someone on the inside of Pakistan’s military.

Easier to pull off would be for IS or another group to obtain fissile material like highly enriched uranium, then turn it into a crude nuclear device delivered by truck or ship.

A third possibility is that extremists could bomb an existing nuclear facility, such as the Belgian waste plant, spreading highly radioactive material over a wide area.

The most likely scenario that security experts fear is that a group could get ahold of radioactive material, such as cesium or cobalt, for a dirty bomb that could be carried in a suitcase. Those materials are widely used in industrial, academic and hospital settings, with no consistent security standards across the globe. Last year, an Associated Press investigation revealed multiple attempts by black market smugglers to sell radioactive material to Middle East extremists.

Curiously, the White House report specifically mentioned Cesium as a possible radioactive material that can be used to manufacture a dirty bomb – the very same material gunmen stole in Mexico.

While many Americans continue to either bury their heads in the sand or marginalize those who warn of the possibility of Chemical, Biological, Radiologicial, or Nuclear (CBRN) attacks against domestic targets, the threat is obviously real. We need look only to Europe as evidence. When terrorists attacked Brussels earlier this year we also learned that a nuclear power plant was targeted, with those involved having gone so far as to track and record the director of that plant in the hopes they could compromise its security and cause a regional and devastating nuclear disaster. Further, European officials have already confirmed that CBRN weapons have been smuggled into Europe.

Does anyone think that America is immune?

In a recent address President Obama encouraged Americans to prepare for a major disaster, suggesting that Americans should have disaster supplies like emergency food on hand to mitigate such a crisis should it ever come to pass.

Given that we know terrorists are now crossing the border into the United States and that their goal is to cause maximum damage in any way possible, perhaps the President should have also suggested to the public that they acquire CBRN-rated protective equipment to prepare for what appears to be an inevitable scenario.

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in Enemies of the State, Progressivism, Security Industrial Complex, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Terrorists Are Here: U.S. Border Patrol Confirms They’ve Been Smuggled in Through Mexico

Left Explicitly Condones Anti-Trump Violence

If you’re fine with riots, then you’re almost certainly not among those people who have had their buildings torched or cars destroyed in the course of a riot.

trumprally-998x669By at The Federalist, June 6, 2016 •

After an anti-Trump protest in San Jose descended into mob violence last week, Emmett Rensin, one of Vox’s crypto-Marxist editors, suggested people should indeed stage riots if Donald Trump comes to their town. “All violence against human lives and bodies is categorically immoral,” he wrote. “Property destruction is vastly more negotiable.” To Ezra Klein’s credit, Rensin was promptly suspended from his position at Vox.

One imagines Rensin might feel differently about property violence if the property in question were his own, but presumably he’s hoping it won’t come to that. Maybe his building’s doorman will be able to turn the mob away.

By claiming that “property destruction” is a “negotiable” aspect of civil society, rather than a purely criminal one, Rensin is engaging in a shallow kind of intellectualization of violence, one as reckless as it is self-serving. It is entirely probable that Rensin has never and would never personally participate in a riot; he is doubtlessly aware that rioters often get arrested, charged, and convicted, something he likely wants nothing to do with. Better to slough the responsibility off on “poor, Latino folks.” They don’t have a busy explainer website to edit.

To look at rioting as anything other than useless cynical mob violence is to look at it from on high: if you’re fine with riots, then you’re almost certainly not among those people who have had their buildings torched or cars destroyed in the course of a riot. Any innocent victim of rioting will surely be aware of the pointlessness of it all. But for a fellow like Rensin, the prospect of a riot must seem dashing, romantic, exciting. His is a case of, in the parlance of my colleague Hans Fiene, “Selma Envy:” the desire of privileged, activist-minded millennials to relive the American civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth century.

It may also include an element of mini Marxism, since a disdain for and attacks on private property fit with the idea that it should ultimately be abolished. Rensin himself has suggested he supports abolishing private property.

Trying to Justify a Riot

But one can’t readily justify putting the torch to the property of innocent bystanders—not without a lot of mental gymnastics, anyway. So Rensin must resort to demonstrable falsehoods in order to make his case: “Destruction is not violence,” he claims. “[P]roperty destruction and seizure…has never been violence,” he writes elsewhere. This would surely be news to the Jews of Kristallnacht who watched their businesses and synagogues go up in flames. If only Vox had been around back then to clue them in!

This kind of sophistic rationalization is not unheard-of on the Left. Violence against innocents is either justified or explained away as often as it arises. During the Baltimore riots, Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher claimed to have found “the real lesson from Baltimore.” What was that lesson? “Riots work,” notwithstanding the “paltry $1 million” in damage that resulted. (Whose $1 million? Not Ciccariello-Maher’s, that’s for sure.)

Ta-Nehisi Coates compared the Baltimore riots to “a forest fire,” as if riots just, you know, happen, without any objective human input. Jamelle Bouie implored us to “[try] to understand what drives riots rather than give cheap moral condemnation.” The director of a burned-down youth center in Baltimore last year said the violence against her establishment was “understandable,” which would make sense if youth centers had anything to do with police brutality.

If Rioting Works, It Will Happen More Often

All of these lofty-sounding explanations miss the point spectacularly. Namely, there is no point. Rioting is never undertaken in an effort to effect systemic change; if rioting served such a purpose (and if it “worked”), it would happen far more often than it does. Mob violence isn’t even “outrage,” properly understood. When one is truly “outraged,” one punches a wall or screams into a pillow. One usually doesn’t throw a trash can through an innocent person’s storefront.

What the soi-disant experts and sympathizers of mob violence know very well is this: rioting is both useless and objectively ruinous. Riots are stupid, needless, pointless destruction of a kind that is almost purely self-serving.

In an almost painfully poignant example of this self-evident reality, a protestor in Baltimore last year complained to a journalist that there were “other people from different cities coming in [to Baltimore] and messing up even more…they’re not doing it for the cause. They’re doing it for themselves!” Do tell.

The Left needs to stop intellectualizing violence and explaining it away with pathetic exculpatory justifications. Rioting is bad. It is never good, and whatever shallow short-term gains it accomplishes come at the expense of innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

We will assuredly have more riots in this country. They are, sadly, a constituent part of American civic and political life. But the least our self-appointed elite thinkers could do is stop encouraging such needless violence. If they’re going to offer their sympathies and their outright encouragement to mob violence, the least they could do is get out there, take part in the whole mess, and get themselves thrown in jail.

Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist. He currently runs the blog Trial of the Century, and lives in Virginia.

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Progressivism, Random Acts of Tyranny, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Left Explicitly Condones Anti-Trump Violence

#NeverTrumpers Offer Only “Corruption as Usual”

This article is not meant to, or intended to be interpreted as a political endorsement, or lack thereof, of any political candidate. Family Security Matters takes no political point of view whatsoever. Likewise, Eye of Vigilance has no skin in the electoral farce.

By Lawrence Sellin, PhD for Family Security Matters, May 31, 2016 •

Charles Murray, the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, writing in the National Review, says that Donald Trump “is unfit to be president in ways that apply to no other candidate of the two major political parties throughout American history.”

Wow. I wonder if Murray has been in a vegetative state for the last eight years.

And just who are these Republican establishment “angels” Mr. Murray prefers to Trump?

He doesn’t say, but he seems to favor the hopelessly corrupt Hillary Clinton as a reasonable alternative, who, according to Murray, tells lies within “normal parameters.”

I suppose those “normal parameter” lies include Benghazi, “Clinton Cash,” the potentially felonious email scandal or her Avogadro’s number of other lies.

Since January 20, 2009, the executive branch of the federal government has been composed of people who do not believe that United States should be a strong, sovereign, capitalistic- and Judeo-Christian-based constitutional republic.

If Barack Obama was the perpetrator, the two major political parties have been his willing accomplices, facilitating the most divisive, destructive and deceitful administration in American history.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties comprise what can now only be described as an anti-American establishment, both of whom have fostered policies pernicious to the well-being of the country, one in the pursuit of totalitarianism, the other to become beneficiaries of globalist greed.

If the Democrat Party has adopted an Islamo-Marxist agenda, the Republican Party has eagerly become a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate lobbyists and international financial interests.

20160531_INSANITYOVERANDOVEREINSTEINThe Democrat Party is controlled by the radical left and Islamic sympathizers, whose messianic goals can only be achieved by attacking the basis of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which emphasizes the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual. While Islamic radicals seek to impose Sharia by purging the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and income inequality.

The Republican establishment, by contrast, is simply willing to sell-out the country to the highest international bidder and considers American workers as little more than farm animals.

To maintain control of a timid citizenry, both Democrats and Republicans foster a culture of dependency. Democrats create dependency by expanding federal mandates and increasing entitlements. Republicans promote dependency by limiting voter choice, as Murray recommends.

There is already a long history of Republican collaboration with the Obama Administration, but the political degeneration has reached new depths of absurdity.

Here is the list of 43 Republican members of the US House of Representatives who supported Obama’s transgender edicts and are willing to mandate by law that grown men should be permitted to share dressing rooms, locker rooms, or bathrooms with little girls:

Amash (Mich., third congressional district), Brooks, S. (Ind., 5), Coffman (Colo., 6), Costello (Penn., 6), Curbelo (Fla., ), Davis, R. (Ill., 13), Denham (Calif., 10), Dent (Penn., 15), Diaz-Balart (Fla., 25), Dold (Ill., 10), Donovan (N.Y., 11), Emmer (Minn., 6), Fitzpatrick (Penn., 8), Frelinghuysen (N.J., 11), Gibson (N.Y., 19), Heck (Nev., 3), Hurd (Texas, 23), Issa (Calif., 49), Jolly (Fla., 13), Katko (N.Y., 24), Kinzinger (Ill., 16), Lance (N.J., 7), LoBiondo (N.J., 2), MacArthur (N.J., 3), McSally (Ariz., 2), Meehan (Penn., 7), Messer (Ind., 6), Paulsen (Minn., 3), Poliquin (Maine, 2), Reed, (N.Y., 23), Reichert (Wash., 8), Renacci (Ohio, 16), Rooney (Fla., 17), Ros-Lehtinen (Fla., 27), Shimkus (Ill., 15), Stefanik (N.Y., 21), Upton (Mich., 6), Valadao (Calif., 21), Walden (Ore., 2), Walters (Calif., 45), Young, D. (Iowa, 3), Young, T. (Ind., 9), Zeldin (N.Y., 1).

Those Republican members of Congress, who are apparently eager to disregard privacy, decency, women’s equal protection and even public safety, actively sided with Obama and the Democrats to promote transgenderism.

In essence, the Republican Party thinks it is sensible for transgenders, who are arguably mentally disturbed and representing a miniscule 0.3% of the US population, to determine social policy for the other 99.7% of us.

Unlike the #NeverTrumpers, the American people seem to have concluded, like Albert Einstein, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. #

20120212_SellinLawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired Colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. Email  him at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Random Acts of Tyranny, The Aristocracy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on #NeverTrumpers Offer Only “Corruption as Usual”

Killing Christianity in America

shutterstock_102070597By Fay Voshell for American Thinker, April 3, 2016 •

The secular extremism characterizing much of the contemporary political scene sometimes makes it hard to realize Christianity was once the primary motivating force behind the great human rights movements of America.

Men and women of faith fought for decades to achieve victory over the great human rights issue of the 19th century — freeing the slaves. The issue of slavery had festered from the time of its introduction into the colonies in 1619. It would be Pennsylvanian Quakers, who believed in the inner light of conscience, who filed the first formal protest against slavery in 1688.

Abolitionists fought ferociously because of their unyielding and undying belief that all human beings were made in the image of God and were entitled to equal protection under the law. Bolstered by the constitutionally guaranteed rights stated clearly in the first amendment of the American constitution, they fought to end slavery and to guarantee equality of all human beings before the law.

The roots of that great reform movement as well as many of the continuing reform movements of the 19th and 20th centuries — including the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s — were profoundly Christian.

How radically things have changed.

Now, at the inception of the twenty-first century, constitutionally guaranteed rights of the exercise of faith and religious freedoms are jeopardized by a sex cult that has borrowed but completely distorted the underlying principles of the abolitionist movement and its heir, the Civil Rights movement.

The radical fringe of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s coincided and was parallel with the Civil Rights movement, gradually poisoning and then determining to kill outright the Christian religious conscience that was and still is the backbone of reform in America. The radicals behind the sexual revolution substituted in the place of Christian conscience answerable to God a militant view of self-determination that held to no god but the inner god of human will and power.

In an astonishing perversion of the Quaker idea of the inner voice of conscience answerable to God, the inner voice of the individual human being was determined to be infallible in matters of sex and practice — “If it feels good; do it.” What any individual believed to be his or her inner voice granted unqualified authority to remold the world according to the latest revolutionary fatwa concerning sexual freedom.

Over a period of a few decades, activists for the LGBT movement transitioned steadily from their initial demands for equal protection under the law to demands for gay marriage, to denaturing the very construct of humanity by insisting on a gender free society, to promoting the right to force society at large to accept as infallible an individual’s ability to discern and to declare one’s self to be whatever sex one chooses.

To put it another way, the LGBT agenda will brook no contradiction from the rest of us mere mortals to argue about the inerrant inner light of the gods and goddesses who declare themselves to have divine ability to transform themselves into any sex they wish to be. The “right” to be or not to be man or woman resulted in the fanatical demand that bathrooms must be retrofitted to conform to “gender free” standards, meaning that in practice either sex could use public facilities as they wished, including those who are physically men but believe themselves to be women.

But even victories in the bathroom bill fights have not been enough for radicals. Encouraged by the recent decision of the Supreme Court ratifying a pillar of the LGBT movement; namely, the constitutional “right” of same sex couples to marry, the movement has set its sights on destroying Christianity itself. By insisting that no minister or priest can refuse to marry gay couples, and by asserting no organization or institution, including churches, can refuse to hire people diametrically opposed to Christian beliefs, the LGBT movement reveals itself to be a cult radically and viciously antithetical to Christianity.

And, yes, it is a cult.

A basic definition of a cult is an organization whose beliefs are so far separated from the real world, that if society were to incorporate those beliefs, it too, would go mad. Therefore, insane beliefs completely divorced from the ground of being can only be established by force of law and strategies utilizing persecution aimed at eventual elimination of entities in opposition to those beliefs.

The result is that open war has been declared on Christianity in America.

For proof of that war, we need only to look at the mad consequences we now observe in Georgia, where the governor of that state has vetoed a bill that would have offered absolutely minimal protection to ministers and churches. World Magazine reports:

“Claiming the bill would ‘give rise to state-sanctioned discrimination,’ Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal today vetoed a law that would have provided legal protection for pastors, faith-based organizations, and business owners who, in good conscience, refused to service gay weddings. The veto leaves Georgians with no statewide religious liberty protection and vulnerable to lawsuits over belief in the biblical definition of marriage.”

Apparently completely ignorant of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s clear statement of religious protection, the governor added: “In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask government to confer upon them certain rights and protections.”

Let that sink in.

In an era in which our Secretary of State has finally admitted genocide is being committed against unprotected Christians in the Middle East, the governor of Georgia says religious communities don’t need the government to confer rights and protections on people of faith.

Irony of ironies, Nathan Deal is a Southern Baptist — a Southern Baptist who just gave over his own denomination to corporations for thirty pieces of silver. That his own church holds such retrograde and discriminatory positions as marriage being a covenant between a man and a woman and that the scriptures hold very pronounced views on sexual behavior seem to come as a surprise to Governor Deal.

But they do not surprise Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Seminary, and stalwart defender of orthodox Christian views on the sexes and marriage. One wonders if Deal — what a perfect name — is prepared to see Dr. Mohler sued and hauled away to jail for advocacy of orthodox Christian doctrine concerning marriage and sexual mores.

Certainly Deal’s capitulation to corporations and the LGBT radicals helps explain why a plurality of Georgian evangelicals, among them Southern Baptists, voted for shameless secularist Donald Trump. Apparently neither Deal nor the plurality of so-called evangelicals think faith and Christian doctrine have anything to say about the character of candidates who wish to lead a nation or about radical policies antithetical to and aimed directly at Christians.

The leftist rage directed at American Christians should come as no particular surprise.

Historically, the Left has always sought to eviscerate and even to eliminate Christianity. The all-out assault on Christians in America by the Left resembles the wars socialism and communism waged against Christianity, the most obvious example being is the attempt of the communist Soviet Union to bury Russian Orthodoxy.

A less noted example, yet a clear provider of an almost exact pattern of what is happening here in the U.S., is the persecution of Mexican Roman Catholics by radical socialists during the Cristero war of the 1920s. During that war, Mexican socialists sought to eliminate Christianity from Mexico, which at the time was 95% Catholic.

For over 70 years, from about 1917 onwards, the Roman Catholic Church was actually outlawed. It was not allowed to own property, run parochial schools or convents or monasteries. Foreign priests were deported, and many native priests killed outright. The Church was not allowed to defend itself publicly or in the courts.

As Catholic Gene writes:

[The Church] was hardly allowed to exist. According to historian Jim Tuck, “This was not separation of church and state: it was complete subordination of church to state”.

“It was not until 1992 that the Church was restored as a legal entity in Mexico. During the period of the strictest enforcement of these draconian laws beginning with the rule of President Calles in the late 1920s, Mexicans were often imprisoned for wearing religious items, saying “Adios” in public (which literally means “with God”), or even questioning the laws. Public worship was a crime punishable by hanging or firing squad.”

The Mexican Constitution of 1917 included the following restrictions on Catholics:

“According to the religious liberties established under article 24, educational services shall be secular and, therefore, free of any religious orientation. The educational services shall be based on scientific progress and shall fight against ignorance, ignorance’s effects, servitudes, fanaticism and prejudice… All religious associations organized according to article 130 and its derived legislation, shall be authorized to acquire, possess or manage just the necessary assets to achieve their objectives… The rules established at this article are guided by the historical principle according to which the State and the churches are separated entities from each other. Churches and religious congregations shall be organized under the law.”

The new constitution obligated the registration of all churches, declared all priests and ministers were ineligible to hold state office; and stated they could not advocate on behalf of any political parties or candidates. The State would regulate the number of priests in designated regions and no priests could wear religious garb in public. Nor could religious ceremonies be conducted outdoors without strict regulation by the State.

One needs only to read the restrictions of the Mexican Constitution of 1917 to recognize a similar pattern of persecution and restrictions against churches and people of faith in the United States, land of the free.

In retrospect Christians, at least partially, have only themselves to blame, as they have yielded time and again to state intrusions and restrictions with only sporadic guerilla warfare. On the whole, Christians have reacted to anti-Christian decrees and restrictions such as the SCOTUS decree on abortion, the elimination of Christianity from public schools, and the muzzling of priests and pastors concerning politics by retreating into a subculture.

As the attacks ratchet up, Christians urgently need to understand continued capitulation to the demands of the radicals who are pushing for the fringe demands of the LGBT movement means the death of religious freedom in America. It also means a cult’s radical doctrines replace Christian mores.

Are Christians in America prepared to see their pastors sued and/or sent to jail, their children continued to be subject to indoctrination in public schools, their state and federal governments continue to kowtow to extremists determined to eradicate the influence of religion; the free exercise of religion in the public square eliminated; Christians consigned to what would essentially be a caste system, with people of faith considered untouchables who are not worthy of public office or even employment?

If they are not prepared to strongly confront a cult’s takeover of America’s governments, churches, and major institutions; if they wish to see Christianity once again regain its status as a major influence for societal reform; if they want to once again see Christianity as salt and light in the society in which they live, they have no choice but to stand and fight.

Otherwise, the Church in America will die. #

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. A frequent contributor to American Thinker, her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including RealClearReligion, National Review, CNS, Fox News and Russia Insider. She has discussed matters of church and state and other conservative issues on television and radio talk shows, and is available for speaking engagements. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Progressivism, Random Acts of Tyranny, Religion, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Killing Christianity in America

Saudi Arabia Forces UN to Remove It from List of Child Killers

By Michael Krieger at Liberty Blitzkrieg, June 8, 2016 •

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 5.08.40 PM

The United Nations is not just worthless, it is downright dangerous. This is because it maintains an air of humanitarianism while its true purpose is to defend and shield the barbarism and war crimes of its most powerful sponsors.

The true farce of the U.N. was exposed in earnest last year when it named the terrorist state of Saudi Arabia to head up a human rights council. I covered this in several posts, but here’s an excerpt from one of them, Not a Joke – Saudi Arabia Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Panel:

Saudi Arabia is making a bid to head the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (HRC) just days after it posted a slew of new job openings for executioners who would help carry out beheadings amid a massive uptick in state-sanctioned killings in the country.

U.N. Watch, a nonprofit group that monitors the international body, disclosed Saudi Arabia’s intentions in a recent report and urged the United States to fight against it, describing the move as “the final nail in the coffin for the credibility” of the HRC.

Neuer compared the possible ascension of Saudi Arabia to the top slot to electing “a pyromaniac as the town fire chief.”

A week after being named head of this “human rights council,” we saw the following headline:

38 Dead After Saudi Arabia, Head of UN Human Rights Panel, Bombs Wedding in Yemen

Now we learn the following from The Intercept:

Under intense pressure from the Saudi government, the U.N. secretary general removed the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition in Yemen from a blacklist of child killers only 72 hours after the list was made public.

The coalition had been listed in the appendix of the U.N’s annual report on children and armed conflict, under “parties that kill or maim children” and “parties that engage in attacks on schools and/or hospitals.”

According to the report, at least 785 children were killed and 1,168 injured in Yemen last year alone, 60 percent by coalition airstrikes. The report documents dozens of coalition attacks against Yemeni schools and hospitals.

Saudi Arabia is an unlikely but powerful voice in U.N. human rights deliberations. Last year, despite carrying out a record number of beheadings, the kingdom became the chair of the U.N.’s 47-nation Human Rights Council — a decision that met with international outrage, but that the U.S. said it “welcomed.”

In a press conference outside the United Nations Security Council headquarters on Monday, the Saudi ambassador to the U.N. reacted angrily to the child-killing report and requested that it “be corrected immediately so it does not reflect the accusations that have been made against the coalition.”

Since the war started in March 2015, more than 6,400 people have been killed, the majority by coalition bombs. The Saudi-led coalition has also devastated Yemen by imposing a strict naval blockade on the desert nation, which imports 90 percent of its food and 100 percent of its medicine.

The Saudi ambassador, however, announced that the change to the list was “final and unconditional,” and that he had been “vindicated,” the Associated Press reported.

The removal sparked outrage from advocates and monitoring organizations.  “The U.N. itself has extensively documented the Saudi-led coalition’s airstrikes in Yemen that have caused hundreds of children’s deaths and hit many schools and hospitals,” said Philippe Bolopion, deputy director for global advocacy at Human Rights Watch. “As this list gives way to political manipulation, it loses its credibility and taints the secretary general’s legacy on human rights.”

There you have it.

For more on the virtually endless stream of Saudi barbarism and its incestuous ties to Washington D.C. insiders, see:

38 Dead After Saudi Arabia, Head of UN Human Rights Panel, Bombs Wedding in Yemen

Not a Joke – Saudi Arabia Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Panel

“Getting Things Done” – The Brother of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chair is a Major Lobbyist for Saudi Arabia

A Look Inside Saudi Arabia’s Elaborate U.S. Propaganda Machine

Another New Low – Saudi Arabia Threatens to Sue Twitter Users Who Compare it to ISIS

Saudi Arabia Sentences Poet to Death for “Renouncing Islam”

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this Liberty Blitzkrieg post?
You can support them by donating bitcoins here: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in Enemies of the State, The Crisis | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Saudi Arabia Forces UN to Remove It from List of Child Killers

A Warning to the Feds on Incremental Prosecutions of the Liberty Movement

bundy ranch cowboysBy Brandon Smith at Alt-Market, February 24, 2016 •

At the very onset of what would become the Soviet Empire, Vladimir Lenin decreed the creation of a national internal army called the “Cheka.” The Cheka were handed very broad police powers and tasked with the disruption and elimination of any form of dissent within the communist system. Lenin launched what would later be known as the “Red Terror”, in which nearly every Russian population center had an established Cheka office of operations using surveillance, infiltration, nighttime raids, imprisonment, torture and execution to silence opposition to the authority of the state.

Some of these people were active rebels, some were outspoken political opponents and journalists, others were merely average citizens wrongly accused by neighbors or personal enemies. The Cheka created a society of fear and suspicion in which no one could be trusted and little criticism was spoken above a whisper anywhere, even in one’s own home.

It is important to note, however, that the dominance of the Cheka was established incrementally, not all at once.

Agents of the state began their “cleansing” of the Russian population by targeting specific groups at opportune times and worked their way through the citizenry at an exponential pace. The most intelligent, effective and dangerous activists and rebels were slated for destruction first, as they represented a kind of leadership mechanism by which the rest of the population might be mobilized or inspired. More innocuous organizations (like Christian churches and rural farmers) were persecuted as background noise while the political mop-up was underway.

Through this incrementalism, the communists were able to intern or eradicate vast numbers of potential opponents without the rest of Russians raising objections. The general populace was simply thankful that the eye of the Cheka had not been turned upon them, and as long as it was some other group of people unrelated to their daily life that disappeared in the night, they would keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

I would point out that the communists were very careful and deliberate in ensuring that the actions of the internal police were made valid through law and rationalized as a part of “class struggle.” Such laws were left so open to interpretation that literally any evil committed could later be vindicated. Man-made law is often a more powerful weapon than any gun, tank, plane or missile, because it triggers apathy within the masses. For some strange reason, when corrupt governments legalize their criminality through legislation or executive decree, the citizenry suddenly treats that criminality as legitimate and excusable.

Incremental prosecution and oppression is effective when the establishment wishes to avoid outright confrontation with a population. Attempt to snatch up a million people at one time, and you will have an immediate rebellion on your hands. Snatch up a million people one man at a time, or small groups at a time, and people do not know what to think or how to respond. They determine to hope that the authorities never get to them, that it will stop after a few initial arrests, or they hope that if they censor themselves completely, they will never be noticed.

In fact, corrupt governments issue warrants of arrest for a handful of dissenters and initiate imprisonment in a very public manner in the beginning with the express purpose of making examples and inspiring self censorship in the masses so that the authorities do not have to expend large amounts of resources to fight a more complex rebellion.

I bring up the historic example of the Cheka and incrementalism because a trend is brewing within our current establishment by which I believe a similar (if not more sterilized) brand of oppressive action is being planned against the liberty movement.

After the debacle in Burns, Oregon during the refuge standoff, federal officials immediately began a subtle campaign in the media promoting internal police powers that when examined in an honest light, are truly anti-liberty.

It remains my personal position according to the evidence I have seen that the refuge standoff was likely influenced by at least one if not more federal provocateurs and that Ammon Bundy was “encouraged” in his choice of actions and location by this person or persons. The goal? I can only guess that the intent was to trap the liberty movement in a Catch-22 scenario; either we join the poorly planned and executed standoff on some of the worst defensive ground possible and risk everything on one centralized event, or, we refuse to participate in the strategy and watch helplessly as a group of people, many with good intentions but little tactical sense or training, are arrested or killed. Either we gamble everything on the worst possible terms, or, we avoid the gamble and watch as the entire movement is made to look weak or incompetent by association with a few.

The majority of the movement chose the latter action, rightly I feel. Burns was no Bundy Ranch — everything about it felt rigged. And though there were many angry anonymous voices calling us “sunshine patriots” and “keyboard warriors” because we would not participate, apparently none of those loud mouths ever showed up in Burns either, so I am assuming they finally saw the wisdom in our decision.

It would seem as though the feds did not get exactly what they wanted out of the refuge standoff, but they have decided to squeeze as much advantage out of the event as possible.

Cliven Bundy was arrested after arriving by plane in Portland, Oregon, not on any charges relating to the refuge and his son Ammon, but on charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch standoff of 2014.

These charges include a strange and very broad legal measure relating to “interference with the duties of federal officials.” This in particular should be disconcerting to all of us, for “interference” could be any number of activities.

Any duties of federal officials that are not moral or constitutional should be interfered with in a tactically intelligent manner whenever possible. Such charges are a deliberate anathema to civil disobedience designed to counter immoral actions by government authorities. For any opposition could be deemed “interference” given a twisting of precedence, and thus treated as illegal.

In my recent article “Liberty Activists And ISIS Will Soon Be Treated As Identical Threats,” I examined statements made by the Justice Department’s chief of national security, John Carlin, in an article published by Reuters. Carlin and the Justice Department have made it clear that they intend to apply rules of prosecution used for foreign terrorist organizations to “domestic extremists.” The Oregon standoff was specifically mentioned as an example of such extremism.

Carlin claimed that domestic extremists represent a “clear and present danger,” alluding to the “Clear And Present Danger Doctrine” allowing the government in “times of national crisis” to prosecute almost any citizen giving “material support” to enemies of the state. “Material support” in the past has even included verbal opposition to government policies. Meaning, Carlin is testing the waters of material support laws and such tests may target liberty movement speakers and journalists along with anyone involved in physical opposition. As with the Cheka, no one is really safe.

These charges are also being brought in a retroactive manner, long after the supposed crimes have been committed as we have seen with Cliven Bundy. Meaning, the feds plan to retain warrants and prolong charges, only arresting people later when they think they can get away with it. This is where the incrementalism comes in…

Rumors of further indictments have surfaced possibly including dozens of people involved in the Bundy Ranch standoff. And because of the nature of the incremental game the government is playing, verification is difficult until the arrests are activated.

It has come to my attention from personal sources that there may be a lot of truth to the rumors of pending or retroactive indictments, and that the FBI in particular may be biding its time and waiting to bring charges when particular people are at their most vulnerable and when the movement is less likely to react. These sources have indicated that the federal government is seeking to work around the public relations problems of standoff scenarios like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Bundy Ranch. The feds may claim that they have “seen the light” in terms of avoiding outright mass murder, but I believe they have just found a better way to sneak past public opinion.

If they can manipulate the liberty movement into participation in poorly planned standoffs like Burns, Oregon, they will. Such standoffs are doomed from their inception and can even be controlled from within by agents provocateur. They are not a real threat.

If a standoff occurs organically, as it did at Bundy Ranch in Nevada, and public support is on the side of the liberty movement, then the establishment will simply back off and pluck activists from their homes or at the airport months later.

It is incumbent upon me to offer a warning to federal agencies in the event that incremental prosecution of liberty activists is truly a strategy they are planning to carry out: It is the general consensus of many in the liberty movement that ANY further arrests predicated on activism at Bundy Ranch or similar opposition events in the past to Bureau Of Land Management abuses of power will result in further and expanded engagements by activists. That is to say, such arrests and indictments will not be allowed to continue.

This is not a threat, this is fair warning to government agencies that they are walking a razor’s edge. Incremental prosecutions and dismantling of the liberty movement will not be tolerated; they represent a non-negotiable line in the sand. The feds may or may not care what the consequences will be for crossing this line. They may even think they want such consequences. Regardless, consequences there will be.

While the refuge occupiers essentially handed their heads to the feds on a platter, and the movement was not able to salvage the situation in any viable manner, this does not mean that liberty activists will not take measures during future events depending on the circumstances. Federal agencies may be quick to forget the massive response at Bundy Ranch. This is a mistake. They should probably expect a similar response, if not a more aggressive one, if further arrests are undertaken.

With the ethereal nature of criminal charges like “material support” or “interference with federal officials,” due process becomes a bit of joke. You see, federal agents and agencies, you have to take into account the reality that the liberty movement is well aware of the government push to remove due process altogether. With the AUMF and the NDAA, among other executive actions, we realize that the friendly mask of due process is worn by government today, but not necessarily tomorrow.

If the movement gives ground and does nothing while dozens or more are retroactively imprisoned one case at a time for opposing federal abuse, then how long will it be before the rest of us are imprisoned on even broader charges? How long before the mask comes off and the rendition and indefinite detention provisions of the AUMF and the NDAA come into play? Do you really expect the movement to put faith in due process given the circumstances? Of course you do not.

I would venture to guess that the feds think that any opposition that does arise during the execution of warrants against liberty activists will be “easily managed.” This would be a mistake.

We have seen this all before in the passive sublimation of past societies. We recognize the signs of trespasses to come. And if such trespasses are brought upon the liberty movement or the population at large, then many of us will adopt the attitude that there is not much left to lose.

Personally, I do not look forward to this kind of fight, but I have no illusions that it can be avoided given the course our country has taken. Federal agencies have deemed it a matter of national security to watch us all very closely. They should keep in mind, though, that we are also watching them. #

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit the Alt-Market donations page here.  They greatly appreciate your patronage.

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

# # #

Subscribe

Posted in 2030 Agenda, Agenda 21, Bill of Rights, Demise of Liberty, Rise of Tyranny, Down on the Farm, Enemies of the State, Learn Liberty, Police State, Progressivism, Random Acts of Tyranny, Security Industrial Complex, The Constitution, The Crisis, The Czars | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Warning to the Feds on Incremental Prosecutions of the Liberty Movement