Category Archives: War

5 Disturbing Revelations from the NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Trial About Aggressive, Racist Policing

Moorbey’z Blog

Original post: http://moorbey.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/5-disturbing-revelations-from-the-nypd-stop-and-frisk-trial-about-aggressive-racist-policing/

2013/04/19 · by 

The landmark class-action suit has revealed a lot about the NYPD, and it’s not pretty.
April 18, 2013  |

The city of New York is in the midst of a landmark class-action lawsuit. The suit, Floyd v. the City of New York, alleges that the NYPD has routinely violated the Constitution by stopping and searching black and Latino New Yorkers based on their skin color. Since Michael Bloomberg became mayor of New York City in 2002, stop-and-frisk increased by 600%, from 100,000 New Yorkers targeted to almost 685,000 in 2011. Nearly 90% of those stopped are black or Latino, and police are more likely to use force while stopping New Yorkers of color.

Grassroots community groups and national civil rights organizations have claimed for years that the NYPD’s aggressive tactics have inflicted too high a price on the “high-crime” areas affected. But the trial, expected to run well into May, has already presented some unbelievable revelations of police misconduct and abuse, with high-profile witnesses, including high-ranking NYPD officers, delivering gut-wrenching and shocking testimony. Here are five revelations from the trial.

1. Police are forced by their superiors to make up (illegal) quotas, encouraged to make bogus stops.

NYPD whistleblowers Pedro Serrano and Adhyl Polanco put their careers on the line when they secretly recorded supervisors demanding officers conduct a set amount of stops (five), summonses (20), and arrests (one) per month. Quotas for NYPD activity are illegal under New York labor law, but the city maintains that “performance standards” or “goals” that do not include punishments for officers who fail to meet them are perfectly legal. According to Polanco and Serrano, “performance standard” is just a euphemism for a quota forcing officers to meet numbers. Sometimes this requires them to break the law.

“We were handcuffing kids for no reason,” Polanco testified about the 41st Precinct in the Bronx. He said that supervisors questioning quantity “will never question the quality.” “They just want to make sure we have them. How we got them, they don’t really care about,” said Polanco.

In one of Polanco’s recordings, a supervisor says, “The goal is at least one arrest per month and 20 summons,” and an officer who fails to meet the quota may become a “Pizza Hut delivery man.”

“Things are not going to get any better. It is going to get a lot worse,” the supervisor says about numbers.

Polanco explained that superiors retaliated against officers who failed to meet or complained about quotas.

“They said, if we were willing to keep working with our partners, we better come up with the numbers; that if we want to ask for days off, we better come up with the numbers; that if we wanted overtime, the chiefs control the overtime, and that if we don’t do our numbers, we are not going to get it. We were told that it was non-negotiable, that they are going to force us to do it if we didn’t do it.”

“They can make your life very miserable,” he said.

2. NYPD cop admits to setting quotas.

Deputy Chief Michael Marino testified that when he became Commanding Officer of the 75th Precinct in 2002, he set “performance goals” or “standards” of 10 summonses and one arrest per month. When the judge asked, “So was there a performance goal of 10 summonses and one arrest?” Marino responded, “As per an administrative guide that was present at the time, I set the standards as was mandated to me by the police department, yes.”

Marino testified that upon entering the 75th Precinct, he learned that, “Surprisingly enough, the 400 or so officers assigned to patrol all saw exactly five summonses every month, no more, no less,” adding that “It told me that they had set their own quota.”

Marino testified that he did an analysis of crime conditions in the area and then, “I asked them to increase their summons production from five to 10. I asked them to try to make two good stops a month and to attempt to make one arrest a month.“

Still, he denied ever punishing officers solely for failing to meet his numbers.

3. Spinning evidence.

In 2007, the NYPD’s Office of Management Analysis and Planning (OMAP) commissioned a study by the RAND Corporation to determine whether the department’s stop-and-frisk tactic was driven by racial bias.

Given that close to 90% of police encounters involved non-whites, the report asked, “Do these statistics point to racial bias in police officers’ decisions to stop particular pedestrians? Do they indicate that officers are particularly intrusive when stopping nonwhites?”

In a summary of the report’s findings, RAND found, “small racial differences in these rates” based on which they made “communication, recordkeeping, and training recommendations to the NYPD for improving police-pedestrian interactions.”

That was the final report. But testimony at Thursday’s stop-and-frisk trial suggests that the NYPD pressured the reports’ authors to soften some of their original language. The project’s coordinator, Terry Riley, testified that in their contract the RAND Corporation agreed to take the NYPD’s concerns “into consideration.” The NYPD did indeed voice concerns about early drafts of the report, which plaintiffs say led to several alterations to the final product.

In the first draft, the report’s authors wrote of “disturbing evidence” that there was unequal treatment across race groups. After the NYPD objected to the language, that section was rewritten to say that there was “some evidence” of this. In another version of the report, they originally asked whether every stop that uncovered wrongdoing was worth stopping nine “innocent pedestrians.” The department apparently found the language offensive, and it was changed to “suspects who committed no crime.”

Darius Charney from the Center for Constitutional Rights,an attorney representing the plaintiffs, claims that the evidence they presented of emails complaining about these aspects of the report, and subsequent changes, show that the NYPD “clearly had a hand in spinning the results” even if they didn’t doctor the data.

4. Searching groins and socks…for guns?

Stop-and-frisk is supposed to get guns off the streets. Yet officers allegedly search areas where a gun cannot be reasonably hidden, and these searches are often the most invasive and humiliating.

There have been widespread allegations that NYPD frisks and searches go too far. As I recently reported, people have complained that police search their genital areas and buttocks for drugs, even though police are only allowed to search an area where they have observed a bulge and need to confirm it’s not a weapon.

A plaintiff in the case, 24-year-old Nicholas Peart, testified that, on two separate stops, officers searched him inappropriately. One day police demanded he and some relatives get down on the ground. He broke down when he described what happened next.

“They patted over my basketball shorts and I was touched,” he said, adding that they felt his groin.

In April 2011 Peart was on his way to pick up milk for his siblings. A police officer handcuffed him, removed his shoes and felt his socks, asking “if I had weed on me,” he said.

Queens College sociologist Harry Levine, an expert on stop-and-frisk, has linked the NYPD’s astonishing marijuana arrest rate to its use of stop-and-frisk. The NYPD arrests about 50,000 people annually for marijuana, the vast majority of them black or Latino and in the same neighborhoods where stop-and-frisk is prevalent. It’s telling that in 2012, after controversy surrounding stop-and-frisk heated up, both the policing tactic and marijuana arrests dropped by the same amount — 22% percent.

5) NY Senator: NYPD Commissioner told me stop-and-frisk is a fear tactic.

New York Senator Eric Adams (D-20th District) testified on April 1 that at a July 2010 meeting with Governor Andrew Cuomo about a bill (which he co-sponsored) to ban a database of persons stopped but not charged, he raised his concern about the “disproportionate” number of young black and Latino men stopped by police, prompting the Commissioner to say the tactic is crucial for controversial reasons. “[Commissioner Kelly] stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them, every time they leave their home, they could be stopped by the police,” Adams testified.

“I told him that I believe it was illegal and that that was not what stop-and-frisk was supposed to be used for,” he testified, adding that Kelly responded by asking, “How else are we going to get rid of guns?”

Adams later told reporters he considered Kelly’s statement evidence that, “It was not the people on the ground,” provoking illegal stops but “a policy being blessed from the top down.”

Kristen Gwynne is an associate editor and drug policy reporter at AlterNet.
 

Hunger Strike at Gitmo: ‘We Are Dying a Slow Death Here’

End Guantanamo

End Guantanamo (Photo credit: jezobeljones)

Though Moorbey and I do not agree on solutions we do both agree that this government is evil and oppressive. It is time the people find something else other than the system we currently have. Here is another example of that idiocy. The prisoners in Guantanamo need to be sent home. They are not terrorists for the most part. those who are should be charged and tried. Except the US govt. is afraid of the publicity should the people get any further information about the horrors of that place. 

Moorbey’z Blog

Article posted here: http://moorbey.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/hunger-strike-at-gitmo-we-are-dying-a-slow-death-here/

2013/04/14 · by 

By Pardiss Kebriaei April 13, 2013 MSNBC” –  I’ve just returned from Guantanamo, where my clients  and a majority of the other 166 men there have been on hunger strike for over  two months. Most of them have been cleared for release or will never be charged.  But the Obama administration has refused to send them home.

I met with men who are weak  and have lost between 30 and 40 pounds. They told me of other men who are  skeletal and barely moving, who have coughed up blood, passed out, and one who  tried to hang himself.
One of the men I met with,  Sabry Mohammed, a Yemeni who remains detained years after he was approved for  release by the Obama administration, said, “We are dying a slow death here.” Yet  the authorities say they will not let men die–they will force-feed them when  their body weight drops dangerously low, strapping them into chairs and forcing  a tube up their noses that pumps formula into their stomachs. The military  reports that so far, 11 men are being “saved” this way. Yet as one of the men  put it, the irony is that “the government will keep us alive by force-feeding us  but they will let us die by detaining us forever.”
Today, 166 men remain at  Guantanamo, more than eleven years after they arrived in hoods and shackles.  Most are being held without charge and will never be charged. The Obama  administration has approved more than half of the men–86–for transfer, but  hasn’t mustered the political will to overcome congressional hurdles, despite  saying it can and will. As their indefinite detention stretches into a second  decade, men are aging, declining and dying. Last September,Adnan Latif, a  husband and a father, a man twice cleared for transfer under the Bush and Obama  administrations, was the ninth prisoner to die. The current crisis at the base  had specific triggers, but there has been an emergency at Guantanamo for  years.
The strike was sparked in  early February, when prison authorities ordered searches of the men’s Qurans.  One man told me, “I won’t even touch the Quran without washing my hands, how  could I use it to hide something dirty?” The men viewed the searches as  desecration, which should hardly have been news to those in charge. A former  Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo once described the handling of the holy books as  “the most contentious issue” at the prison. Given the sensitivity of the  practice and the history of religious abuse at Guantanamo–acts like throwing  Qurans on the ground and shaving detainees’ beards as punishment–the authorities  should have known better. Indeed, former commanders did know better. In a 2009  review of conditions at Guantanamo, ordered by the Obama administration, a  commander at the base recognized that standard operating procedures “do not  permit searching of the Koran.” The rule reflected an “elevated respect” for  detainees’ religious concerns–a lesson learned from the early years. It is  unclear why that changed. Another of my clients said, “They are taking the camp  back to 2006.”
So far, prison authorities  have defended their actions and downplayed the scale of the strike. Inside the  prison, my clients have described various tactics used to make life even more  difficult and break the strike. Some have been life-threatening, like delaying  the delivery of filtered drinking water, forcing detainees to drink from the tap  of sink faucets attached to toilets in their cells. Before, there used to be  signs above the sinks saying it was not safe to drink the water. One man said he  would rather go without water than drink from the sink.
As the strike enters its third  month and the crisis deepens, the authorities must reach for a resolution before  someone dies. My clients are asking for assurances that their Qurans will not be  searched, or to hand them in altogether rather than see them  desecrated.
But the solution to the  broader calamity is closing Guantanamo, beginning with the release of men like  Sabry. He told me he does not want to die, he wants to return to his family, but  he and others are continuing the strike because they have been pushed too far  and this is the only means they have to protest peacefully. The only thing they  can control is their own bodies. It is an act of strength even as they are  growing weaker. They are desperately wanting to believe there is still a life  for them beyond the prison walls.
At the end of our meeting last  week, Sabry showed me a painting he made recently, of the prison surrounded by  mountains.  But outside the high, tight-mesh fence that encloses Camp 6, where  Sabry is held, there is ocean. “I don’t know what is outside. It is just what I  imagine.”  After more than eleven years, it is long past time for the United  States to send Sabry home.
Pardiss Kebriaei is a  senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represents men  detained at Guantanamo. She is lead counsel for CCR on the targeted killing  case, Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta.

The Conspiracy to Kill Martin Luther King Jr:

Martin Luther King leaning on a lectern. Deuts...

Martin Luther King leaning on a lectern. Deutsch: 1964: Martin Luther King Português: Martin Luther King (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Not a Theory But a Fact, According to Our Own Legal System

From: http://moorbey.wordpress.com/

Original: AlterNet /By Ira Chernus

April 4, 2013  |
Should the United States government be allowed to assassinate its own citizens? That question was in the air briefly not long ago. April 4 is an excellent day to revive it: On April 4, 1968, the government was part of a successful conspiracy to assassinate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
That’s not just some wing-nut conspiracy theory. It’s not a theory at all. It is a fact, according to our legal system.
In 1999, in Shelby County, TennesseeLloyd Jowers was tried before a jury of his peers (made up equally of white and black citizens, if it matters) on the charge of conspiring to kill Dr. King. The jury heard testimony for four full weeks.
On the last day of the trial, the attorney for the King family (which brought suit against Jowers) concluded his summation by saying: “We’re dealing in conspiracy with agents of the City of Memphis and the governments of the State of Tennessee and the United States of America. We ask you to find that conspiracy existed.”
It took the jury only two-and-half hours to reach its verdict: Jowers and “others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy.”
I don’t know whether the jury’s verdict reflects the factual truth of what happened on April 4, 1968. Juries have been known to make mistakes and (probably rather more often) juries have made mistakes that remain unknown.
But within our system of government, when a crime is committed it’s a jury, and only a jury, that is entitled to decide on the facts. If a jury makes a mistake, the only way to rectify it is to go back into court and establish a more convincing version of the facts. That’s the job of the judicial branch, not the executive.
So far, no one has gone into court to challenge the verdict on the King assassination.
Yet the version of history most Americans know is very different because it has been shaped much more by the executive than the judicial branch. Right after the jury handed down its verdict, the federal government’s Department of Justice went into high gear, sparing no effort to try to disprove the version of the facts that the jury endorsed — not in a court of law but in the “court” of public opinion.
The government’s effort was immensely successful. Very few Americans are aware the trial ever happened, much less that the jury was convinced of a conspiracy involving the federal government.
To understand why, let’s reflect on how history, as understood by the general public, is made: We take the facts we have, which are rarely complete, and then we fill in the gaps with our imaginations — for the most part, with our hopes and/or fears. The result is a myth: not a lie, but a mixture of proven facts and the fictions spawned by our imaginings.
In this case, we have two basic myths in conflict.
One is a story Americans have been telling since the earliest days of our nation: Back in not-so-merry old England, people could be imprisoned or even executed on the whim of some government official. They had no right to prove their innocence in a fair, impartial court. We fought a bloody war to throw off the British yoke precisely to guarantee ourselves basic rights like the right to a fair trial by a jury of our peers. We would fight again, if need be, to preserve that fundamental right. This story explains why we are supposed to let a jury, and only a jury, determine the facts.
(By odd coincidence, as I was writing this the mail arrived with my summons to serve on a local jury. The website it directed me to urged me to feel “a sense of pride and respect for our system of justice,” because “about 95 percent of all jury trials in the world take place in the United States.”)
Then there’s another myth, a story that says the federal government has only assassinated American citizens who were truly bad people and aimed to do the rest of us harm; the government would never assassinate an innocent citizen. Most Americans devoutly hope this story is true. And most Americans don’t put MLK in the “bad guy” category. So they resist believing what the legal system tells us is true about his death.
Perhaps a lot of Americans would not be too disturbed to learn that the local government in Memphis or even the Tennessee state government were involved. There’s still plenty of prejudice against white Southerners. But the federal government? It’s a thought too shocking for most Americans even to consider. So they fill in the facts with what they want to believe — and the myth of James Earl Ray, “the lone assassin,” lives on, hale and hearty.
Since that’s the popular myth, it’s the one the corporate mass media have always purveyed. After all, their job is to sell newspapers and boost ratings in order to boost profits. Just a few days after the trial ended the New York Times, our “newspaper of record,” went to great lengths to cast doubt on the verdict and assure readers, in its headline, that the trial would have “little effect” — an accurate, though self-fufilling, prophecy.
Imagine if the accused had been not a white southerner but a black man, with known ties not to the government but to the Black Panther Party. You can bet that the trial verdict would have been bannered on every front page; the conspiracy would be known to every American and enshrined in every history book as the true version of events.
None of this necessarily means that the federal government and the mass media are covering up actual facts. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. Again, I don’t claim to know what really happened on April 4, 1968.
But there surely were people in the federal government who thought they had good reason to join a conspiracy to get rid of Dr. King. He was deep into planning for the Poor People’s Campaign, which would bring poor folks of every race and ethnicity to Washington, DC. The plan was to have them camp out on the Mall until the government enacted major economic reforms to lift everyone out of poverty. That meant redistributing wealth — an idea that made perfect sense to Dr. King, who was a harsh critic of the evils of capitalism (as well as communism).
It also meant uniting whites and non-whites in the lower income brackets, to persuade them that the suffering they shared in common was stronger than the racial prejudice that divided them. Dr. King did not have to be a prophet to foresee that the longer whites blamed non-whites, rather than the rich, for their troubles, the easier it would be to block measures for redistributing wealth. The unifying effect of the Poor People’s Campaign spelled trouble for those whose wealth might be redistributed.
At the same time, Dr. King was the most famous and respected critic of the war in Vietnam. By 1968 he was constantly preaching that the war was not just a tragic mistake. It was the logical outgrowth of the American way of life, based on what he called the inextricably linked “triplets” of militarism, racism, and materialism. Had he lived, the Poor People’s Campaign would have become a powerful vehicle for attacking all three and showing just how inseparable they are.
Yes, plenty of people in the federal government thought they had good reason to put an end to the work of Dr. King. But that hardly proves federal government complicity in a conspiracy to kill him.
So let’s assume for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that the jury was wrong, that James Earl Ray did the shooting and acted alone. The federal government would still have good reasons to suppress the conspiracy myth. Essentially, all those reasons boil down to a matter of trust. There is already immense mistrust of the federal government. Imagine if everyone knew, and every history book said, that our legal system has established as fact the government’s complicity in the assassination.
If the federal government has a convincing argument that the jury was wrong, we all deserve to hear it. There’s little advantage to having such uncertainty hanging in the air after 45 years. But the government should make its argument in open court, in front of a jury of our peers.
In America, we have only one way to decide the facts of guilt or innocence: not through the media or gossip or imagination, but through the slowly grinding machinery of the judicial system. At least that’s the story I want to believe.


The Main Reason Why Americans Need to Stand Against A War With Iran-The People of Iran

The Difference Between You & Me

“The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don’t know each other, but we talk together and we understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.”

Marjane Satrapi, Author


Hey Iraqis: How’s that “Liberation” Stuff Workin’ Out For Ya?

Center for a Stateless Society

building public awareness of left-wing market anarchism

`

`

  on Mar 21, 2013

On March 19 Donald Rumsfeld, former US “Defense” Secretary and ongoing sociopath and moral leper, celebrated the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War with this tweet: “10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.”

Just what “liberation” meant to Rummy, Dummy and Scummy can be seen from the agenda Paul Bremer implemented as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq. Imagine the kind of “What I Would Do If I Were Absolute Dictator For A Year” list an entire army of ALEC staffers and Heritage Foundation interns would come up with, with the RIAA, MPAA, Monsanto, Halliburton and Blackwater egging them on, and that’s basically what Bremer did to Iraq.

Bremer’s CPA was a classic “night watchman state.” Remember all those priceless historical treasures the looters “liberated” from the National Museum while the U.S. looked the other way? With Night Watchman Bremer’s go-ahead, global corporate looters gave the Iraqi economy just as thorough a ransacking.

Bremer’s infamous “100 Orders” repealed virtually all of the Saddam-era legal structure — except for the 1987 Labor Code, which prohibited collective bargaining in the state sector. The state sector encompassed two hundred state-owned firms (a major chunk of the industrial economy), and Bremer wanted to “privatize” them in insider sweetheart deals with crony capitalists. Legalizing unions might gum up the works.

The CPA refused to unfreeze the assets of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). Bremer ordered US troops to storm the IFTU headquarters and kept it closed down for months. A local American commander helpfully told an imprisoned union organizer that Iraq was not a sovereign country, and that so long as it was under the administration of the CPA Bremer didn’t want unions.

Bremer’s 100 Orders also included Order 81 on “Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety,” which updated “intellectual property” law to “meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection” like the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Uruguay Round TRIPS Accord (which the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act was also passed to implement). Among other things, the new law criminalized saving seeds for the next year.

The entire legal regime Bremer implemented by decree was to remain the law of the land even after the restoration of sovereignty, until — and unless — it was supervened by a new constitution. The so-called “transfer of sovereignty” was to a government appointed by the CPA, enabling Bremer to evade the restriction in international law against a conqueror directly selling off state assets — while also leaving in place an “interim constitution” based on Bremer’s 100 Orders.

Article 26 of Bremer’s Constitution, stated that “[t]he laws, regulations, orders and directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority … shall remain in force” under the interim government, until the “sovereign” puppet regime was replaced by general elections. As Naomi Klein observed in “Baghdad Year Zero” (Harper’s, September 2004):

“Bremer had found his legal loophole: There would be a window — seven months — when the occupation was officially over but before general elections were scheduled to take place. Within this window, the Hague and Geneva Conventions’ bans on privatization would no longer apply, but Bremer’s own laws, thanks to Article 26, would stand. During these seven months, foreign investors could come to Iraq and sign forty-year contracts to buy up Iraqi assets. If a future elected Iraqi government decided to change the rules, investors could sue for compensation.”

The “interim constitution” was designed to make its own replacement by referendum extremely difficult — among other things, requiring any new constitution actually approved by the people of Iraq (as opposed to decreed by Bremer’s fiat) to receive  at least thirty percent of the vote in sixteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces.

On top of everything else, Bremer appointed a whole slew of ministerial officials to five-year terms that would override any later decisions by an independent government.

Meanwhile, a “debt forgiveness” plan negotiated with creditor nations under IMF auspices used debt contracted by Saddam — debt that should have been treated as odious, and hence null and void — as a whip to coerce adherence to the Washington Consensus economic agenda.

This is the “liberation” agenda for which Rumsfeld and his fellow war criminals murdered hundreds of thousands, and physically crippled or psychologically scarred untold hundreds of thousands more. If that’s the kind of “liberation” you like, may you soon join Rumsfeld in hell.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–


Kevin Carson is a senior fellow of the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org) and holds the Center’s Karl Hess Chair in Social Theory. He is a mutualist and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political EconomyOrganization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation, and his own Mutualist Blog.


5 CONSPIRACY THEORIES WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE

This Post is courtesy of Truth Theory. Be sure to Check out their site by clicking on the picture below. First though read these:

Thanks to Misbehaved Woman for this link

There are types of stories called “conspiracy theories” and the people who teach them are considered by “society” as crazy fanatics who often need medical treatment. What if I tell you that “society” should take some of that medical treatment, cause sometimes such incredible stories, nobody believed in, turn out to be 100% true.

What if I tell you that the doctors did not treat us, just wait until we die to cut our bodies?

1. Tuskegee syphilis experiment

In the years 1932-1972, there were a series of experiments on about 400 syphilis-infected black citizens of the United States. The study selected the poor, simple and uneducated – most of them did not even know about their illness. U.S. Public Health Service had promised free treatment to patients. In fact, they were given aspirin. The purpose of this “experiment” was to observe a progressive disease in representatives of the black race, and the scientific autopsy of deceased participants in these studies. As a result, 28 people died directly of syphilis, 100 died as a result of complications directly related to the disease, 40 women were infected by unconscious patients, and 19 children were born with congenital disease.

The sad truth about the Tuskegee Experiment was confirmed in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, who officially and publicly apologized to the eight surviving participants in these studies.

What if I tell you that the U.S. government itself commits “acts of terror” on its land, just to have an excuse to invade another country?

2. Operation Northwoods

In 1997, as a result of the murder of J.F. Kennedy, fifteen hundred pages of documents entitled “Operation Northwoods” were declassified. In the 60s, the United States was preparing for war with Cuba. To fire up the war machine public support was needed. In turn the defense secretary presented a paper called “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” so they had a whole range of interesting provocations, such as terrorist attacks involving the blowing up military bases, starting fires, aircraft hijacking, “landing” of Cuban troops , bombings, and even the sinking of a boat full of armed Cubans.

Click on above to link to full document

These false flag terrorist attacks were to be carried out by the CIA on a massive scale so that the citizens of the United States would feel threatened by Fidel Castro and the government had an excuse to start a war. The plan was never implemented however, as president Kennedy met with the General Lyman Lemnitzer and rejected the plan of operation. This time it did not work …

What if I tell you that it is just about oil?

3. Nayirah Testimony

In August 1990 there was conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, mostly over oil fields as Saddam Hussein accused Kuwaitis of theft of these resources. On October 10th the whole world turned its eyes toward a fifteen-year old girl named Nayirah, who wept profusely as she talked about inhumane crimes committed by Iraqi soldiers. The young Kuwaiti was to witness the killing of more than 300 babies in a hospital. The dramatic speech touched the hearts of viewers and managed to drum up overwhelming support for the involvement of the United States in this conflict and the outbreak of the Gulf War.

When the battle dust settled, someone took a closer look at Nayirah. Quickly it became apparent that the sobbing girl in front of millions of viewers was the daughter of Sheikh Saud Nasser Al-Saud Al-Sabah – Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States and a member of the royal family. The child was handed to PR whizzes – Hill & Knowlton company, where she passed a course in comprehensive acting training. It had to work out – the company bosses signed an$11.9 million contract with the Kuwaiti royal family. The task was simple — to persuade the U.S. to military to take action against Iraq. Nayirah lied. This time it worked …

What if I tell you that the leading Nazi scientists got a job in USA after the war?

4. Operation Paperclip.

World War II was coming to an end and nothing more could change the situation of the Third Reich. American special forces had acknowledged that it would be a pity if some people lost their lives, especially those whose knowledge and experience could potentially serve the interests of the United States. As part of Operation Paperclip, they smuggled into the U.S. a group of gifted scientists from the Nazi rocket industry, medicine and chemical weapons divisions.

In the safe arms of Uncle Sam there were, among others, Wernher Von Braun (SS-man, the creator of the famous missile V-2), Kurt Blome (a doctor specializing in biological weapons, which tested their inventions on prisoners in Auschwitz) and Hubertus Strughold (“father of space medicine” who examined the effect of extremely low temperatures on the human body in camp Dachau). In total, 700 German “men of science”, found their new home on American soil.

What if I tell you that the government controls your mind?

5. MK-Ultra

In many conspiracy theories there are fragments of “Big Brother”, which uses a variety of different methods to brainwash the public. It turns out that playing with people’s minds was actually done by the CIA a good half a century ago! In the 60s, thanks to the NY Times reporters, details of the MK-Ultra project came to light, which was aimed to investigate the human ability to be controlled by the use of certain chemicals, subliminal messages, electrical impulses and psychoactive substances. The project itself consisted of a number of sub-projects. For example, MK-Search was designed to create the perfect truth serum that could be used on captured Russian spies.

They also looked into research on the practical use of LSD. Experiments were conducted on prostitutes, prisoners and people with mental illness. Often times without their knowledge or consent. One such experiment was to give the drug to seven volunteers continuously for 77 days … Among the substances, with which the CIA dealt was alsoamphetamines, psilocybin and mescaline. They also experimented with hypnotic seances. When information about MK-Ultra was released to the public, a number of committees of inquiry were established and this research was formally and publicly condemned.

It is often said that the infamous project was one of the factors which resulted in the generation of the hippie movement. Ken Kesey – author of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, as a volunteer, was participating in one of the experiments, prepared by the CIA. The effect of LSD on the human mind intrigued the writer so much, that he became one of the first proponents of the use of psychedelic drugs in the context of recreation. Another member of psychedelic experimentation was Robert Hunter of the Grateful Dead …

We know that these theories turned out to be true. And how many more are waiting to be revealed? There are some people who do a lot to hide the truth.

THIS ARTICLE IS OFFERED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE. IT’S OKAY TO REPUBLISH IT ANYWHERE AS LONG AS ATTRIBUTION BIO IS INCLUDED AND ALL LINKS REMAIN INTACT.

Creative Commons Licence This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.


Deagle @Neutrimedical Reports

This guy knows what he’s talking about. Worth listening to. http://www.tunewiki.com/posts/1345706982568710340


Lincoln Must Have Worked for Money Power

Monday, April 09, 2012 – by Staff Report

Abraham Lincoln

New Tim Burton film features Abraham Lincoln, vampires … “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” to premiere in June 2012 … While sitting in the theater waiting for “The Hunger Games” to start, I witnessed the most fantastically ridiculous trailer I’ve seen in a long time. It began when a slender man of large stature with the token beard, chiseled chin and tall top hat appeared on the screen. It was evident that he was Abraham Lincoln. When the trailer began, it looked like this movie might be some interesting, slightly morbid take on our 16th president’s life. Or at least something that loosely follows documented history. But then the trailer cut to scenes of Honest Abe wielding an axe like he attended some brute weapons combat school. The slow-motion shot of Abe with his axe, though borderline cheesy, looked edgy. – Daily Wildcat

Dominant Social Theme: Abraham Lincoln − so great he even kills vampires.

Free-Market Analysis: The cult of Lincoln continues unabated. Now comes another movie glorifying the Great Emancipator − see excerpt above.

It is a “mash up” in which several genres are combined, fictionally. This mash up was initially fiction that combined the historical Lincoln with the vampire sub-genre.

The author was purposefully clever − or just lucky − to have featured Lincoln at a time when the powers-that-be are increasingly desperate for pro-government propaganda. We figure in this era of the Internet, Lincoln looks like a valuable figure to those who want to reinforce the primacy of government.

The dynastic families that apparently run central banks along with their enablers and associates are continually attempting to bolster statist heroes like Lincoln because these elites maintain control via mercantilism. They need government, the bigger the better, to efficaciously move toward a New World Order.

The power elite that wants to run the world is having a tough time of it these days. What we call the Internet Reformation is daily exposing the dominant social themes it uses to frighten people into giving up power and wealth to globalist institutions.

One of the biggest dominant social themes is the one of the “leader.” We are constantly bombarded, in the West, with the idea that good political leadership will lead to good political results.

In fact, the political process is entirely one of price-fixing. Real leadership is actually practiced within the private sector and is the result of Misesian human action, the only kind that counts.

The Invisible Hand of competition makes society work. The dead hand of legal authoritarianism causes economic problems, recessions, depressions and ultimately war.

The power elite has made Lincoln into a hero and the Civil War into an admirable exercise in freeing slaves. But the slavery economy would have ended anyway with the advent of the industrial revolution. It did in England without a war.

The Civil War − the War Between the States − was a terrible affair and probably hurt black people as well as helped them. The legacy of bitterness and hatred was overwhelming and is only gradually being overcome … if it actually is.

From our perspective, Lincoln is no hero. He set the South ablaze, killed innocents and virtually knocked down whole cities. Atlanta has never recovered.

He was also a statist politician who believed in the primacy of the state and was willing to arrest people without cause and trample the Constitution to pursue his goal of keeping the union together.

In this modern era, Lincoln has been made a hero by the neo-Greenbacker movement blossoming around the Internet, especially in the alternative press − led in part by Ellen Brown, author of the Web of Debt.

We believe more in private money and competitive money systems, including private clearinghouses, fractional reserve and anything else that someone wants to try. We believe within this context, silver and gold would find their place, as historical bimetallism always has.

Greenbackers, on the other hand, believe that government itself − if properly run “for the people” can issue fiat money and spend its way to prosperity.

Greenbackers make the case that Lincoln was a Greenbacker. And aficionados of “directed history” make the point that Lincoln, alone, stood against a power elite – European – plot to divide the US into two distinct countries to lessen its clout.

This perspective has made Lincoln a “hero” of sorts, even within the alternative media that should know better.

Politicians are not heroes nor can they be, given what they have to do and the alliances they have to make. Lincoln set in motion a war that murdered millions. He didn’t likely HAVE to start a war, but he did.

Lincoln was at the center of one of the most powerful countries on Earth. The idea that he was a “killer” of European banking bloodsuckers is an attractive one, but hardly the truth.

The Lincoln portrayed by neo-Greenbackers has been debunked by two Austrian-oriented free-market thinkers, historian Thomas DiLorenzo and economist Gary North.

Interestingly, they come to somewhat different conclusions about Lincoln’s statist affections. DiLorenzo believes that Lincoln was pro-central banking and perhaps supported by the New York banking establishment.

Dr. Gary North believes that Lincoln was supportive of gold and silver and disparaging of fiat generally, including Greenbacks.

Whatever the truth, there is no doubt that Lincoln basically suspended the US Constitution and prosecuted a bloody war that he might have been able to find an alternative to.

Bottom line: From our humble point of view, Lincoln was likely in the hip pocket of Money Power.

European Money Power wanted a US war and Lincoln gave it one. When it was over, the US Republican exception was finished. Imperium had arrived. Things have only grown worse since.

The power elite has NEVER started a war, or not for the past 300 years or so, without controlling BOTH sides of the conflict. That’s what directed history tells us. Hitler, Napoleon, the Kaiser (WWI) − in each case, Money Power seemingly controlled and funded the “enemy.”

Why on Earth are we to believe that Lincoln − above all − was somehow immune to this formula? Most likely he was not.

No, he must have prosecuted a war at the bequest of Money Power and when it was done, they threw him over.

It really doesn’t matter whether Lincoln was pro- or anti-Greenbacks. First of all, Greenbackerism doesn’t work in the long run. Governments always print too much money when they have the chance and thus debase the currency.

That’s why fiat schemes eventually wither − just as the dollar reserve system is withering. It doesn’t matter who does the printing. It’s the monopoly that matters.

But secondly and more important, Lincoln was evidently and obviously trapped in the elite dialectic − as all others have been in the modern era. To argue otherwise is surely naïve.

To argue that his death was specifically as a result of the intention to create more Greenbacks is equally naïve. He was part of the Money Power that he was supposedly confronting.

He wasn’t standing alone, heroically, against Money Power. He was a creature of it. He must have been.

Understand this and the Civil War − and his crazed actions − suddenly snap into focus. It was more directed history, and Lincoln was one more puppet. The result of the war, as planned, was the collapse of American exceptionalism and the rise of Leviathan.

Lincoln, with his profound and absurd veneration for a “nation” (see the Gettysburg address) played his role with greater or lesser enthusiasm. Perhaps he knew his fate would be death; perhaps not.

He needed to justify his actions by using the rhetoric of nation-hood, even though a “nation” is an artificial construct. In the deepest sense there are no nations, for nations are constructs of culture. Those who use the term, like Lincoln, are creating an artifical concept to justify a kind of rhetorical cover.

John Kennedy was not assassinated because he signed an executive order for the issuance of Silver Certificates. Alternative historians have written on this folk theory extensively and proved it to be a modern myth. Lincoln was probably not assassinated simply because he somehow stood up against Money Power … elites that, in fact, had likely helped place him where he was.

What we CAN draw from ongoing Greenbacker speculation is that the world is not as simple a place as “Neo-Gs” would like to make out.

In this case, it is most interesting − especially given the upcoming Lincoln movie.

Conclusion: All the world’s a stage / And all the men and women merely players / They have their exits and their entrances / And one man in his time plays many parts … − William Shakespeare

Ed Note: This article was inspired in part by a dialogue over at an Alex Jones website that posted an article of ours, “Elite Meme: Anything Is Better Than Gold.” A friend alerted us to the thread and his comments.

Human Action :   View Glossary Description   l  View Site Contributions

Invisible Hand :   View Glossary Description   l  View Site Contributions


The Man Who Should Be President

From: Chuck Baldwin

Today, I am going to do something that I have never done: I am going to devote virtually my entire column to posting another man’s words. That man is the man who should be President of the United States: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. The following is a written transcript of a speech Dr. Paul gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2007. Had Congressman Paul been elected President in 2008, the country would be four years into the greatest economic, political, and, yes, spiritual recovery in the history of America. As it is, the US is on the brink of totalitarianism and economic ruin. And you can mark it down, four years from now it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was elected President this November. Neither man has the remotest understanding of America’s real problems nor the courage and backbone to do anything about it if they did understand.

Read the following. This is a man who understands the Constitution. This is a man who understands sound economic principles. This is a man who understands liberty and freedom. This is a man who has the guts to tell the truth. This is a man who has put his life and career on the line for the principles of liberty for more than two decades. This is a man who has returned every dollar that he has been paid as a US congressman to the taxpayers. This is the man who should be President of the United States.

[Ron Paul’s speech begins here]

 For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state’s effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver’s license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver’s license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

 [Ron Paul’s speech ends here]

There it is. The speech Dr. Paul gave in 2007 seems even more relevant today than it did then. Don’t you think?

You want to elect a real American statesman? You want to elect a man who would preserve liberty and freedom in America? You want to elect a man who would resist the devilish New World Order? You want to elect a man who would reestablish sound economic principles? If so, you will vote to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States. (And, no, no one has paid me a penny to post his speech or make this endorsement.)

Forget all the smoke and mirrors and the dog and pony shows that you see and hear from the other Presidential candidates. The issues that Dr. Paul addressed in this speech are the issues that are going to determine our country’s future. Again, this is the man who should be President of the United States.

And please visit my web site for past columns and much more at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

© Chuck Baldwin


Straight From Oz: Real Reason Elites Intend to Legalize Some Drugs?

I really appreciate the folks over at The Daily Bell, This article is very insightful. Take the brain out for a stroll and stretch a few of those synapses 🙂 E.

“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

Wednesday, April 04, 2012 – by Staff Report

Australia foreign minister calls for decriminalisation of low-level drug use … Bob Carr, Australia’s foreign minister, whose brother died after a heroin overdose, has urged the decriminalisation of low-level drug use, after a report concluded the war on the scourge was lost … “A bit of modest decriminalisation, de facto decriminalisation at the edges, simply freeing up police to be doing the things they ought to be doing, would be a sensible way of going about it,” Mr Carr told the Seven Network. He added to fellow broadcaster ABC that by doing so “we wouldn’t have armies of police patrolling outside nightclubs and pubs hoping to snatch someone who’s got an ecstasy tablet in his or her pocket or purse”. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: This drug war hasn’t worked. Time to be more reasonable about it.

Free-Market Analysis: Last week we thought we detected a trend: The top elites via politicians and the mainstream media in the US were embarked on creating some sort of dominant social theme aimed at legalizing some drugs.

At the time we didn’t understand why this promotion would be launched, given that the elites have shown no compunction about putting people in jail for years for doing something as innocent as smoking a marijuana cigarette.

We received interesting and insightful feedbacks to our questions about this seeming emergent elite meme, but as is so often the case, a little more time seems to be revealing what may be the truth of the matter. You can see the initial article here: Have Elites Decided to Legalize Some US Drugs?

The US has jailed tens of millions in the past decade over drug infractions. But now we seem to be seeing some re-thinking … First Pat Robertson writes about legalizing marijuana and then CNN‘s Fareed Zakaria writes about it as well. And that’s not all.

A random search of Google shows that a bill to legalize medical marijuana is moving forward in the Tennessee House and that the Rhode Island Senate is discussing legalization as well. In Yakima, Washington, a former Seattle police chief and a former state senator will hold a public forum on the legalization of marijuana.

Now, in this article excerpted above, we think that the purpose of this theme, if that’s what it is, is beginning to emerge. Australian foreign minister Bob Carr may have given the game away by referring to, “A bit of modest decriminalisation, de facto decriminalisation at the edges, simply freeing up police to be doing the things they ought to be doing… “

What Carr is saying is that the “authorities” are stretched. The system, he is indicating, has other priorities that are not being addressed because of the “war on drugs.”

What might those priorities be? We can only speculate, but as the Western world tends to move in lockstep when it comes to such things (given that nation-states are pretty much an illusion at this point), we would tend to think that a decision has been made to point the resources of Leviathan at the emergent freedom movement that is roiling the Western world.

We’ve long predicted this moment, of course, writing over and over that the Internet is a kind of Gutenberg Press and that the same sort of society-transforming trends are taking place now as did back then.

Then, from what we can tell, the elites started a number of wars, including a so-called Peasant War that lasted about 30 years. War is a great way to control the masses because all the rules of civil society can be thrown out based on “security considerations.” That’s what is happening today, as then.

There are many other parallels between the circumstances surrounding the Gutenberg Press and today’s Internet. We’ve often mentioned them in these pages. Copyright was invented in Britain after the advent of the press in order to slow the transmission of information – and now today, again, copyright is being used, this time as a weapon against the Internet.

The elites are neither imaginative nor facile. They tend to select repetitious stratagems from a sparse and brutal tool kit. They are not disappointing now. Brutality is increasingly the order of the day. Wars, depression, torture and general intimidation via Draconian laws and regulation are the order of the day.

People are perpetually and increasingly astonished at what’s going on. Just the other day, CNN leftist Rachel Maddow appeared on-air with a rant against the Supreme Court for determining one could be strip-searched at the discretion of US law enforcement no matter the reason. 

Maddow laid the blame on a “conservative” Supreme Court but, in fact, the stale right-left paradigm has no relevance to what’s going on. The emergent fascist state throughout the West has all the hallmarks of a deliberate policy.

Of course, Maddow would have to admit that there are dynastic families based out of the City of London that want to run the world and are willing to create a kind of generalized Western Third Reich to do so.

The power elite that wants to rule the world has been destabilizing the US for several centuries – really ever since it came together as a libertarian republic. It took the Civil War to really set in motion the trends that have blossomed todayincluding a massive military-industrial complex, an intel-industrial complex and a penal-industrial complex.

Australia has all the signal hallmarks of an emergent fascist state including a feverish green lobby, incandescently dishonest politics, an emergent carbon tax, etc. But we have to think that the “stick” of this decriminalization is aimed at the US.

The emergent authoritarian TSA has just ordered 400 million hollow-point bullets and the US is building a trans-national spy facility out in Utah at a cost of billions. The elites have always hated and feared US exceptionalism and its general republican orientation.

Under former President George W. Bush, the US also built numerous detention facilities across the US, giving the contract to Dick Cheney’s Halliburton. While there is a large intimidation/propaganda factor to all of this, the elites are probably dead serious about a transfer of resources away from petty drug matters in order to focus on social unrest, “domestic security” and “the war on terror.”

Does the real reason for the War on Drugs stand revealed? Was it really intended simply to build a kind of trans-national gulag that can now be employed for the security purposes of the elite? Did people really waste away their lives in prison simply to provide a pretext for the construction of a blossoming Security State?

Conclusion: Having created and staffed this monstrosity, are the top elites now prepared to put it to “better” use. Think about the “great debates” of prohibition that have raged for the past century, the billions of words and books and white papers that have been written. Was it really nothing but an excuse? And if so, how they must have laughed …

Gutenberg Press :   View Glossary Description   l  View Site Contributions

Military-Industrial Complex :   View Glossary Description  l  View Site Contributions

Source: http://www.thedailybell.com/3761/Straight-From-Oz-Real-Reason-Elites-Intend-to-Legalize-Some-Drugs

——————————————————————————————————

`


HOW RON PAUL CAN WIN AND SPOIL NOTHING

I ran across this recently in my wanderings and was amazed when I understood that Ron Paul has already won the election if he will avail himself of the opportunity that a third party run would give him. Read this and I think you will be wondering yourself if we are not on the brink of something akin to a revolution. 

Let us hope so at least for I fear if a radical shift does not occur politically it may   lead us into a very dark place. Forces are gathering and people want and are going to demand changes. If they do not see some sort of radical shift politically e.g. Ron Paul being elected, there may be an eruption of forces that cannot be controlled. E.

HOW RON PAUL CAN WIN & SPOIL NOTHING

 by James Jaeger

The fact that Ron Paul effectively tied for second place in IOWA — a very conservative state — and then won second place in NEW HAMPSHIRE — a much more liberal state, shows the enormous spectrum of Dr. Paul’s appeal.

For the Republicans (the GOP) this must be quite uncomfortable — the idea that they are being forced to modify some of their wayward views just because a principled, constitutionalist and WE THE PEOPLE demand it.

But here’s what really terrifies them: Ron Paul is not only in a position to hand the election of 2012 over to Barack Obama and be labled a “spoiler” — he’s in a position to be a “winner.”

Etymology of the term “spoiler”:

The term “spoiler” is a derogatory term that was dreamt up by statists in the Democratic and Republican parties. They use this term to make you feel guilty and to sucker the public into continuously voting for no one outside the Establishment. In other words, if you vote your conscience, YOU are a “spoiler.” If you run for office on principles dictated by your conscience and take votes away from an Establishment candidate, YOU are a “spoiler.”

Thus, since Ron Paul votes his conscience, since he rejects certain aspects of the Establishment — such as the Federal Reserve‘s abuse of the monetary system and its financing of the welfare-warfare empire we have now become — there is no way apparatchiks in the GOP will nominate Dr. Paul no matter what WE THE PEOPLE want.

And to this end, lackey pundits in the CFR-dominated, mainstream media continuously chant that Ron Paul has “no chance to get the Republican nomination.” They spew this so often, it’s obvious they don’t believe their own lies.

But here’s the joker: Ron Paul does not even need the GOP to win the general election. If he were to walk away for a third party, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% — enough of the vote to win the Presidency in a 3-man race.

GOP strategists know all this and this is why you will never hear them utter these statistics in the mainstream media. If the public were to become too “hopeful” — if they were to understand the mathematics of the situation — even more people would vote for Ron Paul if for no other reason than to be on the winner’s bandwagon.

So, the GOP has some serious choices to make.

Either they morph into a small-government party and support the Ron Paul Revolution of “getting back to the Constitution,” or they risk loosing their power to a new political party. And a new political would not only mean just the demise of the Republican party, but the Democratic party as well.

Since the Democratic Party AND the Republican Parties are BOTH the parties of BIG government, a new political party of SMALL government would reveal to the public more than ever, what the two mainstream parties have become.

The two mainstream parties — the Democrats and Republicans — have become, in essence, two departments of the same police state. They are the same political party in effect: growing the government ever larger and ever more militaristic, both domestically and internationally. The PATRIOT Act expands the police state domestically, and the UN, IMF, WTO, NAFTA, GATT and NATO — which they BOTH continuously and blindly support — expand the police state internationally.

Due to serious abridgements of the U.S. Constitution and principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, the united States are now run by a dictating oligarchy known as the UNITED STATES. And this dictating oligarchy is dominated by cultural Marxists and corporate fascists who have hijacked the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.

The “DemoPublicans” have established the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of administering their police state and the PATRIOT Act has become their new Constitution.

If you accept the idea that the Democrats and Republicans (again the “DemoPublicans”) have become two departments of the same police state — two wings of the same ugly bird — you will have to accept that ultimately it does not matter whether a Democrat or Republican is elected to the presidency. It does not matter if Obama or Romney is elected President. Establishment politicians in either of these “two” parties will continue to use the Federal Reserve System to monetize debt (print money out of thin air) and use this fraudulentfiatcurrency to build their welfare-warfare state.

It could be said that Republicans specialize in printing money to build weapons and wage wars — Democrats specialize in printing money to address the sick and the poor. The Republicans thus CREATE the sick and the poor with their WAR-fare policies and the Democrats HEAL the sick and the poor with their WELL-fare policies.

Thus when an entity controls the HEALING and HURTING of Humankind, doesn’t that entity, in essence, CONTROL Human kind? Well, welcome to the DemoPublican control mechanism — something you might think about the next time you vote or mindlessly scream out for your Clinton-, Bush-, Obama-, Gingrich- or Romney-candidate.

Taken as a whole, the DemoPublican machine — now assembled more by supra-national, international banking families than American citizens — has destroyed U.S. politics that used to center on Constitutional principles. Controllers in this CFR-led embryonic world government have created a well-oiled machine to maximize the plunder of millions, if not billions of people, through the mechanism of central banking, debt and the hurting-healing cycle. Would it not be reasonable to posit that the Democratic and Republican Parties are thus primary tools in what seems to be a master plan of globalization?

Ron Paul — a strict limited-government Constitutionalist with an appreciation for ethnonationalism — does not fit in with the New World Order’s management plans. Therefore, whenever he wins ANYTHING: the DemoPublican controllers have a more serious problem.

Where Dr. Paul to ever get close to a GOP nomination, they would most likely either rig the elections or blackmail him by threatening his family, like they did when Ross Perot was getting too popular.

But if Dr. Paul walks away from the GOP to go Indy, in reality he will “spoil” nothing, for as discussed above, the Democrats and Republicans are the same political party in effect, so there is nothing that CAN be “spoiled”.

Since the DemoPublicans must continue the cockfight between them — so the illusion that they are “different” parties can be maintained — this fighting has been, of necessity, escalating to a GRIDLOCK. Note the endless fighting about extending payroll tax cuts, Obamacare and illegal immigration, and now Santorum is bringing religion and race into it. Thus, even if Ron Paul is labeled a “spoiler” — for thwarting the Establishment controller’s plan to get one of their cultural Marxist or corporate fascist puppets nominated or elected — he will spoil nothing.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR RON PAUL TO BE A SPOILER, BECAUSE:

A) THE DEMS AND GOP ARE THE SAME PARTY IN EFFECT, AND;

B) EVEN IF OBAMA GETS REELECTED, THE DEMS AND GOP WILL BE GRIDLOCKED AND THUS NOTHING WILL GET DONE.

Message More Important Than Party:

Undoubtedly Ron Paul hopes his cause will be able to save the Republican Party, but surely he believes the greater cause is to save the country. For many the idea of reforming the Republican Party is a glorious dream — but for many more, it’s a pipe dream.

And the reason for this is simple. Ron Paul’s vision comes from the U.S. Constitution, a document that the GOP establishment wandered away from decades ago.

Thus, if Ron Paul is really serious about change, he probably knows that the VEHICLE he uses to deliver that change is not that important. His Constitutional VISION is more important than the PARTY that delivers it.

Thus the GOP is right to fear that Dr. Paul may “quit the party when the primaries are over and run as a third-party candidate on the Libertarian or some other line in the November election” as political analyst and author of Suicide of a Superpower, Patrick J. Buchanan, observes.(1)

This fear was also expressed by Reagan campaign strategist, Ed Rollins, when he said that “Ron Paul should be given the respect he deserves.”

Buchanan feels, however that it is assured that Dr. Paul will not go third party. This is “not going to happen. Such a decision would sunder the movement Paul has pulled together, bring about his own and his party’s certain defeat in November, and re-elect Barack Obama,” says Buchanan.

But if Paul does NOT go third party, his life’s work may NOT culminate.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement depends on their philosophy of the GOP. If ones philosophy is that a tiger can change its stripes — that the GOP will somehow become the party of small government — then perhaps it makes sense for Dr. Paul to stick it out and be loyal. But is that really going to happen?

As evidenced by the current $15 trillion national debt, the Republican Party has become a big-government party similar to the Democratic party. This has happened on the watch of both parties. Both political parties are taking us down the “road to serfdom,” as F.A. Hayek might say. And the reason for this is the endless fiat money being issued by the Federal Reserve System (as we discuss in FIAT EMPIRE at http://youtu.be/5K41O2QfpjA ). Fiat currency funds the welfare state the Democrats want and the warfare state the Republicans want.

Again, neither major political party talks about this, or fiat money. Only Ron Paul talks about fiat money.

If the Democrats and Republicans won’t confront fiat money by discussing it, let alone by auditing and/or ending the Fed, THEN HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT EITHER PARTY WILL EVER BECOME A SMALL GOVERNMENT PARTY?

These two parties will thus destroy the dollar and eventually the U.S. as an industrial nation opening it up even more to the ravages of the PATRIOT Act mentality who value “security” more than freedom OR productivity. If this happens: THIS will be Ron Paul’s legacy, a coward that failed to go for the golden ring at a time when it could have made all the difference to millions.

The “movement Paul has pulled together” is unique in our times. It is nothing less than a revolution, and that’s why it’s called THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION. And contrary to Counsel on Foreign Relations propaganda, this revolution was the impetus for the Tea Party movement, a movement which now seems to have been co-opted and neutered by the GOP establishment.

BUT THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION CONTINUES IN SPITE OF THE GOP, NOT BECAUSE OF THE GOP.
The GOP is NOT Ron Paul’s friend:

The GOP has never REALLY been Ron Paul’s friend, nor will it ever be — unless the unthinkable happens, RON PAUL GETS CO-OPTED BY THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT ITSELF. His supporters, of course, know this would never happen. In fact many observes think the GOP is only now pretending to be Ron Paul’s friend because he has them backed into a political corner. And the Ron Paul butt-kissing is all over the mainstream media to prove it. But none of this is sincere. Remember the days in the Winter of 2008 when Ron Paul was winning one FOX poll after another and Sean Hannity, a perfect GOP specimen, was practically spitting bullets? In fact, Hannity was so arrogant and disparaging to Dr. Paul, his fans practically tackled the super-pundit when he was leaving his building one evening on 7 Jan 2008. See angry Ron Paul fans screaming at Hannity in the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rJI5e0jBU if you have forgotten the days when the GOP was showing its real colors to the Fed-slaying political messiah.

And let’s not forget the disrespect GOP-hopeful, Rudy Giuliani, showed for Dr. Paul when, in the 15 May 2007 debate, he mocked him before the world for stating that “the terrorists are over here because we are over there,” an observation first made by Pat Buchanan. See this debate at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0 if your memory of the GOP needs refreshing.

But don’t believe me, that the GOP once spat upon Ron Paul — Ed Rollins confirmed this treatment when he stated: “They didn’t treat him well, four years ago, when he (Ron Paul) stayed in the race to the bitter end.” See video of Ed stating this at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7JArNMd20

So today — as evidence that self-sufficiency makes stronger individuals than the nanny state makes the collective — the growth of the Libertarian-conservative RON PAUL REVOLUTION, again, shows that Dr. Paul does not even NEED the GOP to win a general election for if he were to walk away for a third party in July, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote, another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% — enough to WIN the presidency in a 3-man race.

Another reason one can be assured GOP pundits are terrified by a Ron Paul third party run is because they are desperately attempting to get him to commit to NOT running. Witness Sean Hannity trying to get a commitment from Dr. to NOT go third party at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3p9s1cSzko

But, even if Ron Paul did walk away from the GOP he would not BECOME a pariah in his party, he already IS a pariah in his party. He always has been and he always will be. Those who watched Ron Paul argue with Alan Greenspan on C-SPAN back in the mid-1990s know Ron Paul is also a pariah with the Federal Reserve System. That, in fact, is how I discovered Ron Paul and interviewed him for the documentary film, FIAT EMPIRE — Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution. At that time, there were no other congressmen arguing with Dr. Greenspan. There were not even any other congressmen that COULD argue with Dr. Greenspan. Only Ron Paul could because he not only understands economics, he understands the difference between Austrian economics and the Keynesian economics that is now burying the nation — and WORLD — in debt! This is why THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION runs philosophically deep.

This is why Dr. Paul has been able to be consistent and why he has consistently stated that he cannot endorse any of the other GOP candidates and he doesn’t see how he could possibly run on a ticket with any of them due to differences in principle. How could Ron Paul double up with someone that doesn’t understand the difference between Austrian and Keynesian economics? How could Ron Paul double up with or support someone that doesn’t even know what fiat money is or what Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states? How could Ron Paul support someone that has no idea where Congress gets most of its money? Dr. Paul, as a true Constitutionalist, knows all of these things. The others are ignoramuses who just give the Constitution and economics lip-service.

A Third Party Run’s Effect on Rand Paul:

Some have argued that, were Dr. Paul to run as a third party candidate, his son, Senator Rand Paul, would be forced to endorse his father and essentially abandon the GOP. Rand Paul’s career with the GOP would thus be ruined.

Actually, whether Rand Paul endorses his father or not is no ones business except Rand Paul’s and it’s not even relevant to THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION.

As great as it may be for a father to have a son follow in his footsteps, there are times when a greater concern outweighs family goals. If Rand Paul truly understands the importance of his father’s work, he will gladly support anything he does without personal concern. On the other hand, if Rand Paul would rather stay loyal to the GOP, that’s his prerogative. No rational person would stigmatize Rand Paul just because he made a different choice from his father.

But the greater question — given the great promise Rand Paul has so far demonstrated — is why would he even WANT to be a “future Republican leader” in a political party that was bringing the nation to ruin? With its profligate spending; empire-building ploys; debt-monetizing insanity, why would Rand Paul want to run the risk of becoming but a footnote in history by swimming counter to the currents of THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION?

Given the fact that the youth of the nation are endorsing THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION of small government, ending the Fed and an end to perpetual wars, the future of the GOP — which is against all these things — is NOT bright at all. In fact, the GOP, and the Democrats, are doomed. Like the sinking Titanic, all Republicans have been doing this past 30 years is re-arranging the deckchairs while the panem et circenses band plays on.

It is true that Ron Paul would be wise to stay with the GOP up until the last minute so he can maintain his media presence, but the very fact that he has to even DO this should tell us all something about the mainstream media. And that something is the fact that, like the GOP, the mainstream media is NOT any friend of Ron Paul or even of WE THE PEOPLE. So long as it endlessly consolidates and places its corporate advertisers’ interests above the public concerns, the mainstream media is a liability to a democratic market of ideas. Unfortunately, Ron Paul, a libertarian at heart, has been forced to operate on this media’s stage in order to get any play at all. Had Dr. Paul gone third party four years ago, he would have received almost no exposure and few today would know very much about his message. Note what happened to third party candidates, such as Ralph Nader, Harry Brown and Gary Johnson, etc. The exception was the multi-billionaire, Ross Perot, who got mainstream play ONLY because he self-financed his own media campaign.

Ron Paul started and represents a major populist CAUSE that millions endorse, yet the mainstream media still pushes the other candidates who just support the horse race for the status quo.

It is thus impossible for the GOP to “grow up” or change because it is locked into this competition with the Democratic Party. If the GOP stops with its program of handouts and entitlements, the public will always place Democrats in to power. This is the dilemma for the GOP and why no reform is possible, as we more fully discuss in the movie “SPOILER – How a Third Political Party Could Win.” See http://www.SpoilerUSA.org

Even still, Ron Paul giving his commitment to support the GOP is what apologists for the GOP want. But if Ron Paul does this, he will have compromised his principles. Even if the GOP promises to change its ways, many will have serious doubts they will keep their promise.

The GOP and the DEMS have had their chance. They have both brought the country to the verge of bankruptcy and totalitarianism over the past 98 years. They will never reform or be able to BE reformed. No placation-speech — allotted to Ron Paul at the Republican National Convention — is going to reform either entrenched party or rescind the PATRIOT Act. The ONLY possibility for reform will come if Dr. Paul goes Indy sometime after the GOP selects its CFR-approved, status-quo nominee. In going Indy, the only risk is that Dr. Paul might not get 38%, hence the presidency. If this happens then Obama DOES get back in; but again, so what! Only blind partisans — or people that don’t quite grok the fact that both parties are identical in effect — will be concerned about this. Mitt Romney can NEVER be Ron Paul’s friend. Mitt Romney is a corporate fascist, as we define in the movie, CORPORATE FASCISM at http://youtu.be/hTbvoiTJKIs. He has depended on the bogus, artificial interest rates afforded by fiat money for every major business venture he has ever been involved with. Mitt Romney would NEVER end the Fed because the Fed is what butters his bread. It is doubtful if he would ever even AUDIT the Fed. Same goes for Gingrich and Santorum. Both these guys are big government guys, especially Santorum who will expand the military-industrial complex to the high heavens.

Constitutional Constituency Trumps Party Constituency:

Ron Paul’s constituency is NOT unipolar. Ron Paul’s constituency falls ACROSS the political spectrum as it well should. People who want smaller government, who want to audit the fed; reduce the debt; get out of foreign wars and rebuild the middle class are NOT only in the GOP, they are also in the Democratic party, but mostly Independents. They are the youth and people in the military. At least 38% of the people in the country WANT Ron Paul and only 12% of these come from the GOP. Thus, Ron Paul is actually BIGGER than the GOP. THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION supersedes the GOP and any particular faction. That’s why what’s happening is so special and why WE THE PEOPLE sometimes have difficulty understanding the magnitude of these events.

RON PAUL’S ONLY CHANCE FOR A MEANIGFUL LEGACY IS TO GO INDY AND TAKE THE PRESEDENCY. EVEN IF THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, HE WILL HAVE OPENED THE WAY FOR A FUTURE “RON PAUL” TO TAKE THE PRESIDENCY. RON PAUL IS THE JOHN C. FREMONT OF OUR TIMES. See “Who Will Be Our Modern-Day Jefferson” by Nelson Hultberg at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/modern.htm

Ron Paul’s most salient issues: auditing the Fed and eventually ending the fiat-currency fraud; downsizing of the U.S. empire; closing many or most of the 900 military bases in 130 countries; and establishing a mind-our-own-business foreign policy will never happen in the business-as-usual GOP or welfare state-crazed Democratic Party.

Thus, if Dr. Paul fails to use the power he has at this critical moment in history he will never have it again, nor will anyone else for a long time. The mainstream media is substantially bought and paid for by the entrenched parties. You can bet the Washington establishment and the K-street corporate fascists that have hijacked Congress, once the race is over, all will turn on Dr. Paul and make him as much of a non-person as the J.P. Morgan/Thomas Edison Establishment of the day turned on Nikola Tesla and literally erased him from the front page of TIME.

POWER MUST BE SEIZED, NEVER ASKED FOR. RON PAUL MUST SEIZE POWER IF HE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY. ONLY FROM A POSITION OF POWER CAN THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION RESTORE TRUE CONSITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.

THE WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT, NOR THE CORPORATOCRACY THAT DOMINATES CONGRESS, IS ABOUT TO SURRENDER THEIR FIAT MONEY SYSTEM OR THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX THAT SUPPLIES THE WORLD WITH WEAPONS AND FOMETS PERPETUAL WARS FOR PROFIT.

WE THE PEOPLE MUST TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE TRATORS AND TYRANTS THAT HAVE USURPED POWER OVER THE PAST 100 YEARS BY BASTARDIZING THE CONSTITUTION. RON PAUL STANDS IN A POSITION TO START THIS PROCESS — BUT ONLY IF HE GOES INDY AND TAKES A SHOT AT THE STARS.

Again, since Dr. Paul’s constituency is supra GOP — even if he defects from the GOP and fails at a presidential run — he will only estrange the people in the GOP that are stuck in the partisan game of Democrats vs. Republicans. In other words, he will only estrange the “spoiler mentality.” More and more of the country, as witnessed by the growth of the Independents, now recognize that BOTH political parties are wings of the same ugly bird. These people are the future. Ron Paul AND Rand Paul should be more concerned about these people than propitiating to the GOP establishment for a token speech or career some advancement.

The fact that Ron Paul has an investment portfolio with 21% in real-estate, 14% in cash and about 65% gold should be absolute proof that Dr. Paul believes the fiat financial system is doomed. He is thus more than a prophet, he is leading the way out. This leadership takes rank over any other consideration.

Eric Hoffer wrote a book entitled, THE TRUE BELIEVER: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. In this work, Hoffer maintains that revolutions are usually accomplished with only a small percentage of a population – between 1% and 7%. The vast majority are inert. If Hoffer’s observations are correct, THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION has, or will shortly have, more than enough supporters to make its CAUSE quite real.

Summary:

The term “spoiler” is used by two groups of people:

1) the ignorant or IQ-challenged person who knows little or nothing about politics or the art of war, and;

2) the statist propaganda-merchant who is trying to give the public the illusion that there is a “difference” between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The reason the statist propaganda-merchant is trying to perpetuate the meme that there is a difference between the two major parties is so the general public will not look elsewhere for the solution to their problems. If one can get the Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other, it gives the illusion that they are “different” to the degree they “fight.” Indeed they DO have “differences”, however the differences are over trivial issues. On all the major issues the Democrats and Republican’s are identical, overtly and covertly, thus they are the same political party in effect. You saw how many of Bush’s policies Obama kept in place when he came into office ostensibly to “change” things. The same thing will happen if the Republicans take back the White House, ad infinitum.

So this is why Ron Paul is such a threat to the Establishment. He’s running on the GOP ticket basically so he can get mainstream media exposure. The mainstream tried to ignore him in the last election. Remember how Hannity practically spat on Dr. Paul in the 2008 election? Remember how all the other pundits treated him? Then, when he suddenly raised millions of dollars with his “money bombs” and millions of voters started joining the grassroots Ron Paul Revolution — which kicked off the Tea Party Revolution — it wasn’t “politically correct” to spit on him any longer. Worse, they couldn’t ignore him into oblivion like they ignored all other dissenting candidates. Third party candidate Ross Perot was only able to get mainstream media exposure because he purchased it with his personal wealth. Ralph Nader nor Harry Brown, on the other hand, have been able to purchase such exposure, thus they have never been able to get an alternative vision into the public domain.

For Ron Paul to win and use the vote to destroy the cultural Marxist-infested, totalitarian fiat empire, being built by controllers of the “liberal world order” is incomprehensible to them even though Pat Buchanan details in his new book,Suicide of a Superpower, the reasons why the moment of globalism and “free” trade has passed.

But such is the power of the zeitgeist, for the world is in revolt, from the Middle East to Wall Street. The 99-percent don’t know exactly HOW they have been screwed, but they do know that they HAVE been screwed — at least for the past 100 years. From the Tea Partiers to the Wall Street Occupiers in America, WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with:

1) a Congress that has been bought and sold by corporate fascists;

2) Presidents that start wars and act like Marxist dictators;

3) an activist Supreme Court that legislates from the bench making one-size fits all laws that ignore the original intent of the Founders.

WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with many other things, but both the “Right” and the “Left” can agree with much of what Ron Paul offers, because his principles are American principles, and American principles are Constitutional Principles which accommodate both liberals and conservatives, Left or Right.

So don’t let CFR-infested, establishment propaganda spewed through the mainstream media or the DemoPublican police state dissuade you from voting for Ron Paul, whether he stays on the GOP ticket, goes Independent or starts a new party.

It is vital that all Americans stay true to their conscious, NOT their political parties. The U.S. Constitution does not even mention political parties; in fact many of the Founders warned us against them. The Founders called political parties “factions” and said that membership in them is dangerous to a democratic form of government. They warned us to stay away from entrenched political parties — such as the Democrats and Republicans — because entrenched political parties are only one step away from dictatorships. The Founders also warned us about entrenched politicians, and this is why no presidents ran for more than two terms up until the Grant presidency.

It is not too late to act. Vote out the incumbent congressmen, president and most of all, the incumbent DemoPublican political party. Vote in Ron Paul no matter what scare tactics the pundits on CNN, FOX NEWS or MSNBC proselytize with. Ron Paul CAN get 38% of the vote and win the presidency. This is not an opinion, it’s mathematical fact.

RON PAUL CAN WIN — AND NOT ONLY SPOIL NOTHING — BUT POSSIBLY SAVE THE REPUBLIC!



Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It’s thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued.Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses to this article, email or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don’t forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentaries to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/spamaphobia.htm.

SOURCE URL
http://www.JaegerResearchInstitute.org


Hush-Hush Congressional Research Report: The Myth of Social Mobility … Not

Original article: http://www.thedailybell.com/3713/Hush-Hush-Congressional-Research-Report-The-Myth-of-Social-Mobility

Monday, March 19, 2012 – by Staff Report
Income inequality in the United States is more pronounced than in other developed countries, a new report from the Congressional Research Service finds, while the possibility of economic mobility is more constrained than commonly believed. “Based on the limited data that are comparable across nations, the U.S. income distribution appears to be among the most uneven of all major industrialized countries and the United States appears to be among the nations experiencing the greatest increases in measures of inequality.” – FAS Secrecy News Blog
 

Dominant Social Theme: In America, anyone can get rich.

Free-Market Analysis: Here’s a big myth: US social mobility is fungible and anyone can grow rich. Now a report from the Congressional Research Service has found that income inequality in the US is extreme and growing worse. Also, that where you’re born, socially speaking, is where you stay.Did you read about these findings? Didn’t think so. For one reason or another, Congress doesn’t seem inclined to make a big fuss over this information. Wonder why.Actually not. We think we know why. Congress’s approval ratings are stuck near the SINGLE DIGITS and have stayed there for years. This is because most people in the US likely see Congress as an instrument of repression and the increasingly savage status quo.There is a lot of truth to this assumption. Who at this point would want to work in Congress but a sociopath or psychopath? And there is plenty of evidence that the US Congress includes both.• In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has been using depleted uranium weapons regularly for nearly a decade. The poisoning of these poor people has been so intense that many die of obscure cancers and mothers are routinely told not to have babies. Neither of these wars has been successful, and the depleted uranium poisoning has injured hundreds of thousands of returning US vets as well.• In the US, one third of citizens now have some exposure to the criminal justice system by the time they are in their early 20s. The US system of jurisprudence has resulted in some six million behind bars at any one time, more than half the world’s population of incarcerated individuals. The costs in damaged lives and families in tremendous. Routinely, as well, innocent people are put to death, victims of Draconian US “justice.”• The US population on food stamps has exploded, with some 50 million using food stamps now. And ALL US citizens eventually come to use some form of government assistance, especially if one includes Social Security. Medicare is another ubiquitous and badly run program encouraging citizen dependence on the government.• The Federal Reserve system, authorized and overseen by Congress, is responsible for the degradation of the US dollar by some 95-99 percent. The entire dollar reserve system is now on the verge of unraveling as the “depression” of the 2000s winds on with no real signs of abating.• The income tax system, and taxes generally, remove up to 50 percent or more of a person’s disposable income when one actually peers behind the various charges that are leveled on producers and consumers. Products are taxed all the way through the supply chain, so that the end price may reflect dozens of tax charges.This is but a tiny sampling of the kinds of results that Congress has been partially responsible for. The executive wing, of course, is equally culpable, as is the US Supreme Court. Those born in the US are subject to millions of regulations and thousands of taxes that they had no say in creating. They are saddled, as well, with the US’s “national debt.”The US has likely reached a point of no return when it comes to its regulatory, tax and monetary structure. The regulatory structure especially tends to freeze people into place from an economic and social mobility standpoint.This is, of course, exactly what the larger power elite wants. The apparent handful of dynastic families that control central banking around the world use regulation, taxes and fiat-money inflation as a way of ensuring that the billions beneath them have little hope of advancement.Yes, a tiny group of people seeks to implement world government apparently and uses various methodologies of control to shove the world and its billions in this direction. This is why societies around the world, including Western societies, are increasingly dysfunctional.This is a change from several hundred years ago when the US itself emerged as the hope of the world for social mobility. This is also why the US has been under tremendous attack from the elites for nearly its entire existence.The US “exception” shows us how a somewhat “free” society can actually work. Free banking, an economy based in part on gold and silver and a lack of formal regulation all catapulted the US into the topmost tier of the world’s wealthiest countries.But by the 20th century, the elites unceasing attacks on the libertarian positioning of the US had taken their toll. The proximate cause was the Civil War, which put the New York Banks (the European axis) in charge of the federation. From there it was just a matter of time.In the 20th century, the authoritarians struck. The silver standard, removed in the 19th century, was suddenly buttressed by the graduated income tax and the Federal Reserve. Two world wars effectively militarized the entire US, gave rise to an empire and a shadow world government managed out of the City of London with branches in Washington DC, Tel Aviv and elsewhere.The empire that the US has become is commonly seen by the bought-and-paid-for media as the apogee of sociopolitical and cultural achievement. But as we have pointed out, empire is nothing more than the last exhalation of a dying and corrupt culture.It is the time PRECEDING empire during which cultures achieve greatness, when people have social mobility and control over their own lives, inspirations and inventions. Empire is inevitably a military excrescence that takes each positive enumeration of civil society and weaponizes it.Pre-empire cultures are great places to live. But cultures that celebrate empire are miserable ones, full of hate, fear, paranoia and socio-economic and political control.The US, now in the empire phase, is failing fast. US citizens can only look back to the pre-Civil War period for a glimpse of the freedom that created a great country that spanned the world with its agricultural, cultural and mechanical gifts. The phrase “Yankee ingenuity” became a cliché for a reason.Above all, the US, “free banking” economic system based on gold and silver was the envy of the world. Though the power elite owned both gold and silver, it is evident and obvious that the elites could NOT control the US economy no matter how much gold and silver they owned.In fact, this directly rebuts Greenbackers’ contention that those who own the gold and silver will control the world even within a free-market economy. In the US, they didn’t and could not. This helps bear out the truth of Austrian economiststhat it is impossible to sustain unwanted monopolies in free market societies.They needed to use force, as they always do, to control society. First they fought the Civil War to destroy private banking and private money and to build up Wall Street and the power of the New York banks. After this in rapid succession came the graduated income tax, the Federal Reserve and various world wars.And now social mobility is all-but-frozen in the US. The power elite has been immeasurably aided in their quest to subvert the freedoms in the US by the various myths that still exist in the country regarding the way it used to operate. The article, excerpted above, makes this point as well:“Americans may be less concerned about inequality in the distribution of income at any given point in time partly because of a belief that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up the income ladder. A review of the literature suggests that Americans’ perceptions about their likelihood of changing position in the income distribution may be exaggerated,” the CRS report said.“It … appears that going from rags to riches is relatively rare; that is, where one starts in the income distribution greatly influences where one ends up.” See The U.S. Income Distribution and Mobility: Trends and International Comparisons, March 7, 2012.We have long been aware of the increasing inequities in US society and the “welfarization” of the economy that has accompanied its authoritarianism militarization and regulatory and penal deconstruction. But eventually, the new realities probably will begin to wake up more people in the US.When they do, we expect there may be considerable social trouble. People currently still anticipate the current “recession” will end. They cannot be blamed, struggling as they are, for not understanding that the power elite has apparently turned a fundamental page.The elites now seek frank world government from what we can tell and are promoting economic disaster, regional and world wars and increased authoritarianism around the world in order to realize their goals. Out of chaos … order.The problem, as we long have pointed out, is that what we call the Internet Reformation is increasingly educating and radicalizing much of the ‘Net intelligentsia. This is a critical breech in the elite’s plans.

Conclusion: The successful conclusion of the elite’s plans is by no means certain, even though they try to make it appear so. They have certainly managed to deconstruct US exceptionalism and make the lives of many a living hell. But even this can be reversed over time and we don’t count out the possibility that it shall be.

 


Overspending on National Security Threatens National Security

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 – by Ron Paul

The administration recently released its 2013 budget proposal, and conservatives are correctly alarmed that it calls for unprecedented spending and continued annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. But the same conservatives complain that the budget does not devote enough funds to overseas adventurism.

I continue to be dismayed that in spite of our economic problems, most of those who call themselves fiscal conservatives refuse to consider any reductions in military spending. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute very aptly addresses this in his recent article for the American Conservative entitled “Attack of the Pork Hawks.” He points out that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: Namely, that more spending equals better results. The federal education morass is merely one example that clearly disproves this.

The facts are that the President’s budget calls for an 18% increase versus the previously planned 20% increase. This is not a cut, yet Pentagon hawks continue to issue dire warnings that this “draconian” decrease in proposed future spending will seriously threaten our national security. In truth, the majority of DOD spending goes to protect other nations, including prosperous allies like Europe, Japan and South Korea − nations that could and should take more responsibility for their own defense.

Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama’s “cuts,” adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest-spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world’s dominant military power, by far.

In reality, the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has become every bit the voracious monolith he feared. It wastes as much as any other arm of government, if not more, because it knows it can depend on unlimited blank checks from a terrified Congress.

Mr. Bandow concludes that America is more secure today than at any point since before WWII, and that military outlays should be reduced accordingly. We should, Mr. Bandow argues,

“stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it’s about time Washington focused on defending America and its people.”

I couldn’t agree more. Wasting money on overseas adventurism and nation building threatens our national security by massively contributing to our debt. Both welfare and warfare spending are tipping our economy into a serious currency and debt crisis. We can afford no sacred cows in our budget. One only has to look to the violence and civil unrest in Greece and ask − is that the sort of security we envision for our nation’s future?

Ron Paul:   View Bio 

Military-Industrial Complex :   View Glossary Description 

Dwight D. Eisenhower:   View Bio 

Original article: http://thedailybell.com/3632/Ron-Paul-Overspending-on-National-Security-Threatens-National-Security

 

 

 

 


Wrong Ideas Are Sinking America

by Michael S. Rozeff

Recently by Michael S. Rozeff: Get Off the Road to War: Stop the Sanctions on Iran

The beliefs of America’s leaders are deeply ingrained. They have been recruited and made leaders because they have those beliefs and hold them quite inflexibly. For example, American leaders believe in making wars conducted by the state, including such military wars as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and such social wars as the war on drugs and the war on poverty. In this belief, America’s leaders are supported by large numbers of Americans, enough so that they can institute and carry on these wars.

Military wars entail the suspension of ordinary morality. They are viewed as extraordinary events in which ordinary people don uniforms, take up arms, fly airplanes, launch bombs, throw grenades and routinely kill other people without fear of punishment. War is supposedly a case when the ends justify nasty and immoral means. By creating the appearance of wars or semi-wars or crusades against drugs, poverty, terror, discrimination, obesity and diseases, to name a few causes, the same kind of suspension of morality can be invoked. The leaders make it seem “all right” to suspend people’s rights and to force them to do what they want.

Look at what the war on terror has done in this respect. It now is supposed to be all right to detain suspects, torture them, hide them away in prisons in foreign countries without charges, trials or due process of law. The President is taken to be doing the right thing by assassinating whom he wants to or arresting whom he wants to, even if they are Americans, and if only he suspects them of terrorist wrongdoing. The TSA is allowed to assault travelers sexually. Travelers are forced to pass through x-ray machines. Police have become militarized. Searches and seizures face vanishing barriers. Probable cause is a memory. Border crossings are no longer routine.

And all of this and more are things that America’s leaders want us to think are right. Well, they are not. They are wrong. They are as wrong as the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. They are as wrong as every one of the social wars instituted by the U.S. government. All of them violate rights. All of them violate any decent morality. All of them are pragmatically wrong as well.

By now it is or should be obvious that all of these wars, without exception, have been and still are losing propositions for America. This is beyond debate, but neither Democrat nor Republican partisans, who criticize the policies of their opponents, admit that their particular hobby-horses are failures. Both sides are always ready to tinker around the edges with a government program or add to it, but neither side presents radical criticism of longstanding assumptions and institutions. Meanwhile, the American people are largely fast asleep at the wheel. They present no systematic resistance to the immoralities of their state and empire.

Consistent failure of their wars does not sway America’s leaders, who are now prepared to start an aggressive war on Iran. The very concept of such a war is wrong. The policy of domination of Iran that goes back well over 50 years is wrong. It should be replaced, but this is not obvious to America’s leaders because they have been taught otherwise and have taken power while firmly believing the opposite. A notable exception occurred when Nixon went to China.

Obama hasn’t gone to Iran. He completely failed to follow up on his 2009 “new beginning” speech in which he mentioned a sound basis from which to proceed with Iran, namely, “mutual respect”. He and his appointees instead followed through with the very threats that he said at that time wouldn’t work: “This process will not be advanced by threats.” Is it any wonder the Iranians suspect duplicity?

In making all of its wars, military and social, the American leadership regards people as mere names and numbers, mere parts of a social puzzle that can be moved around and manipulated at their will. This is a wrong idea in practice and it is a wrong idea morally. It is at root immoral, since it is anti-person and anti-humanity. America’s leaders do not see their wars in that way.

America’s leaders believe in their own power and superiority, and this implies that they believe in the powerlessness and inferiority of the masses in America. A fortiori, they regard foreign states and their peoples as inferior and objects to be manipulated. These ideas are also wrong morally and practically. There is literally nothing that endows America’s leaders with an inherent superiority that justifies treating others as inferiors. Their power doesn’t make them superior. A robber who points a big gun at one’s head has power, but that doesn’t make him better or superior. His aggression in fact makes him morally suspect. Nor does the decision to pursue or attain power make one superior any more than does the decision to become a robber. Treating others as fodder for American bombs or as political or economic pawns that are subject to threats and manipulation is bound to backfire in the long run.

America’s leaders believe in their ability to achieve their ends, and they believe in the rightness of their having the power to choose and shape these ends. These too are erroneous ideas. Anyone but them can see easily that their wars have been failures for mankind. Had they been successful as leaders, these wars would have not occurred. They would not even have been regarded, even mistakenly regarded, as needed.

It is surely not right to believe that one or a few persons should have the power as leaders to choose the ends of everyone else or the power to shape those ends. Such an idea is obviously directly at odds with the idea of liberty for every person.

All of these wrong-headed ideas and beliefs of the American leadership are more and more clashing with reality. The false and immoral beliefs outlined above when put into practice are bankrupting the nation, causing misery and retarding the progress of Americans. More and more it is evident, even to the true believing leaders, that something is rotten in their empire. Some see the light and abandon their unworkable ideas. They leave government. Others remain but become cynical. Others retain their statist faith but are unsure what the sources of the rot are. They keep up the heart and soul of their failing philosophy of power while making cosmetic changes. They continue to repeat the past errors. They even redouble their failing efforts out of the erroneous belief that others before them just didn’t try hard enough.

Americans need to understand that there are educational and media institutions in place that support the state and empire by continually raising new crops of leaders who keep up these false beliefs and wrong ideas.

Class after class of American youth have been taught that Americans may kill other peoples to achieve American political aims and that this is good, for other peoples are children or savages or inept or ignorant or inferior, while the American ways are superior. Americans have in the past imagined themselves the reluctant killers and victors, without the aims of conquest of past civilizations. They have imagined themselves as the kind, generous, and beneficent empire while not counting those whom they have murdered. For America is good. It has a big heart. It may make mistakes, but its intent is noble. It has a good heart. These have been the myths cultivated in the breeding grounds of those who man the machinery of empire.

The murderous intentions and false ideas are coming more and more out into the open. The reluctance to kill is disappearing. How many Americans joke about “nuking” other peoples? In the 2007 movie “In the Valley of Elah,” one young soldier back from Iraq has these lines:

“You know Mike, he loved the army. Couldn’t wait to get there, save the good guys and hurt the bad guys.

“They shouldn’t send heroes to places like Iraq.

“Everything there’s f****d up.

“Before I went, I’d never say this, but you ask me now…they should just nuke it and watch it all turn back to dust.”

This captures a naive belief in American superiority and a belief that it was right to invade Iraq as if the invasion were some kind of heroic rescue operation. It also captures the psychology of blaming the victims and wanting to nuke them. Get them out of one’s mind. Remove the burden of having lived through war’s horrors and not having achieved anything.

Laurence Vance quotes from the deadliest American sniper in Iraq:

“Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages.’ There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there. People ask me all the time, ‘How many people have you killed?’ My standard response is, ‘Does the answer make me less, or more, of a man?’ The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives. Everyone I shot in Iraq was trying to harm Americans or Iraqis loyal to the new government.”

This soldier believes in his right to kill, under the American flag, even if uninvited to a foreign land. He believes in the rightness of the American presence and cause, and therefore if someone is trying to kill Americans in Iraq, to him they must be evil savages. And he believes the converse as well. Since they are savages, we have a right to fight and kill them. The sniper’s account is valuable. It expresses openly a few of the hidden immoral presumptions of American leaders. It expresses the hidden beliefs of a great many Americans who, with their leaders, usually hide them.

Generations of Americans have been schooled in myths that have subverted mankind’s moral knowledge and replaced it with a devotion to the state and to empire, all the while proclaiming that Americans were doing God’s work. A system was erected by which youths were selected who were the most willing and able supporters of state and empire. Internships were granted as were scholarships and fellowships. Universities were funded to act as ways to filter and credential those willing to support the state. Military service became one route to election. The myth of public service was cultivated. Military service was made out to be attractive to young men (and women) with the requisite propensities.

A deep belief in the goodness of the state and of government was inculcated. A deep distrust of the masses and of freedom naturally accompanied it.

A system of ensuring the continuity of the empire and its guiding myths was built up. Now centered in Washington, D.C. but with tentacles that reach deeply into every major university and into a ring of centers, foundations, think tanks and the like, America raises up generation after generation of men and women of empire. The moral influences from other sources are dwarfed by the devotion of these cadres to their careers and to state and empire. While there are numerous cynics among them, many of them believe in the goodness and rightness of their chosen course. This is what allows them to be part of the machinery within which they pay others mercilessly to murder foreign peoples when they decide to. This belief in their own rightness and goodness is what allows them to cloak their deep immorality in the language of the morality that they have rejected and that is absent from their hearts, having been extinguished by long years of the opposite training.

By no accident, America is a ship headed for the rocks. This course has been built into America and Americans for many years. Entire generations have been born and bred to man the government that is steering the ship to its final collision. Generations of Americans have been born and bred to accept state and empire.

America’s leaders charted this course for America many decades before 9/11. For years the seas looked calm and the winds favorable. Most Americans were blind to the collision course, supported it and applauded it. Even as large an event as the Vietnam War did not cure the blindness. Economic woes have not cured it. An event like 9/11 made matters worse. Far from being a warning beacon to change course, 9/11 has been a Siren luring America to its destruction. In one of the worst decades for liberty in American history, Americans turned to aggressive wars, to more and more intense monetary and economic manipulations, to new forms of welfare, and to the destruction of the Bill of Rights. The ship is being torn apart on reefs and draws closer to the jagged rocks that threaten to sink it altogether.

America’s leaders are now bringing America again to the brink of a new war, with Iran the target.

The two options regarding Iran are now and always have been the same: develop peaceful relations based on mutual respect, live and let live, peace, neutrality and non-interference; or else attempt to control and dominate Iran for the U.S.’s own ends.

Option 2 is the empire’s option of choice. It is an option consistent with its immorality, self-righteous attitudes and long held assumptions.

Following option 1 means a comprehensive settlement of the issues relating to Israel. The U.S. keeps rejecting offers to negotiate such a settlement, not only because the U.S. prefers power plays, but also because U.S. foreign policy is catering to Israel in important respects, and any such settlement will have to settle thorny issues such as thenature and characterof the state of Israel that Israel’s leaders prefer to avoid. They’d have to give up something in order to get some of the things they want.

It is the responsibility of all those states that participated in Israel’s creation, those peoples who have been most affected by it, and those that have a stake in the region to settle these issues by negotiation. For the U.S. (or Israel) to go to war with Iran partly as an indirect result of failing to confront the issues is both morally wrong and irresponsible, being unresponsive to the underlying problem, which is the nature of Israel and its relations with its neighbors.

The wrong ideas of America’s leaders got us to this point, and now, if these ideas do not change or if Americans do not rise up and stop them from being put into practice, the leaders are going to pursue them to their logical and destructive end. A disaster for America and Americans looms directly ahead because a military attack on Iran opens up all kinds of unpredictable consequences, some of which could last for another 100 years. This is no way to build a constructive world.

February 4, 2012

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff


Reject the Ruling Psychopathology

by Michael S. Rozeff

Recently by Michael S. Rozeff: When Might War Between the U.S. and Iran Occur?

Tom Ridge is a Republican and a notable U.S. political figure.

Tom Ridge wants the U.S. to overturn or subvert the Iranian regime from within. See his op-ed here. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors are once again inspecting Iran in a 3-day visit right now, but Ridge wants the U.S. to act “unilaterally and decisively.” He wants the U.S. openly to support (and fund? and train? and make promises to?) anti-regime groups. He wants the U.S. to declare that it’s out for “regime change” in Iran.

He means it when he uses the word “unilateral”, for he speaks of the “impotence” of the U.N. resolutions and the West’s sanctions.

Is subversion an act of war? There is no book of international law that answers this question. Some people say yes, some say no. It clearly depends on the nature of the subversive acts, which can range from protests to assassinations and sabotage. But no matter how it is classified, U.S. support of subversion and open declaration of a goal of regime change is or would be hostile. It is open interference and intervention into Iran’s political processes by the U.S. government. How would the U.S. react if Iran supported groups inside America who wanted drastic regime change here?

And what does regime change mean? Iran has had numerous elections, not all squeaky clean, but then America’s cities, states, and even national elections have never been free from being stolen or paid for either. Iran already has its form of democracy. It already has means of changing its leaders, directions, and policies. So what does regime change mean?

Regime change must mean more than a change of leadership to Tom Ridge. If regime change means changing the political process itself or Iran’s form of government, then he is calling for revolution. And revolution is what he’s calling for, as his reference to the Arab Spring suggests: “In this era of the Arab Spring it is time to support regime change in Iran, from within”. And even if he means steps short of revolution, though it’s hard to imagine what they might be, he’s still calling for rank interference into another nation’s political affairs. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would turn over in their graves if they heard this.

The U.N. has time and again declared itself against domestic interference of this kind and other kinds in no uncertain terms, that is, in the strongest and clearest of language. See here, for example. The linked declaration argues that such interference endangers peace and security:

“Conscious of the fact that such policies endanger the political independence of States, freedom of peoples and permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, adversely affecting thereby the maintenance of international peace and security…”

The U.N. is an imperfect organization that does and declares many objectionable things, but that does not mean it should be ignored when it comes up with sensible and sound ideas, and non-interference in the domestic politics of other nations is a sound idea.

Ridge claims or thinks that supporting regime change sends a message to the mullahs. Sure, it does — a hostile message. But they already have received this message ever since Mossadegh was overthrown and right down to the present. They are not fools. Ridge’s proposal is actually another hostile act along the road to war. It is an act that forecloses diplomacy, an act away from diplomacy. The message he is sending, however, is not to the mullahs. It’s to the U.S. leadership, which he wants to support revolution in Iran openly. No doubt, it is already acting covertly within Iran.

Ridge’s op-ed has been published at the very time that the UN inspectors are in Iran and Iran has again promised openness. His op-ed is designed and timed to blunt the news of that visit. Ridge’s op-ed is an act of warmongering, even though it never mentions war and proposes regime change instead. This is clear by its content, its timing, and by this statement: “Clearly, diplomatic engagement has failed to halt Tehran’s nuclear drive. Sanctions have been insufficient.”

Ridge has nominated himself and the U.S. as the unilateral judge, jury, and executioner of the current regime, disregarding the political processes within Iran, disregarding the U.N. procedures to monitor and deal with signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and disregarding the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) itself. The U.S. shall choose the enforcement techniques and methods as it pleases, after arriving at a judgment as it pleases, according to Ridge and other Iran warmongers.

He does this because Tehran is not kowtowing to his demand that they halt what he calls “their nuclear drive”. Iran has committed no nuclear crime, not even that of polluting the atmosphere with repeated nuclear tests. I believe that it has made some effort to understand how to build a nuclear bomb and conducted some experiments along that path. I think it has perhaps experimented or perhaps investigated how to cause an implosion that creates a critical mass. I don’t think that it has gone much beyond what any good physicists and engineers could discover from open sources about building an atomic bomb.

I think that the nuclear fears over Iran are way overblown and, furthermore, that the nuclear issue is not even the central factor in the conflict between the U.S. and Iran. It accompanies that central factor but is not itself the central factor. Even if Iran had no nuclear understanding or was not developing nuclear power for making electricity, the U.S. would still be on Iran’s case. The central factor is that Iran is making itself independent and wants to be an independent power, out of the orbit and domination of the U.S. and also Russia. The differences between the U.S. and Iran over Israel and Hezbollah are symptomatic of that central factor. When the Israel lobby or the oil lobby in the U.S. exert their influence and succeed in getting U.S. policy-makers to act on their behalf, those factors wax in importance. However, U.S. foreign policy toward Iran would still be aimed at dominating Iran, even were those factors absent.

Iran’s desire for independence manifests in many ways, such as wanting nuclear power for electricity, so that it can sell more oil on the world market. It has an indigenous military industry and wants to build it up. It has its own ideas about its neighbors. It has its own ideas about using the dollar or not in exchange for oil.

Another example is the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. The U.S. pressured India into withdrawing its participation in the Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline. Pakistan was pressured too but refused. Iran has already completed its portion. Instead, the U.S. supports an alternative liquified gas pipeline by an alternative consortium from Tajikistan through Afghanistan. The latter is not close to reality. It requires a political stability in Afghanistan that does not exist.

Now this pipeline is a peaceful and progressive development approved by democratic governments and the U.S. stands in the way. The U.S. talk about freedom and democracy is a smokescreen. It wants to control these countries and control the business opportunities. The U.S. fears political rivals. It fears strength in foreign quarters that it does not control. The U.S. wants satellites in one way or another. Its central reason for wanting to control progress, competition, markets, and business rivalries is to control foreign strength and independence. It wants to keep foreign nations weaker than itself. The U.S. wants to keep Iran weak. This is the behavior of an empire.

Tom Ridge is advising the current emperor (Obama) what to do in order to weaken Iran and control it. That is the purpose of his op-ed piece. Several reasons that he mentions therein are absolutely peripheral and trivial. One of them is mobs chanting “Death to America” in the funeral of the assassinated nuclear scientist. What does he expect, loving praise for that deed? Is he not calling for the death of the existing Iranian regime, if not their heads? Doesn’t he know enough not to place much stock in the expression of such emotions surrounding such a touchy event? Or is Ridge himself trying to exploit American emotions?

Another reason he gives is the case of a man sentenced to death by an Iranian court for being a CIA spy. (His appeal is pending.) Whether true or not, Ridge is grasping at another emotional straw to use such an event as justification for advocating a U.S.-backed revolutionary movement inside Iran.

Ridge lists uranium enrichment as a big concern, but that is allowable under the non-proliferation treaty. That treaty has several passages pertinent to this. One says “all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in co-operation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes…” Among other things that signatories have agreed not to do is “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices…” Iran hasn’t acquired any nuclear devices, and it hasn’t been accused of doing so. It hasn’t manufactured any nuclear devices either.

Section 3 of Article III of the NPT explicitly allows peaceful uses of nuclear energy and production of nuclear material:

“The safeguards required by this Article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.”

Iran has allowed inspectors into Iran in the past. It continues to allow U.N. inspectors into Iran. They are there at this moment. Iran has a right under the treaty to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It has not withdrawn from the treaty, which is possible under Article X of that treaty with a three months notice and under extraordinary circumstances that it regards as jeopardizing its national interests. The pressures exerted by the West on Iran have not led it to withdraw from the treaty, which is exactly what the U.S. would like to see it do, as that would provide a pretext for open warfare.

Ridge wants to go further, and further leads in only one direction: war. Ridge essentially wants to goad Iran into war, or else goad it into looking bad by suppressing internal dissidents supported by the U.S., thereby providing yet another excuse for making war on Iran.

There is no reason why the U.S. should be concerned with Iran as a matter of American well-being or security. American well-being and security are furthered by neutral, peaceful and fair relations with all nations. American well-being is not furthered by expansionism over the globe and foreign policies that require huge military expenditures. What does this do but create near-perpetual wars? What does the empire do but drain the productive capacity of Americans? What does it do but lead to attacks on continental America? What does it do but lead to suppression of liberty at home? What does it do but further socialist and fascist policies domestically? What does it do but strengthen the hand of the establishment’s control over us? What does it do but exacerbate our own already large problems?

The reason that the U.S. is concerned over Iran and cruising for an all-out fight is that the empire demands weakness among all those around it that might conceivably challenge its dominance. It demands compliant satellites wherever it can create them or force them into compliance. Is this the historic role of Americans? Is this what America is about? Is it about political domination of the world? Is it about empire? Is it about suppressing progress and liberty in the aim of keeping other nations weak? Is it about putting into practice a psychopathology of power?

What does empire mean at home? Is America about stagnation, high unemployment, a constantly rising price level, high taxes, TSA inspections, food stamps for millions, huge bailouts, and boundless rules and regulations? Is it about straitjackets placed on industry after industry? Is it about so-called “sacrifices” that cost Americans dearly with no commensurate gains? Is it about worthless educations? Is it about loss of industries? Is it about loss of competitiveness? It is about turning into a fifth-rate nation?

Or is America about peace, freedom, and progress? Is America about leaving other peoples alone who are doing us no harm? Is it about opportunity? Is it about getting ahead? Is it about creativity, invention, and individual flourishing? Is it about renouncing tyranny, including tyranny authored by Americans that is visited upon Americans here at home or upon peoples overseas?

Is not America about rights known and respected? And if this is so, then it is time long overdue to stop violating rights in foreign nations. It is time to leave politics in other lands to those who live there. It is time to stop attempting to secure our own rights at the expense of the rights of others. It is time to stop interfering and intervening in other lands under the rhetorical smokescreens of freedom, justice, security or democracy but really with the central aim of control of foreign governments or reshaping foreign political processes to the liking of the men and women of empire who own and operate our foreign policies and who have adopted aims and methods that deviate from normal aspirations, that are dysfunctional to Americans at large, and that are dangerous to our well-being.

Grandiose, vague, and utopian ideals placed into practice by means that contradict them, such as violence, violating rights, and warfare have to be viewed as manifestations of illogical, irrational and deranged minds. In short, it is time to reject the rule of psychopaths in our very own American establishment, whom too many Americans ordinarily regard with an untoward and altogether excessive degree of respect and acceptance. It is time to terminate the national psychopathic nightmare that we are experiencing.

January 31, 2012

Source article: http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff374.html

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Dominationand the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff

`


%d bloggers like this: