/

Monday, May 28, 2007

HOMELAND SECURITY, MY @$$

Less Than 0.01% Of Homeland Security Cases Are Terrorism Related,
So why does the government say terrorism is DHS primary focus?

Steve Watson
www.Infowars.net

Records obtained from the immigration courts under the Freedom of Information Act show that only 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security were terrorism related, despite the fact that the Bush administration has repeatedly asserted that it is the primary focus of the DHS.

A report issued Sunday by independent research group The Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse (TRAC) found that in the last three years there have only been 12 charges of terrorism out of 814,073 cases.

This once again highlights that the terrorist threat to America is vastly over hyped and is being used by a criminally controlled government as an excuse to police the world and foment a domestic police state to crush any dissent amongst the American people.

"The DHS claims it is focused on terrorism. Well that's just not true," David Burnham, a TRAC spokesman told CNN. "Either there's no terrorism, or they're terrible at catching them. Either way it's bad for all of us."
DHS spokesman Russ Knocke called the TRAC report "ill-conceived" and said the group "lacked a grasp of the DHS mission."

Knocke said that, by clamping down on all forms of immigration, DHS has made it difficult for terrorists to come to the United States.

Knocke's comments are clearly absurd as there are still millions of illegal immigrants pouring into the country every year and the borders remain wide open, the very reason why there is currently a heated debate over total immigration reform.

Even more revealing was the fact that the TRAC analysis also found that out of those 800,000 or so individuals charged only 114, or 0.014 percent of the total were charged with national security violations.

This re-emphasizes the fact that the Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than a bloated bureaucratic federal Octopus protruding its lawless tentacles into local government and policing. It has nothing to do with protecting America and everything to do with scaring it into total subjugation.

Earlier this month President Bush signed legislation which declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government, including Congress, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power. A key part of this legislation places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security".

When he announced the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security in 2002, President Bush invoked the fight against "terror" or "terrorists" 19 times in a single speech. Thus the word was used seven more times in one speech than there have been actual terrorism charges brought by the department in the last three years.

Should we be surprised that the DHS has nothing to do with terrorism? Quite frankly no, as we have tirelessly exposed the DHS track record of purely targeting innocent US citizens.

Since 9/11 the PATRIOT Act has been used in numerous cases involving American citizens, including strip club owners, toy store proprietors, the homeless, owners of websites, writers, internet users, artists, journalists and photographers.

Maybe in order to find more terrorists the DHS should investigate itself. In 2004 the DHS employed former East German Stasi head, the 'Silver Fox' Markus Wolfe who had previously been denied entry to the US as he was considered a terrorist. In addition, the DHS also hired Ex-head of the Soviet KGB, General Yevgeni Primakov.

What was it about their CVs that attracted the DHS?

Welcome to the new America.

www.infowars.net

WAR MONGERING AND DISINFORMATION

How Can Bush Bring Freedom and Democracy to Iraq When He Brings Tyranny to America?
By Paul Craig Roberts
ICH

The Washington, DC, think-tank, The American Enterprise Institute, camouflages its purpose with its name. There is nothing American about AEI, and the organization’s enterprise is fomenting war in the Middle East against Israel’s enemies. Its real name should be The Likud Center for Middle East War. AEI has the largest collection of warmongers in America. AEI "scholars" have agitated for war in the Middle East for years. A moronic president and 9/11 gave them their opportunity. Now that the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have failed, the AEI warmongers are conspiring with Vice President Cheney to foment war with Iran. Writing in The Washington Note, Steven C. Clemons reports that Cheney is working with the AEI warmongers to short-circuit the efforts of Bush’s secretaries of defense and state to find a diplomatic solution.

Clemons reports that one former high level national security official describes the Cheney-AEI conspiracy as possibly an act of "criminal insubordination" against President Bush. Now that the Democrats have betrayed their mandate of last November to end Bush’s war against Iraq and given Bush carte blanche to continue the gratuitous bloodshed, the neoconservative plan, spearheaded by Vice President Cheney, to initiate aggression against Iran is back on the front burner.

Disinformation is being fed to the media that Iran is responsible for attacks on US troops in Iraq. This disinformation is routinely reported without skepticism by the American media in the face of challenges from experts. For example, a recent British report concludes:
"few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency."

While the Cheney/AEI conspirators strive to whip up American anger at Iran with lies and disinformation, they are doing everything possible to provoke Iran. The warmongers have planted the story in the media that the US is conducting covert operations against Iran. The US Navy is conducting "exercises" off Iran’s coast.

The US military in Iraq has violated diplomatic privilege and kidnapped Iranian officials in Iraq despite protests from the Iraqi and Iranian governments. The US government is stirring up more trouble in Lebanon by setting extremists Sunnis against Iran’s Hezbollah ally.

In short, the US government is doing everything possible to start a war with Iran. Bombing Iran, perhaps after a contrived "false flag" operation, is the next step. Bush continues to tell his favorite lies that he is bringing "freedom and democracy to Iraq" and that Muslims hate us because of our "freedom and democracy." He continues to make these inane assertions even as he ignores the will of the American people and destroys habeas corpus, the foundation of civil liberty.

Bush ignores the will of the people as expressed in last November’s congressional elections and as expressed in opinion polls. The New York Times/CBS News poll released May 24 shows another sharp drop in public support for Bush and his war. America is "seriously off on the wrong track" was the response of 72 percent of the public. President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government’s policy than inmates in a gulag would have.

What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy" while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them?

Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush’s America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?

Recent polls show that the majority of the American people are no longer fooled, no matter what politicians say and media report. The election last November demonstrated the electorate's lack of support for continuing the war. The problem is in implementing the will of the people.

Democrats in Congress are not only recipients of AIPAC, oil industry, and military- security complex payoffs just as the Republicans are, Democrats are also behaving very cynically. They believe that it is Bush's policy that gave them control of Congress in November and that by continuing to let Bush prevail, they will clean up on a larger scale in 2008. They believe that their antiwar base has nowhere else to go. Their cynical logic is probably correct as far as it goes. Bush is being blamed for the war and its failure. The longer this goes on, the worse the situation for the Republicans.

Prior to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, I wrote in a column that the unintended consequences of an invasion would be the destruction of Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement. It has taken longer than I thought, largely because of Americans’ blind desire for revenge for 9/11, but the prediction is on track. The problem with the Democrats’ cynical logic is that allowing Bush to prolong the war in Iraq increases the chances that Cheney, Israel, and the neoconservatives can contrive a war with Iran.

Most experts, and many in our own military, think that a war with Iran would go very badly for us, endangering our troops in Iraq by exposing them to more intense attacks from the more numerous Shiites, who would be armed with Iranian weapons that can neutralize our tanks and helicopters, leaving our fragmented and divided troops isolated and cut off from supplies and retreat routes. The pending disaster would play into Cheney's hands. With America faced with the loss of an army, Cheney and the neoconservatives would likely succeed in convincing Bush to nuke Iran.

Cheney and Rumsfeld have already changed US war doctrine to permit preemptive nuclear attack against non-nuclear powers. Surprised by the inability of the US military to prevail in Iraq and by Israel's military failure against Hezbollah, the neocons concluded that the only way to establish US/Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East is to nuke Iran. The neocons believe that using nuclear weapons against Iran will demonstrate to the Muslim world that they have no alternative but to submit to US hegemony.

The Democrats are far from being alone in lacking the vision to see the abyss into which their cynicism is leading us. With the corporate media serving as propaganda ministry for the administration, Cheney will be able to whip up enough fear and anger to convince the American people that the use of nuclear weapons was imperative. Bush’s popularity will return as he prevails over the enemy and tells Americans how he saved them from Iran’s nuclear weapons. The Democrats’ cynicism will have destroyed them and opened new avenues to destruction and violence.

www.informationclearinghouse.info

SO THEN, CAN I BREAK THE LAW TOO?

TREACHERY AGAINST AMERICAN CIVILIZATION
By Frosty Wooldridge
www.NewsWithViews.com

Senate Bill 1348, giving mass amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, proves a treacherous and outrageous act against our civilization by Congress and President Bush.

"Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has fraud written all over it," said Dr. Thomas Sowell, African-American professor at Stanford University and writer for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

"What can we do with 12 million people already here illegally?" Sowell asked. "We can stop them from becoming 50 million, the way three million became 12 million from the previous amnesty in 1986."

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation said, "This bill will add 103 million people into the United States in 20 years and cost American taxpayers $2.3 trillion."

Current demographic figures show the United States doubling its population from 300 million to 600 million via immigration. The ramifications of multiplying our current dilemmas double in every aspect of this civilization.

After the 20 million illegals become legalized, Z-visas add 400,000 workers annually forever.
S.B. 1348 presents amnesty for 636,000 deportee convicted criminal absconders ‘lost’ somewhere in America.

The amazing aspect of this bill reverses justice by enforcing amnesty for lawlessness while abdicating the rule of law. For example, over 15,000 MS-13 gang members become eligible for amnesty and eventual citizenship.
This amnesty undermines American citizens and legal immigrants from A to Z. It hijacks our electoral system by giving millions of illegal aliens the ability to vote in our local and national elections. They will vote for everything "Mexico" and against anything "American." This amnesty shoplifts America’s sovereignty out the door toward Third World Momentum.

Illegal aliens become eligible for college tuition subsidies in the Dream Act. At the same time, your tax dollars fund lawyers for illegal aliens. "Every illegal alien working in the agricultural sector would have access to an immigration attorney to argue his case through the immigration courts and federal courts of appeals—all at taxpayer expense," said Dr. Mathew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation.

"These Z-visas are nearly as good as non-provisional Z-visas, giving the alien immediate lawful status, protection from deportation, authorization to work, and the ability to exit and enter the country," said Kris Kobach, professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Bush touts this as a temporary guest worker program. Yes, and he would like to sell you a used car from the "Hood." But, what’s under the hood? Why after six years in office—after refusing to enforce our immigration laws—does he want to sell you a bogus ‘comprehensive immigration reform bill’?

John Boehner, former House Majority Leader, said, "I promised the President today that I wouldn’t say anything bad about...this piece of s**t bill." Mark Twain said, "Suppose you were an idiot; and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Arch conservative Rush Limbaugh screamed that the amnesty bill spells disaster for America. Ann Coulter echoed Limbaugh. Next up, Bush lapdog Sean Hannity lamented that the amnesty bill proved a disaster for all Americans. Pat Buchanan, former U.S. presidential candidate, said, "This bill will be the death of America."

Other more rational minds, columnist George Will, Congressman Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo, William F. Buckley and Ed Meese oppose S.B. 1348.

Who supports it? Senator Teddy Kennedy, a man who never stepped foot into America in his life and knows nothing of the cultural carnage he heaped on America with his 1965 Immigration Reform Act and 1986 amnesty. God help America if we allow this village idiot of a man to drive the final nail into the coffin of our civilization in 2007.

Nothing about S.B. 1348 benefits America. It proves treachery against citizenship, the U.S. Constitution, lawful behavior and responsible migration. It transforms all immigration into the USA into a free-for-all.

Congress injects a syringe into America’s aorta and when Bush signs it, he pumps this nation into a future of Balkanization, accelerating imported poverty, displacement of America’s middle class and certain loss of the American Dream.

This bill ensures the end of America’s most cohesive aspect; its English language. Emanuel Kant said, "The two great dividers are religion and language."

"Under this bill, every immigrant is his own bubble of linguistic entitlement," says Jim Boulet Jr., executive director of English First. Thanks to President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 13166! As Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK, told the Senate, this is "an entitlement for a translator in any language you want other than English."

This bill proves Mark Twain’s lament when he said, "No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the Congress is in session." Hard to fathom paying U.S. senators to enact quality bills—but, instead, we receive drivel. Their actions illustrate the "good of the country" comes second to power, greed and money. Nothing in this bill benefits American citizens!

But who become the biggest fools of all? Who will bequeath to their children a whirlwind of consequences as they uttered not one word while they did nothing to stop their country being ripped out from under them?

The great American ‘Silent Majority’! It’s the same majority that twiddled its thumbs while the Vietnam War slaughtered 58,000 of its sons and wounded 350,000 into lives of legless and armless despair. They watched while three million Vietnamese suffered horrible deaths from napalm, bombs and Agent Orange. What a horrific tragedy for humanity! All of it based on the lie of the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" by Lyndon Baines Johnson!

That same ‘Silent Majority’ sits by while George Bush slaughters 3,440, and counting, U.S. combat soldiers and 24,000 wounded young American men and women in Iraq pretending to pursue a "War on Terror" while he leaves our borders stark raving open to any terrorist crossing in the dead of night. Bush killed, according to the Johns Hopkins Report, 655,000 Iraqi civilians. He’s dropped depleted uranium bombs that cause birth defects in Iraqis for generations while poisoning our own soldiers. He based his war on the bald faced lie of "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

If the "Silent Majority" sits idly by on this S.B 1348, neither the United States of America nor the "American Dream" will survive the sheer population numbers of adding 100 million people, let alone the Balkanization, conflicting languages, diseases, crime and poverty of this advancing "Human Katrina."What you can do for a better future for your country:

A republican form of government is not a spectator sport. It means you must jump in, roll up you sleeves and take personal and collective action. Of course, you could let a dictator take over and do everything for you, but that path would give you Cuba, China, North Korea and other unsavory examples.

To stop Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from giving an amnesty, take action. Call for a full 10 year moratorium.

CALL NANCY PELOSI
Washington, DC - (202) 225-4965 S
an Francisco, CA - (415) 556-4862
EMAIL NANCY PELOSI
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
EMAIL FORM FOR NANCY PELOSI
www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html

Senator Harry Reid
202-224-3121 in Washington DC
775-686-5750 in Reno, NV
www.reid.senate.gov

George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500
comments@whitehouse.gov
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard for live listener: 202 456 1414
Fax: 202-456-2461
© 2007 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

9/11 PROOF

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson

Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet

Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.

Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.

The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on. The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center. It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.

Jones' evidence offers no other conclusion that insiders planted thermite devices within the buildings to literally pulverize the supporting columns and cause the collapse of the towers and also WTC 7. Debunkers have uniformly failed to address the existence of thermite and also molten metal at the ground zero site because they cannot dismiss the scientific proof, and are forced to resort to ad hominem insults and smears.

We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic.

We don't expect the progenitors of yellow journalism to have any answers for what constitutes the smoking gun of controlled demolition.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Monday, May 21, 2007

AGENDA 21

SAVE THE PLANET - KILL YOURSELF?

By Darren Weeks
www.NewsWithViews.com

We are told that over-population is the greatest threat facing planet earth. Daily, we are given lectures of how we humans are screwing up the environment, damaging the earth’s “fragile” eco-system, killing the birds, and polluting the air and water. Forked-tongued politicians, finger-wagging bureaucrats, and a choir of “green” organizations moan an off-key chorus of alarm about the human “footprint” on earth.

We are blamed for over-fishing the seas, deforestation of wooded areas, droughts and desertification, wildfires and floods. We cause congestion in the cities, sprawl in the suburbs, and terrorize the creatures in the countryside. It is obvious from what we’re told, Americans have no place in the world and the world is better off without us.

We drive too much, eat too much, breathe too much and throw away too much. We are living too large, we take up too much space, we are too rich, we’ve become too fat, and we have too many children.

Every day, and in every way, we are evil. We kill, we destroy, we pollute, we intrude. We are the scourge of “Mother Earth”, and the warts on Gaia’s backside.

This is the message that is being declared from the halls of government, academia, tax-exempt foundations, and the Establishment-controlled media. Never before has it ever been clearer that not only are we unfit stewards of the land and its natural resources, we literally are not worthy to breathe the air.

As a matter of fact, with the recent Supreme Court decision that declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant” that must be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, we are officially damaging the planet by doing nothing else than breathing.

At the same time the venom of elite-driven hatred spews forth from every channel of propaganda, we have bacteria being added to our lunch meat and fluoride added to our water supply. We have foreign substances being sprayed in our skies, and genetically-modified crops producing their own pesticides for our consumption. Our vitamins and nutritional supplements are being eliminated in favor of a limitless bombardment of toxin-infested vaccines and mandated pharmaceutical drugs. [Read the book "Fluoride Deception"]

Our farmers and ranchers have been molested for years by endless regulations, land-use and irrigation restrictions, and have, for decades, been paid not to produce. As domestic food production has dropped, foreign food imports have risen, along with sicknesses, food poisonings and contaminations.

It is high time that every American begin to make the connection between the demonization of all normal human activity, versus the daily and ongoing attacks on our food, our water, our vitamins, on all of the basic staples that we need to sustain our lives.

Upon careful examination of the evidence, it is difficult to escape the reality that we are gradually and deliberately being made victims of a mass genocide. The necessary pieces are being placed together to eliminate a large number of the population.

In an April 16th Associated Press article headlined, Imported Food Rarely Inspected, it said,
“Just 1.3 percent of imported fish, vegetables, fruit and other foods are inspected — yet those government inspections regularly reveal food unfit for human consumption.”

On April 23rd, the Associated Press ran a follow-up article headlined, U.S. Food Safety Strained by Imports. The article said,

“The same food safety net that couldn't catch poisoned pet food ingredients from China has a much bigger hole.

“Billions of dollars’ worth of foreign ingredients that Americans eat in everything from salad dressing to ice cream get a pass from overwhelmed inspectors, despite a rising tide of imports from countries with spotty records, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal trade and food data.

“When U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspectors at ports and border checkpoints look, they find shipments that are filthy or otherwise contaminated. They rarely bother, however, in part because ingredients aren't a priority.”

How does that make you feel America? Your very own mainstream news media is telling you that you are eating trash! Your government is aware of the problem. In fact, they created the problem by persecuting domestic food producers at every turn, and forcing family farm owners out of business. In the vacuum, massive multi-national corporations and foreign producers have stepped up production to feed you and almost none of their products are inspected. It isn’t a priority. Why? [See Vedeo "Future of Food"]

Could it be that the answer lies in the fact that they keep telling us that over-population is a problem? Could it be that the real movers and shakers behind public policy in America consider you a liability to their environment, to their power base, and to their world Order?

The truth is that those who hold the reigns of power consider this planet theirs. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the land you think you own — it’s all theirs! That’s why you’ll pay to use it all. And make no mistake about it, taxes upon your carbon emissions are right around the corner. They will charge you to use the air because you’re a liability to their planet, simply because you’re alive. They place themselves in the position of the Almighty, and they’ve decided that you don’t belong here.

This principle is demonstrated with unequaled clarity at the Church of Euthanasia website, where their motto is “Save the planet, kill yourself.” This non-profit foundation promotes what they refer to as their “four pillars” — suicide, abortion, cannibalism, and sodomy. Their one commandment is, “thou shalt not procreate.” Although they say their purpose is to restore “balance between humans and the remaining species on earth,” they glorify death, encourage suicide and have even hosted instructions on how to commit suicide.

Though much less diplomatic in their choice of language, the Church of Euthanasia’s ideology is harmonious to the United Nations Environment Programme’s Agenda 21 initiatives that are being implemented all across America and around the world. Though the UN is much more careful to disguise it’s people-hating agenda with pretty terms such as “human rights”, “walkable communities”, “Smart Growth”, “New Urbanism”, “Cool Cities”, “Scenic Byways”, and “conservation easements”, the outcome is the same. The plans that are being implemented around the country and the world are designed to crush human activity, put the means of production off limits to you, and to stop human “sprawl” — meaning, people living any place they decide you shouldn’t.

Americans must quickly awaken and realize that there is a silent and undeclared war upon our freedom, our health, and our very existence. Quietly, and behind the scenes in secret meetings, these people haters are plotting to remove every support needed to sustain life.

In 1972, the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was commissioned by President Richard Nixon. The commission, which was chaired by John D. Rockefeller III, lamented the prospect of “one of the most serious challenges” facing America. They outlined three “positions” that needed to be addressed as population policy, which included greater access to contraceptives and “fertility control,” the promotion of “equal rights” for women and minorities — getting them busy in careers so they aren’t tempted to have children — and finally a reshaping of American values to harmonize them with environmental conservation. Of the last point, the commission writes,

“The third position deals with the population problem in an ecological framework, one whose primary axiom asserts the functional interdependence of man and his environment. It calls for a far more fundamental shift in the operative values of modern society. The need for more education and knowledge and the need to eliminate poverty and racism are important, but not enough. For the population problem, and the growth ethic with which it is intimately connected, reflect deeper external conditions and more fundamental political, economic, and philosophical values. Consequently, to improve the quality of our existence while slowing growth, will require nothing less than a basic recasting of American values.”

It is this “recasting of American values” that is precisely what attorney and environmental activist Daniel Sitarz, the author of the authoritative version of Agenda 21, referred to when in 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, he stated:

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level. There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions and individual investors, by high-tech companies and indigenous people, by workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools, by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children — in short, by every person on Earth.”

To put it another way, Sitarz is saying that there is no single person on the planet that won’t be effected by the implementation of Agenda 21. He chooses words such as “profound reorientation”, “major shift” and “unprecedented” to describe their own agenda! Does this not sound a little revolutionary?

At this point, one must ask the question, who gave these people the mandate to reshape society and “recast” our values toward the principles of “sustainability” and Agenda 21? What right do they have to tell us how and where to live, how much water to use, what we can and cannot eat, and what to do with our own property?

The answer is, of course, we did. We’ve been so pacified with TV, movies, celebrity worship, video games, gossip magazines, and a million other things that accomplish nothing, that we have not fulfilled our duties to govern our country. Now, we don’t like the results of leaving the process of government to the professionals. The truth of the matter is that we are living the consequences of our own acquiescence. We are reaping what we’ve sewn, and we are now being targeted for extermination.

Quoting again from the Rockefeller Commission,

“Population growth is one of the major factors affecting the demand for resources and the deterioration of the environment in the United States. The further we look into the future, the more important population becomes. From an environmental and resource point of view, there are no advantages from further growth of population beyond the level to which our past rapid growth has already committed us. Indeed, we would be considerably better off over the next 30 to 50 years if there were a prompt reduction in our population growth rate. This is especially true with regard to problems of water, agricultural land, and outdoor recreation. While the nation can, if it has to, find ways to solve the problems growth creates, we will not like some of the solutions we will have to adopt.”

To what potential solutions could Rockefeller and his cohorts on the commission have been referring? Could it have been the massive depopulation efforts that we are currently experiencing in the 21st century? Could they have been eluding to the poisoning of our air, water, and food supply? Could it have been the limitless wars, and orchestrated acts of terrorism? Perhaps, it was pre-born infanticide that they were referencing, as we’ve murdered over a million unborn children a year since the Supreme Court made its ruling on abortion the year after Rockefeller’s report on population was issued.

Chapter 5 of United Nations’ Agenda 21 says it this way,

“The growth of world population and production combined with unsustainable consumption patterns places increasingly severe stress on the life-supporting capacities of our planet. These interactive processes affect the use of land, water, air, energy and other resources. Rapidly growing cities, unless well-managed, face major environmental problems. The increase in both the number and size of cities calls for greater attention to issues of local government and municipal management. The human dimensions are key elements to consider in this intricate set of relationships and they should be adequately taken into consideration in comprehensive policies for sustainable development. … Population policy should also recognize the role played by human beings in environmental and development concerns. There is a need to increase awareness of this issue among decision makers at all levels and to provide both better information on which to base national and international policies and a framework against which to interpret this information.”

What are the specific details of the “population policies” inherent in Agenda 21? How is it that Amer
ica was never told about this program to organize and/or eliminate life on planet earth?

The truth is that we’re not supposed to know because if the great unwashed were made aware of the plans to control every aspect of their lives, and to kill off a major portion of their numbers, they might find it somewhat objectionable.

The radical environmentalists, once on the fringe of extremist groups, have now been institutionalized into every area of governance, academia, and law, from the United Nations on down. And you and your children are targeted for mass extinction.

To those who care, you are implored to educate yourself and then become involved in the fight to stop this agenda, at a local level where the plans are being implemented.

And to those radical environmentalists who truly believe the planet would be better served if there were less humans living here, you should lead by example. The rest of us might find, after you’re gone, that you were right.

© 2007 Darren Weeks - All Rights Reserved

THE BATTLE FOR THE UNITED STATES

THE RON PAUL REBELLION
By Steven Yates

Ron Paul now has national visibility, courtesy of last Tuesday’s “debate” down in Columbia—much to the chagrin of mainstream media and Republican Party elites. His poll numbers are sufficiently high that a struggle to suppress them is underway. We are seeing what we might call a Ron Paul rebellion. Whether it will have staying power remains to be seen.

This was the exchange that opened the door. Fox New’s Wendell Goler addressed Paul and asked, “I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as— almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your Party? Is your Party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?”

Ron Paul articulated, “Well, I think the Party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy—no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican Party. It is the Constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them…. [T]here’s a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly.”

Goler followed up with, “Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?”

His response: our foreign policy was a “major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East—I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’ve building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.”

Goler: “Are you suggested we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?”

“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.”

That was when Rudy Giuliani blew his top—giving this writer the best reason I’ve seen not to vote for him and to urge others not to support him. Giuliani jumped in with, “That’s really an extraordinary statement. As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.” Delivered with the tone of a true authoritarian. An overwhelmingly neocon audience cheered.

Paul hadn’t said we invited 9/11, of course. He used the phrase contributing factor, which implies there were other contributing factors. When asked to reply, he elaborated:

“I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were—if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”

We saw, dramatized on national television and in ensuing media discussion, the two worldviews that may battle it out over the next year or so for control of the Republican Party—and possibly the country itself—with ramifications well beyond Election 2008. The one Rudy Giuliani represents (which is that of the Bush clan, the neocons, and the corporatist elite generally): the U.S. is an empire obliged or destined to rule the world, capable of building “democracies” in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere, relying on a value system based on money and power. Power does not necessarily corrupt. We peons should fall in line behind our leaders.

The second, which Ron Paul represents, sees the U.S. as a Constitutional republic with a limited government, believes that sound economics requires sound money (not our present fiat dollar), would distinguish genuine free enterprise from corporatism, and advocate a foreign policy of trade with all but entangling alliances with none—i.e., a foreign policy rooted in respect for other nations’ sovereignty and their right to self-determination. Other nations’ internal affairs are not our business unless we are explicitly invited in.

This is not simply a clash between “left” and “right,” or between “liberal” and “conservative.” We may be approaching a major dust-up between those who want freedom and those who want power, between those who believe society must be aggressively centralized and those who wish to see power dispersed. We may see a struggle between those who want policies that allow the common man to live as he sees fit if he isn’t bothering anyone else, and a cadre of oligarchs who view the world as theirs, and who see themselves as unaccountable.

The Republican National Committee and its talk-show fellow travelers are all on the side of power. The latter immediately went into attack-dog mode. After the debate, Paul appeared on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes show. Sean Hannity spluttered incoherently against Paul to the point where Paul had difficulty getting a word in edgewise; to his credit, he did not get flustered and refused to back down. He stood his ground the next day when Wolf Blitzer on CNN asked if he wanted to apologize for his statements. He retorted that Rudy Giuliani ought to apologize to him. He told Blitzer that Americans have the right to disagree with bad policy.

Interventionism is bad foreign policy, he said, and ought to be challenged. Fox News anchor John Gibson tried to associate Paul with the 9/11 Truth movement by crediting Paul with saying “the U.S. actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks.” Paul, of course, had said nothing of the sort. Glenn Beck, yet another neocon talk-show host and Rush Limbaugh wannabe, has repeatedly smeared Paul on his show, calling him “crazy” after the first debate and a “dope” after this one.

Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis proposed barring Ron Paul from future debates. After the RNC and the Michigan GOP received thousands of phone calls and several online petitions totaling over 20,000 signatures, they scrapped that idea. We may thank the growing number of people who get their news over the uncensored Internet, where Ron Paul is now practically the frontrunner, for protecting free speech from Republican Party elites.

Ron Paul’s point of view is gaining an audience whether the neocons like it or not. Major CNN contributing writer Roland S. Martin has said that his thinking on U.S. foreign policy should at least be discussed. Paul, after all, is hardly the first to say that our policies in the Middle East might have contributed to our being attacked. Jacob G. Hornberger, of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in fact has a detailed timeline of our interventions in the region going back to 1953, the year a CIA-backed coup in Iran ousted democratically elected Mohammed Mosadegh and instilled the Shah. As the Shah proceeded to butcher the Iranian people for the next quarter-century, the Islamic terror underground formed and began to ferment (see Hornberger’s article “Iraq, Iran and September 11: A Chronology,”

But more generally, the Ron Paul candidacy is exposing how the power system in this country is gutting the Constitution. This is very good news! Ron Paul has arguably won two national debates now—won in the sense that he came from the incredible disadvantage of a media blackout and has reached the point of having a message that is resonating with that growing segment of the public that is fed up with government lies, whether the topic is Iraq, illegal immigration, the economy, or any number of other front burner issues.

Giuliani looks to be emerging as the elites’ favorite. This guy is pro-choice, favors special rights for gays, and advocates gun control. Have these become official Republican positions, and are they evidence of what has happened to the Republican Party since the neocons took it over? An attorney friend of mine with whom I spoke last Friday probably said it best. To paraphrase how he put it, if the Republicans choose Rudy Giuliani as their nominee after a protracted hate campaign drives Ron Paul back to “third party” status and the public lets them get away with it, they do not deserve to win next year. It will be fair and just to say that this country deserves a socialist Hillary/Obama presidency which would run Rome on the Potomac straight into the ground.

It might be worth noting as an aside that Giuliani has been linked to the proposed NAFTA Superhighway system. According to the Texas Department of Transportation, his Houston-based law firm, Bracewell & Guiliani, represents Cintra Concesiones, the Spanish megacorporation that has joined with San Antonio’s Zachry Construction on the Trans-Texas Corridor. This positions Giuliani firmly with the power elite. So again: do Americans really want him in the White House?

And should conservatives trust information from elite-controlled outfits like Fox News (owned by News Corporation, globalist Rupert Murdoch’s media empire)? Arguably the exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani was a set-up. During debates such as the one last Tuesday, microphones of non-speakers are turned off. Giuliani’s, however, was left on while Ron Paul was speaking. Why? Was someone waiting for something Giuliani could attack? Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has observed, “[Fox News] seems to be emerging as an arm of the Giuliani-for-President campaign. Honest conservatives should demand better coverage.” Fox News Online published a dishonest Dick Morris column declining to mention Paul and portraying the race as “nine-way.”

A growing number of people aren’t buying it. They are responding to Ron Paul’s message of limited government, bringing America’s troops home from a pointless and increasingly destructive war, abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve, getting out of bad trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, getting out of the WTO, restoring the Constitution, and returning to the idea of America as republic, not empire. It would be, as I’ve noted elsewhere, a first. But those who believe that America is still worth fighting for will get behind Ron Paul’s candidacy, and defend him from the media’s attack dogs. Since Ron Paul shows no signs of caving in, and I don’t see the neocons backing down, the next year promises to be very interesting!
© 2007 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved

Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.
He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.

E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

BRITS DETECT PRE-CRIME

This is sick:


Unborn babies targeted in crackdown on criminality
Blair launches policy imported from US to intervene during pregnancy to head off antisocial behaviour
Lucy Ward, social affairs correspondent
The Guardian

Women can be identified for help just 16 weeks after conceiving.

Unborn babies judged to be at most risk of social exclusion and turning to criminality are to be targeted in a controversial new scheme to be promoted by Downing Street today.

In an effort to intervene as early as possible in troubled families, first-time mothers identified just 16 weeks after conception will be given intensive weekly support from midwives and health visitors until the unborn child reaches two years old.

Unveiling the findings of a Downing Street review, Tony Blair will make clear the government is prepared to single out babies still in the womb to break cycles of deprivation and behaviour.

He will also acknowledge that the state must do more to help a minority of families and will stress that the support they need cannot come through the promotion of marriage.

In an attempt to draw a clear division between Labour and the Conservatives Mr Blair will say that making marriage the primary focus of family policy will be ineffective and could lead to discrimination against children whose parents have split up or died.

The Nurse Family Partnership programme is the most striking attempt yet to pre-empt problems.
Downing Street will outline today how a £7m pilot scheme has already begun to recruit the first of 1,000 families in 10 areas in England.

Supporters of the policy say the risk of stigmatising unborn infants as potential future victims or troublemakers is outweighed by the advantages of helping poor families build on the aspirations they have for their children.

Under the programme, which has been copied from the United States, young, first-time mothers will be assigned a personal health visitor at between 16 and 20 weeks into their pregnancy. They will continue to have weekly or fortnightly visits until the child is two - far more than the few postnatal visits generally on offer.

The support includes help with giving up smoking or drug use in pregnancy, followed by a focus on bonding with the new baby, understanding behaviour such as crying, and encouraging a mother to develop her skills and resources to be a good parent. The programme is voluntary and the intention is to capitalise on the so-called "magic moment" when parents are receptive to support for themselves and their baby.

In the US, three large trials have seen consistently positive results, including higher IQ levels and language development in children, lower levels of abuse, neglect and child injuries in families, and improvements in the antenatal health and job prospects of mothers.

Proponents of the scheme, pioneered by the American paediatrician Professor David Olds, also point to the long-term cost savings, estimated at almost $25,000 (£12,500) by the time a child is 30.

The decision to target unborn babies is, in effect, an acknowledgement by Mr Blair that the government's focus on tackling social exclusion has left a hardcore - 2-3% - of the most excluded families behind.

The prime minister's introduction to today's family review says the state must help such children out of fairness, and because "some of these families actually cause wider social harms. The community in which they live suffers the consequences".

Kate Billingham, director of the project and deputy chief nursing officer, rejected suggestions the scheme could stigmatise deprived children. "I myself think labelling and stigmatising are used as ways of not giving people the help they want and their children can benefit from."

At a Downing Street breakfast to launch the policy this morning, Mr Blair will meet expectant mothers recruited to the scheme, as well as Professor Olds, its founder. Prof Olds told the Guardian the key to the scheme was its ability to "tap into" the instincts of parents. "We are wired as human beings to protect our children," he said.

It was possible that the UK's "superior health care system and social services" compared with the US could result in the relative benefits of the scheme here being smaller than the significant impact seen in American trials, he warned.

While the scheme is generally backed by children and parenting campaigners in the UK, concerns have been raised that the new focus on intensive help for excluded families could drain resources away from already overstretched health visiting services.

A spokeswoman for the Family and Parenting Institute said: "We very much welcome the health-led parenting projects, but they are only for a tiny proportion of the population and we think that a strong universal offer is critical for the majority of families who also need support and parenting help from health visitors.

"The problem is that the number of health visitors is falling - and there are massive variations in numbers throughout the country."


Thats right, the government will be knocking on your door soon to take over responsibility of your criminal unborn child. Yes, government; What should we eat? What should we think? How should we act and behave? Please tell me, what books should I read? How should I raise my children? Please tell me how to live?

Spooky, very spooky!!!

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A COURSE IN FEAR

CONTROL THROUGH FEAR


Faculty fakes gunman attack on crying 6th graders
RAW STORY

A teacher and assistant principal at a Tennessee elementary school staged a fake gun attack on frightened students during a class trip, sparking outrage among parents, according to a report from CNN's Newsroom.

According to school board member Lon Nuell, the prank was poorly timed. "Ghost stories are standard, and you scare the kids out of their wits," said Nuell. "But this was very unfortunate timing, if the timing would ever be good for this sort of thing, this was not it," referring to the Virginia Tech shootings that killed 33 students and professors in April.

According to one student who participated in the trip, Dalton Brown, the assistant principal instructed the students to get under desks and said that they had a "code red" – reserved for when an individual is in possession of a gun, knife, or bomb. The school later issued a press release classifying the events as a "typical campfire prank." According to Brown's mother, the prank crossed the line.

"It's just appalling that they would classify this as such a thing, because there's nothing typical about what they did to our children," said Brown. "The kids were underneath tables crying and praying to God and begging for their lives, thinking that they were gonna die and that they were never going to see their families again ."
(END)


WE SEE THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN; CONTROL THROUGH FEAR AND INITIATING THIS CONTROL WITH OUR CHILDREN. ONCE OUR LITTLE ONES ARE BRAINWASHED AND TOTALLY COMPLIANT, THEY ALWAYS WILL BE. ONE STORY REGARDING THE ABUSE, BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS, OF OUR CHILDREN MAY BE CALLED AN ACCIDENT OR A MISTAKE, BUT THESE STORIES NUMBER IN THE HUNDREDS OR EVEN POSSIBLY THOUSANDS. THESE ARE NOT SIMPLY MISTAKES. THIS IS INDOCTRINATION AND IT IS SICK. IT IS BLATENT AND IT MUST BE STOPPED.

Monday, May 14, 2007

CONTROL THRU CRISIS

CRISIS EQUALS "OPPORTUNITY"
By Darren Weeks

"Along with this came a bit of a scolding that Americans had it too good anyway and just a little bit of terrorism would help convince Americans that the world is indeed a dangerous place... or can be if we don't relinquish control to the proper authorities." — The New Order of the Barbarians[1]

The date was September 11th, as President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, and, by television, the nation. A fresh wind of patriotism had swept the country from sea to shining sea, as the Bush administration had begun a military operation against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. As he spoke, the President’s comments were repeatedly interrupted by applause from both sides of the political aisle.

"If there ever was a time to put country before self and patriotism before party, the time is now ... We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective, a new world order, can emerge: a new era — freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come."[2] (Emphasis added)

The date was September 11, 1990. And the President was George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States. The crisis of which he spoke, was the first Gulf War.

The "opportunity" that he so eagerly hoped to seize, was the building of a "new world order," the globalists’ phrase for a world-wide socialist system that defines "freedom" and "democracy" as a socialist-communitarian system. It is in this system that individual liberties, or "the law of the jungle," are supplanted by "the rule of law" — a totalitarian police state.

It is the undying dream of every socialist throughout the history of mankind. A society where "freedom" and "liberty" mean the freedom and liberty to do as your government tells you, without question or dissention of any kind. Theirs is a world where participation in the governmental process is at the behest of those in power. And individual liberties — real liberties — are dissolved in favor of the well-being of the whole "community."
Property and privacy are forcefully surrendered to the protection of a "secure" nanny state — that is, secure until the "protector" becomes the aggressor. Indeed, it is as Bush said, "a world quite different from the one we've known." Is it any wonder why former Soviet leader and unrepentant communist Mikhail Gorbachev shared Bush’s vision in Helsinki?

As Bush Sr. spoke on that day, the plans were already being drawn for a second Iraqi invasion, a second and final war that would put the final pieces of the plan for world conquest into place.

As the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed, eleven years later to the day of that speech, the arrival of yet another "opportunity" would emerge. It would be another era, another Bush administration, a myriad of Mohammads, and another undeclared war.

This time, it was British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who spoke of how marvelous an "opportunity" that the purported "attack" presented.

In an October 2, 2001 speech that The Guardian called "the most powerful speech of his career," Blair couldn’t contain his enthusiasm. Excitedly, he expounded upon his desire to use the corpses of the victims, as an "opportunity" to reorder the world, and build a world "community."
Blair said,

"This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us. Today, humankind has the science and technology to destroy itself or to provide prosperity to all. Yet science can't make that choice for us. Only the moral power of a world acting as a community, can."[3]

Prosperity for all! A chicken in every pot! Thus, are the rallying cries of the socialists, to sell their plan to the naive and uneducated masses. It is the age-old promise of those in power, that if you give them the chance to direct your lives, they will provide prosperity for everyone.

Never mind the fact that this is the promise of communism, which has plunged every nation into poverty that has ever tried it. Never mind the turmoil, misery, and outright pauperism it has caused to the great unwashed, who have suffered under its iron fist. Never mind the lives that have to be destroyed in the process of putting the Plan into fruition.

Their Plan is the end, and to them, the end justifies the means. Their means is crisis upon crisis, manipulating the population through endless wars, killings, and orchestrated terrorism, designer diseases and pandemics, famine and starvation, floods, droughts and other anomalous disasters precipitated by weather manipulation.
The global would-be despots, by their own words, never see human suffering of any kind as a true tragedy. Whenever adversity strikes, they will always see it as an "opportunity" for change. Crises serve as proper conditioning mechanisms, whereby human minds can be made fertile with new ideas that would ordinarily be rejected. It’s called the Hegelian dialectic, and it is the vehicle by which society is moved toward a predetermined outcome.

When anguish prevails due to a catastrophe that extinguishes the light of human life, these Luciferians gleefully gather like hungry vultures to capitalize upon it for the furtherance of their agenda. While average Americans are attending to every detail of their busy lives, the Establishment planners are never distracted. Day and night, they are constantly at work, toiling away at the next big event, planning more scenarios, creating for themselves more "opportunities."

In 1997, then Defense Secretary, William Cohen, hinted at what "opportunities" lie ahead. In a September 10th interview with the Army Times, Cohen predicted:

"Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection."

He went on to describe an America that would include armored vehicles surrounding civilian hotels or government buildings. And the Posse Comitatus law — which prevents the government from using the military in domestic law-enforcement roles — would be revoked. Mr. Cohen was describing the agenda for the Office of Homeland Security, Total Information Awareness and the U.S.A. Patriot Act — key elements of the effort to establish an Orwellian communitarian police state in America.

With the signing of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act by President Bush in October 2006, Public Law 109-364 has now effectively gutted the Posse Comitatus law[4], just as William Cohen said would happen. How did he know?

The agenda to move America into a totalitarian system, began with the creation of an atmosphere of fear in America, caused by a purported act of terrorism. Then, when the public mindset was properly conditioned with the fertilizer of fear, the seed would be planted in their minds that their liberty would have to be forfeited in favor of their security.

This agenda was covertly referenced by Henry Kissinger in a Bilderberg Conference in Evians, France in 1991. According to one of the Swiss delegates, Kissinger stated:

"Today, Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true, if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond — whether real or promulgated — that threatened our very existence. It is then that all the peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing that every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished with the guarantee of their well-being, granted to them by their world government."

Kissinger was saying that "crisis equals opportunity." Upon the foundation of created chaos, they can build their new "Order."

Once world government is in place, so will be fulfilled their communist dream. America will have ceased to exist, as will the sovereignty of every nation. And that is the real reason for September 11th, and the "War on Terror." It is to shore up control of every country that won’t surrender their sovereignty to the global system under the auspices of the United Nations. It is also the reason for the countless states of emergency, warnings, drills, and exercises. The message is clear: Be afraid; be very afraid.

Lest we fall prey to the logic that most certainly the powerful wish for us to adopt, let us always remember the words of Benjamin Franklin.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Or Patrick Henry...

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God, I know not what course others may take, but give me liberty or give me death!"

Liberty and national sovereignty go hand in hand. Without the one, you cannot have the other. Our Founding Fathers provided for us a Constitution that was as miraculous as it was sacred.

Despite the fact that it’s God-inspired words are largely being ignored by our criminal government leaders, the U.S. Constitution stands as a testament to the purity and integrity of what has been, for over 200 years, the greatest country in the history of mankind.

Regardless of despots who conveniently lay claim to the notion that its sacred text is outmoded, its remains as a limit on overbearing government, waiting patiently to be enforced by blind, ignorant, and occupied Americans. It’s words are precious, providing viable principles by which to live, and if necessary — as Patrick Henry suggested — for which to die.

The Founding Fathers knew the value of liberty. If they were alive today, wouldn’t they weep at how quickly their achievements have been squandered?

Footnotes:
_ftnref11, New Order of the Barbarians, An Insider Spills The Beans,
a transcript of the reminisces of Dr. Laurence Dunnegan, a pediatric physician, and attendee of a meeting where insider Dr. Richard Day spoke in 1969. Note-taking and recording devices weren't allowed.
_ftnref22, George Bush Sr. speech on September 11, 1990, taken from National Archives_ftnref33,
Blair says 'Let us reorder this world', Michael White, Guardian, October 3, 2001_ftnref44, For more information, see
Two Acts of Tyranny on the Same Day by Daneen G. Petersen

© 2007 Darren Weeks - All Rights Reserved

REBUILDING THE LOST REPUBLIC

SOMEBODY WAKE ME UP WHEN THIS INSANITY IS OVER!
By David Brownlow

A friend of mine recently shed his corporate handcuffs, sold everything he owns, and moved to a small island in the Caribbean. His parting words as he left were, "Man, I am so outta here!"

There are mornings when I wake up wondering how much more of this I can take. Between watching our burgeoning police state expand at an exponential rate, to having my oldest son getting his butt shot off in some Iraqi hellhole - it is tempting to think of packing this all in and hightailing off to some remote corner of the world.

However, as much as I would rather be lounging on some white sandy beach with my lovely wife, I feel compelled to stay here and fight this one out. This happened on our watch, and we cannot leave this mess for our kids to clean up.

The enormity of the challenge we face can seem overwhelming at times. An already difficult task has been made next to impossible with the sad revelation that instead of the praying Christian we thought we elected in 2000, our President has turned out to be a liar and a murderer, like his father the devil. That will probably sound a little harsh to some, but it is too late in the game to pussyfoot around the truth any longer, so I am just going to say it like it is.

If George Bush were the only one attempting to stampede our nation over a cliff, we'd have a chance of putting up some real opposition. But unfortunately, most of those who rule alongside him seem to share his diabolical death wish. Not a good sign.

The enemies of freedom have pulled off an amazing feat by convincing the American people that there are two opposing political parties – when in fact, we are living under one party rule. To hide that reality from the people, they keep us so busy chasing after the symptoms, (and our tails!) that few are even able to identify the disease that infects our nation - which is that a gang of bloodthirsty criminals have seized control of our government.

Fighting the symptoms without treating the disease will eventually kill the patient.
The Symptoms of a Dying Republic:

Since the beginning of the Republican Revolution of 1994, 15,000,000 American children have been murdered in the abortion holocaust, with the death toll increasing at the rate of 3,400 dead babies every single day - while "pro-life" Republicans never lifted a finger to stop it - phony partial birth abortion bans not withstanding. May God have mercy on us.

Lawlessness pervades from every level of our federal government, which has more in common with a criminal enterprise than it does anything even remotely resembling a legitimate government. Anyone attempting to resist the latest governmental whim will quickly find themselves confronted by a heavily armed, increasingly belligerent federal police force that has ballooned to nearly 100,000 strong.

As if thuggery at the federal level was not enough, the phony "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" have morphed our local police forces into paramilitary fighting units armed with; helicopters, armored vehicles, SWAT teams, snipers, machine guns, grenades, body armor, infrared detectors, command and control systems, and electronic surveillance, along with what is often a seriously bad attitude – all of which is made available as a force multiplier to the feds, without question, whenever they really want to knock some heads.
Illegal federal spending has skyrocketed across the board, with nearly 85 cents of every dollar stolen from us going to fund literally thousands of unconstitutional programs. As our wealth is drained away from us, our national debt continues to explode - to upwards of 60 trillion dollars when all the unfunded liabilities are added in. This spiraling debt is a time bomb just waiting to go off.

The staged attacks of nine eleven spawned the avalanche of lies that were used to justify our invasion of Iraq, a country that never threatened to harm us. As our military is being transformed (rather poorly) into an imperialist fighting force, deployed in 142 of the worlds 192 countries, we have left 160,000 of our finest soldiers stranded in a deadly quagmire - their only apparent mission is to avoid getting killed as the generals force them to wander aimlessly around a vast Iraqi shooting gallery.

Silly little slogans designed to pacify the weak-minded have replaced any real dialog with those who rule us. "We must support our troops" and "It is better to fight them over there rather than over here" are two of the classics. Many still cling to the notion that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Call it "mission accomplished" for a government education system that continues to churn out an annual crop of fearful, obedient servants.
The military industrial complex, aided by the 100,000 or so contractors and mercenaries they have in Iraq, is cashing in on the half a trillion dollars we have spent raining carnage down on the Iraqi people.

Another convenient outcome of nine eleven - for the enemies of freedom - is the major assault that is being aggressively waged against the Constitution, resulting in illegal wiretaps, email snooping, airport strip searches, along with a huge increase in federal spying into just about every facet of our lives. The NSA/CIA/FBI domestic spy ring is completely out of control, posing a far greater threat to our freedom than any wandering band of desert Bedouins could ever hope to.

The unprecedented increase in domestic spying - or more correctly, domestic treason - was accompanied by the loss of our right to habeas corpus - which means we can be arrested without being charged, and hauled off to a secret prison - possibly one located in a country that has even less aversion to torturing prisoners than we do. For anyone classified as an "enemy combatant," there is no right to counsel, and no right to a trial. Secret evidence and forced confessions may be used against those imprisoned. To that end, there are enough indecipherable new laws and restrictions such that any one of us could be caught up in the "Fatherland Security" net without ever knowing what we did wrong - which is exactly the intent.

Lies and propaganda pour out of nearly every talking head in Washington, which is spoon fed to us 24 hours a day by a compliant media - with shows like Fox "News" bearing a stronger resemblance to Pravda, the former Soviet Union's propaganda arm, than anything like real news reporting.

A private banking cartel, called The Federal Reserve, created nearly 5,000,000,000,000 (that's five trillion!) Federal Reserve Notes - out of thin air - since January 2000. This desperate attempt to prop up the failing American empire was in reality a five trillion dollar hidden tax. The counterfeiters got rich, while we got ripped off. Unbelievable.

After just a few months in power, the Democrats have already proven they are just as useless as the Republicans. (Like we ever had any doubt!) Our political system has degraded to such a sorry condition that we are left with the equivalent of two competing crime families running our government, each side vying for the right to grab a bigger slice of the plunder. As part of the scam, they masquerade as a two party political system. A Hillariod administration is looming just over the horizon.

Corporate robber barons often take home tens of millions a year in salary, while our government encourages them to move their family wage jobs to countries that will provide the equivalent of slave labor. The biggest losers in this cozy little deal are the American people, along with our manufacturing base, which has been left in ruins.

We continue to burn Middle Eastern oil at an unsustainable rate, ensuring that we will be bogged down there for decades to come. This, while Detroit is building cars that get fewer miles per gallon than a Model T got one hundred years ago. The solution? The federal government is handing out incentives to pull corn out of the food chain for use as an ethanol feedstock - which is produced at a net energy loss! Brilliant, just brilliant.
Exxon/Mobil, with $40 billion in profits last year, comes out the big winner in all this confusion - which is probably why they, and the rest of their corporate cohorts, continue to bribe nearly every congressman who skulks the halls of Congress.

This battle is no longer about defending our freedoms, it is about winning it back. Anyone with even half a brain can see that a moral and economic tsunami is barreling toward our shores, yet God's people sit in their government incorporated, 501C bribed, Caesar worshipping churches - where conniving shepherds teach that Romans 13 commands them to bow down before, and swear allegiance to, the gang of violent criminals who have seized control of our government. Clearly, trying to serve two masters has been a disaster for those who claim to be followers of Christ.

I often wonder if it will be God's own people who will be the most enthusiastic supporters of the antichrist if he will only spout off enough godblessamericas.

While we were cowering beneath our covers, hiding from the Islamic bogymen they told us was lurking under every bed, we let our real enemies overrun our camp undetected - and they have completely trashed the place. Our freedoms and our way of life are just a false flag attack away from being completely annihilated.
The hour is late, very late. But if we are willing to repent before God for the sins of our nation - for the warfare and the murders - and regain the spirit of independence and self-sacrifice upon which this country was founded, there may still be time to pull this one out of the fire.

© 2007 David Brownlow - All Rights Reserved

Thursday, May 10, 2007

KEEPING A TROPHY

Rumsfeld Keeps Ghastly 9/11 Souvenirs
Posted by: Leonid Shalimov

The Justice Department investigation that criticized FBI agents for taking souvenirs from the World Trade Center site also found that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and a high-ranking FBI official kept items from the Sept. 11 attack scenes.

Excuse me? What the hell is Rumsfeld doing taking souvenirs from 9/11. First off, I must question the legality of this. Wouldn’t a piece of the airplane be considered a part of the crime scene? The whole 9/11 report and documentation is gnarled to death with inconsistency but hell, let’s take some evidence for the road.
Sure, some might think it would be easy to overreact but let’s get real. This isn’t some random citizen - its the former Secretary of Defense. I want to hear your comments.

For those who doubt that a plane hit the pentagon, maybe you can call Rumsfeld and he’ll prove it to you:

The final investigatory report said the Justice Department inspector general confirmed Rumsfeld “has a piece of the airplane that flew into the Pentagon.” The Associated Press obtained a copy of the report Friday.

FOR THAT REPORT CLICK HERE:
http://fbiwhistlestop.com/FBI/RumsfeldTookItems.pdf

THE REST OF THE BIG LIE

Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

Devvy Kidd
Originally published and copyrighted in June 2001
Changes in text (c) 2005


Can this statement possibly be true?

In order to answer this question, Americans must first understand what is the source of the money that funds the government and where it goes. Contrary to the sound bites issued by the two mainstream political parties, the reality of how the system actually works will not only open your eyes, but hopefully stimulate the American people to demand that the thievery underway come to an end.


Where do your "income" tax dollars go?

The best place to look for an answer to this question would be a government report, so let's take just one at random:

President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control A Report to The President (Reagan)
January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service. The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

"Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

How can that be? In order to answer this question, an individual must learn how the privately owned "Federal" Reserve (central bank) actually works. In a nutshell, this is how the scam works:

This excerpt from Debt Virus by Dr. Jacques Jaikraan, page 216 is very revealing. The "Federal" Reserve Act of 1913, requires the central bank to return a small portion of its unconstitutional gains to the U.S. Treasury.

Here is an example of the numbers:
"In 1988 the Federal Reserve has an income of 19.5 billion, and it turned back $17.36 billion to the U.S. Treasury as provided under its charter.The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provided that a substantial portion of the Feds annual profits be turned over to the National Treasury. Does this fact dilute the argument that there are vast profits built into the commercial banking system? No. Consider for a moment that the total debt (public debt plus private debt) at the end of 1988 was in excess of $11 trillion.

[Editorial note: Today it is in excess of $23 trillion.] Then, the discount rate, the rate at which banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve, was about 9.4%. Assuming the debt carried the same rate as the discount rate, there was an annual interest charge of almost $1 trillion on the total debt owed to the banking system. While all of this interest payment does not go to commercial banks, an overwhelmingly large part of it does. The $17.36 billion turned over to the U.S. Treasury is thus much less than 2% of the total carrying charge on the total debt. which they created out of thin air. Now can you appreciate what is happening?" End of excerpt.Our Founding Fathers, the ones our elected public servants are always chirping they respect, warned the American people about usury and unscrupulous bankers:

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." ~ Thomas Jefferson

So what we have is a central bank issuing worthless paper "money" that controls our economy, our lives and our future. This private banking cartel was unconstitutionally granted this power by a devious, scheming group of senators back in 1913. In essence what they did was place the American people into indentured servitude by forcing The People to pay usury on worthless fiat currency (paper money created out of nothing), not to fund the government, but to enrich the bankers and fund wars in which America should never be involved. This system exists not to fund the government, but to allow the U.S. Congress carte blanche power to continue funding unconstitutional agencies and programs by providing them with a bottomless source of worthless ink.


The National Debt and the Deficit

These two little bookkeeping items are not the same thing. Few Americans actually know the difference, but the difference is quite important. We continually hear members of Congress, president after president, and political pundits call for "reduction in the debt." But what does that really mean? Here's how it works in the most simplified way to fit into this document:

Let's say that for 2002, Congress and the President decide they want $1.7 trillion dollars to fund this bloated pig called our government. We know that 100% of all personal "income" taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the "Federal" Reserve Banking System and does not fund a single function of the government. So, let's take the people's blood and sweat off the table.

What other revenues does the government collect? Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, and some minor categories. Let's say that those revenues will total $900 billion dollars. The politicians want $1.7 trillion to spend on their favorite welfare programs, wars and foreign welfare, but have a short fall of $800 billion dollars. This is called the deficit and the deficit, created by the spending of Congress, creates the "national debt."

How? Because the politicians are $800 billion dollars short, they simply call up Al Greenspan and borrow your children's and grand babies' futures. The "Federal" Reserve Banks don't loan anything of value to Congress. They aren't banks; they're really an overpaid, powerful, private accounting service. When that $800 billion dollars worth of ink is transferred to the Treasury, it gets piled on top of the existing "national debt."

This is how the magical money machine works. Congress overspends. It borrows from this accounting firm called the "Fed" and then turns around and tells you to pay for these crimes against the people. In other words, Congress basically pays the bills with social security and borrowed ink from the "Fed." Pretty slick scam, wouldn't you say?

The people of America are also responsible to a large degree for this out-of-control spending. Americans have been bred to a welfare dependent mentality. Special interest groups who have no interest in the U.S. Constitution, demand that billions of dollars be spent on their pet interests. Billions upon billions of dollars have been unconstitutionally thrown to foreign governments, some days our friend, a week later our enemies. They are only our friend as long as the U.S. throws money at their corrupt governments.

Billions of dollars have unconstitutionally been spent on grants to colleges and universities, which in turn sell their research to the highest bidder, paid for by the sweat off the back of the little guy out in America. No, they don't return any back to the little guy who funded these studies and research programs.

As long as the American people themselves condone continued unconstitutional spending by Congress, the longer they will violate their oath of office, and continue to fund unconstitutional expenditures, placing your children and grand babies in a state of unpayable, massive debt.

Unless The People demand an end to this insanity, our economy eventually will collapse under the weight of this massive, unpayable debt, no matter how much ink the "Fed" transfers into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. The pain of withdrawal from unlawful government hand-outs will be far less now than it will be down the road.
America became the greatest, debt free nation on earth by a resourceful, independent, self reliant people. Sadly, today we have a large percentage of our population who can't get through the day without a government memo telling them how, step-by-step, with a redistribution of average, ordinary Americans assets into the hands of the unproductive. A very sad commentary to what made our nation great and prosperous.


But I heard the debt is being paid down?

What you heard and reality are two separate issues altogether. The politicians must continue to fool the American people lest they catch on to this chicanery. Let's have a look at the numbers so you can see that any utterance that the national debt has been paid down X billions of dollars, is nothing more than bombastic gas, passed from one administration to the next and the latest recycled Congress.

In the chart below, an R next to the amount indicates a Republican President; a D is for a Democrat in the Oval Office. The Democrats had control of Congress from 1954, until the illusion billed as the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. Both houses of Congress were Republican controlled until after the 2000 "election", but this ended when in May 2001 James Jeffords 'fessed up to his real political agenda.
Current Congressionally created debt:


9/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 7% (R)
9/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 8% (R)
9/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 9% (R)
9/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 9% (R)
9/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 7% (R)
9/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 2% (R)
9/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 0% (D)
9/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43 2% (D)
9/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62 2% (D)
9/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34 4% (D)
9/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73 5% (D)
9/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39 6% (D)
9/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 6% (D)
9/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 9% (D)
9/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66 11% (R)
9/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03 13% (R)
9/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25 13% (R)
9/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32 10% (R)
9/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16 11% (R)
9/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)
Average ('R) 9%
Average ('D) 4%

The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt's web site:http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

You can check the growth of this BORROWED DEBT by party here:http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

As you can see, it doesn't matter which party is in office, there is no surplus and the debt cannot be paid down, it can only grow exponentially as long as Congress and the President have the central bank at their fingertips.

A "balanced budget" is nothing more than good political rhetoric, but in reality, it's a pipe dream strictly for public consumption. How can you balance your budget if you have no money to spend and are trillions of dollars in the hole? You can't. It's just another well crafted illusion to keep the masses pacified.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the American people have awakened to this monumental theft and are demanding the only real solution that can be implemented: Abolishing the central bank, and a return to a constitutional monetary system with no income tax.

No "Fed," no need for a direct tax

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

President Andrew Jackson booted out the central bank; his speech can be read here:
http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/ajveto.htm

This battle fought by Jackson was a huge deal back then and he refused to back down. Jackson was the last honest president with the guts to stand up to the international bankers who are literally stealing US blind.
"The greatest party battle of Jackson's presidency centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.

"Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. "The bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.

"His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay."

Please note that the words "a private corporation but virtually a Government sponsored monoploy" comes directly from the White House's web site. What a huge admission!

On line, you can also read Congressman Louis McFadden's indictment on the Federal Reserve Corporation. It is a very concise explanation of how the international banking cartel has been sacking this country's wealth since 1913.

Don't be fooled by this chant around the country for a flat tax, a consumption tax, sales tax or any other kind of personal income tax. There is absolutely no authority in the U.S. Constitution to implement any of these forms of taxation without apportionment. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that when it became apparent that the 16th Amendment was not going to be ratified by the states, fraud was committed and it was simply "proclaimed" ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.

We don't need any direct taxation and these popular mantras are just new lies to replace old lies. Any one of these forms of taxation will still feed the cancer: the central bank. Any one of these forms of taxation is just another way to fleece the American people to enrich the pockets of the international banking cartel. Please consider the words of Congressman Ron Paul:

"Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on."

Please don't fall for these alternative taxing SCHEMES. The banking cartel doesn't care what form it is they fleece your hard earned dollars (flat tax, fair tax, sales tax, etc.) - just as long as they continue to steal from us:

Beware alternative taxing schemes
Make IRS check payable to stockholders of private Fed
Today is April 15 ... again

What we need to do is take away the magical money machine called the "Fed," which will force Congress to live within its means and fund only those activities specifically enumerated by the supreme law of the land in Art. 1, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, borrow Money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce (trade), naturalization, bankruptcy laws, coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, fix the Standard of Weights and Measures, punishment regarding counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States, establish Post Offices and post Roads, Promote [Editorial note: "promote" does not mean fund] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court, define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years, provide and maintain a Navy, make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. **

There is absolutely no authority for the federal government to legislate in areas of the environment, education, the NEA, the FDA and many others. It may surprise you to find out that agencies such as FDA, DEA and the EPA all derive their jurisdiction from international treaties. When the powers that be wish to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, they do it either through an executive order or international treaties. We strongly encourage you to investigate this issue thoroughly.

Prior to the Federal Department of Education, America had the finest schools in the world. Since this disastrous and unconstitutional grab for power, we can all see that a quadrillion dollars a year will not fix our schools, and they continue to decline faster than the feds or states can shovel money into them. Even if a direct tax were necessary, only by keeping it at its lowest possible percentage would it ever benefit this nation:

"The point now emphasized is that the evil effects of high surtaxes fall not upon the individual whose income is seized and taken, but ultimately almost entirely upon the mass of the people who are thereby deprived of the benefits which would result from the free flow of commercial transactions and the use of the additional capital which would be available for productive enterprise. "Freedom of business transactions essential.

"The revenues to be obtained by the Government from this class of taxes depends upon transactions in trade and commerce which bring about income available for payment of taxes. It is highly desirable, in the interest of the production of revenue, that the volume of business transactions giving rise to gain shall be as great as possible, and to this end it is essential that the natural laws of trade and commerce and the free flow of business shall not be interfered with or prevented.

The excerpt below is from pgs 19-20, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Finances for 1921:

"But the direct effect of these very high taxes is to hinder and prevent business transactions which would otherwise take place. A man may have property which he has held for years and which has greatly increased in value, and he would like to sell it, but if he does a large part of the gain would have to be paid out in taxes. He would rather keep the property than sell it, pay the tax, and invest what is left in something else. At the same time the party desiring to buy this property, if he obtained it, would improve it with buildings.

What is the result? The transaction does not take place, and the community loses the advantage which would come in the stimulation that would arise from the transactions resulting from the buyer's improvement of the property, and it also loses the advantage of the seller's putting his money into some other form of investment, which in turn would give rise to business transactions. The same thing on a much greater scale is true in manufacturing and mercantile lines. Men have built up enterprises to the point where they are highly successful. They would like to take their profit and turn the business over to younger men to carry on.

These transactions are highly desirable not only for the parties but for the community, yet they are absolutely stopped, because if made the seller would have to pay in one year a tax on a gain which has been the result of perhaps the better part of a lifetime of effort. And in all such cases the Government gets no tax, whereas if the rates were reasonable the transactions would take place and the Government's revenues would benefit accordingly.

The free interchange of property in business transactions is essential to the normal prosperity of the country, and each such transaction has a direct tendency to bring about others of like character with the result of increasing the amount of gain or income available for taxation; but when the tax is so high as to act as a deterrent against usual and desirable business transactions, and the volume of such transactions is thereby lessened, the inevitable result is for the tax to become less and less productive.

It is for these reasons that, particularly in the higher brackets, a lower tax rate will produce more revenue in the long run than excessive rates. So long as the high rate stands in the way of accomplishing bargains and sales, the Government receives no tax; but at a lower rate the transactions proceed and the Government shares in the profits." (End of excerpt.)

Today Americans are being fleeced to the tune of approximately 52% of every dollar going for local, state and federal taxes. The day is rapidly approaching when making even $1,000 per hour will not be enough to survive. How much longer are the people of this nation going to put up with this state of affairs? We say enough is enough!

A Pioneer on the withholding issue

Vivien Kellems was a woman before her time who knew the grand theft taking place against the working man's paycheck. [For more information on Ms. Kellems, see: http://www.vivienkellems.com/]. The following excerpt from pages 41-46 of her book, Toil, Taxes and Trouble, published in 1952 is legally right on point:
"Since a capitation means a tax of the same amount for every person, this provision makes doubly sure that all federal taxes must be at the same uniform rate for everybody. This limitation that direct taxes be levied by the Federal Government must be in proportion to a census and apportioned among the States in accordance with numbers, is the only provision in the Constitution that is stated twice.

"The only reason that our Constitution required a census to be taken every ten years was to count the people to determine how many Representatives should go to Congress, and how direct taxes should be levied. I wonder how many Americans thought of this in 1950 when those little busybodies came knocking on their doors, asking ten thousand impudent, silly questions which were none of their, or Washington's, business.

"There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner. This census is just a preview of what is really in store for us if they actually take over, which they most certainly will do unless we uproot and vote them out.

"The census was to count the people - that was all. The number of people determined the number of Representatives in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes among the states.

"For a long time I asked myself, 'Why were Representatives and direct taxes linked together and apportioned among the States in accordance with population?' It was understandable that Representatives should be chosen in accordance with numbers but why should taxes be apportioned the same way? And then one day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal clear. All at once I understood the plan to safeguard the future freedom of the nation, conceived and executed by those scholarly men.

"I read again: 'Representatives and direct taxes shall be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers...' 'No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.' And in those two sentences our forefathers bound fast the hands of Congress and secured the liberty and freedom of the American people. How? By making it utterly impossible to levy an income tax.

"An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question. It cannot be levied upon a man but must be levied upon what he receives.

"Our forefathers designed and incorporated in the Constitution a new system of government. It was built upon a revolutionary idea; the conviction that the government belonged to the people and existed only by their consent. Its genius lay in the careful system of checks and balances among the three departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And it went further and maintained a balance between the powers of the individual States and the Federal Government. In addition it carefully reserved to the States and to the people all rights and powers not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Government and further stated that because certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution it did not mean that others not mentioned were still not the property of the people.

"However everything in the Constitution was arrived at by compromise. The interests and concerns of the thirteen states varied widely and each delegate was sent to Philadelphia to protect the commerce, industry and agriculture of his particular state. It required months of patient discussion, argument and forbearance to finally produce the finished document, which when completed, comprised a system of government to protect the people in the rights and liberties set down in flaming words in the Declaration of Independence. It is a wonderful document, the best system of government ever devised for human beings, but it could have varied in some respects and still have worked satisfactorily......

"The supreme achievement of the combined brains of all those men were written into those two sentences and the freedom and liberty of the American people were secured in them. For in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor.
Now this is how it worked. Every man was given a vote with which he could vote for his Representative. Originally only Representatives were elected, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures and it's too bad we changed that provision."

(Editorial Note: We didn't. Like the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment is a fraud--it was never ratified by the states. Therefore, we have not had a lawfully seated senate since 1913.)

"That Representative having to stand for election every two years was close to the people and responsive to their wishes. That is why he was given the power to tax; all bills of revenue arise in the House. And that is why he must come home every two years and give an accounting to the people.

"But his power to levy direct taxes was limited by an ironbound restriction: that tax must be apportioned among the States in accordance with the population. Since all taxes were to be at a uniform rate, Congress simply could not penalize one section of the country, or one group of citizens for the unfair advantage of another.

"When Congress levied a tax, everybody had to pay and at the same rate. The amount would vary with the wealth of an area, as it does today with the different values of real estate, but the rate was the same for all and the tax was distributed among the States according to population.

"The men who wrote our Constitution did not found a democracy. They feared the so-called 'Democrats' of their day as much as we fear the Communists today. They did not believe in mob rule, or government by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass. They founded a republic and they made certain that the right to vote should be curbed and controlled by the necessity of paying taxes. Scheming politicians could not take taxes from a helpless minority and buy themselves back into office with the votes of the tax exempt majority. When a Representative voted a tax, he voted to tax everybody because the tax was based upon numbers, not upon dollars.

"This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every person in his right to private property, rich and poor alike, and under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We achieved and maintained for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.

"And we accomplished something even more important: we developed a vigorous, self-reliant, self- respecting race of people. An American citizen would have been ashamed to ask for a handout from his Government. The Government belonged to him, he did not belong to the government.

"And then what happened? We chucked our carefully safeguarded right to own something out the window, and we passed the income tax amendment. Gone was our apportionment among the States in accordance with population, and also gone was our principle of uniformity. Income 'from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration' could be taxed and without limit. And when we passed this income tax amendment the slow, distilled poison of tax slavery dripped into our veins. We sowed the seeds of our national decay which is rapidly coming to maturity before our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so carefully insured for us by our forefathers is gone; it has been taxed away." (End of excerpt.)

The "General Welfare" Clause of the Constitution

The majority of unconstitutional spending is justified by the "general welfare" clause of the constitution. Shawn O'Connor of the Free Enterprise Society summed up this misconception in one of his speeches, paraphrased below:

"Discussion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution by the courts relies upon the Federalist Papers. This term simply means: Taxation was to protect the individuals' life, liberty and ownership of private property. One can go to Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 of the constitution and read the general welfare clause. Then one can do some history research and see what the Anti-Federalists had to say about this clause:

"That this clause conveys absolute power to the central government. Patrick Henry was very vocal in his opposition to putting this kind of language into the constitution. Madison, however, assured Henry and others that all the general welfare clause represented was a preliminary introduction prior to the enumerating the specific powers the delegates were about to grant to this new federal government and that the general welfare clause granted no new power to the government whatsoever. It was simply an introductory statement.

The Anti-Federalists still weren't satisfied. Hamilton and Madison came back to re-state that if the general welfare clause conveyed absolute power to the government, why would they go on to list the specific powers they were going to grant the government? That wouldn't make any sense at all if they were going to give absolute power to this government. It was finally conceded by all at the convention that the general welfare clause conveyed absolutely no power to the government." [End of comment.]

The general welfare clause of the constitution has been misused for personal gain by special interest groups to enrich the pockets of the banking cartel, by politicians hoping to "get that vote," and an all out push to turn America into a socialist country, beginning with the "New Deal" implemented by FDR and supported by a weak Congress. Lyndon Johnson took the quest to turn America into a socialist nation to new and grotesque heights.

How would you fund the government without any direct taxation?

The powers that be know it's just a matter of time before the truth reaches enough Americans about the voluntary income tax system. Already trial balloons are being floated to once again fool the people into some form of alternative tax in order to feed the central bank.

America functioned very well without an income tax throughout the history of this Republic. The answer to the question of funding without a direct tax is found is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution since 1787. It provides for Congress to pass a legislative bill for tax money to be paid by each state in proportion to its population.

Proper, constitutional funding will allow large amounts of money to fund a limited form of Republican government. To continue on the path of this massive and unconstitutional spending will bring a final and total collapse of the economy. Make no mistake about it.

Has your government been truthful?

Do you know why the "withholding tax" system was put into place? Let me provide you with just one shocking example of how things work behind the scenes:

Declassified (Confidential Committee Print) Withholding Tax Hearing Before A Subcommittee of The Committee on Finance, United States Senate, 77th Congress, Second Session on: Data Relative to Withholding Provisions of the 1942 Revenue Act, August 21 and 22, 1942 (Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance) United States Government Printing Office, Washington 1942 SUMMARY/Contents Statement of:
Friedman, Milton, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department Hardy, Charles O., of Brookings Institution Jacobstein, Meyer, of Brookings Institution Paul, Randolph E., Treasury DepartmentOverview Because the war effort resulted in increased production and employment, which caused a sudden large influx of money into circulation, the Federal Government and Federal Reserve System had to find a method of "mopping up excess purchasing power" thereby control inflation and obtain immediate funds for the Treasury. Several plans were put forth before the House, Ways & Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance to accomplish this purpose.

The following points were made by the Senators and those testifying before the committee:

1. The overall purpose was to obtain immediate money for the war effort, to control inflation and to get the income tax on a current basis instead of being one year behind.
2. To accomplish this goal, it was recognized that a scheme was needed to reach the largest number of people.
3. That the scheme, regardless of whether it was a "coupon," "stamp" or "withholding of income tax at source," would constitute a "forced loan" to the Federal Government and it would apply to taxpayers and nontaxpayers alike, with exceptions.
4. Where an individual had money withheld and ultimately no tax liability, the individual would file an income tax return and that income tax return would constitute an automatic claim for refund.
5. The proposed plan was an emergency war time measure.

Hearing Experts, Beginning Page 99

Statement of Meyer Jacobstein of Brookings Institution
"It is obvious that it is necessary to mop up the excess purchasing power of the community, not only because of it's effect on the price situation but because the Treasury needs the money and needs it quickly.*
Obviously the Treasury can collect from the consumers as the purchases are made and the Treasury has the use of those funds long before it would obtain them by the income-tax method.

Now, there are many ways, of course, of mopping up this surplus purchasing power...Now, there is the withholding tax at the source based on payrolls."

Senator Clark: "Doctor, what this plan is, it is essentially a compulsory savings plan based on sales tax methods, is it not?"

Mr. Jacobstein: "I should say that is a fair description of it, yes. It is the use of a sales tax method without being a tax."

Senator Clark: "So far as the impact on the public is concerned, it is precisely the same as a sales tax, except you give the money back sometimes."

Mr. Jacobstein: "That is right. That is a very fair statement, I think. Senator Danaher used the word "self-assessment." If I buy a dollar necktie I pay $1.10 under his plan. A withholding tax is usually withheld at the source. Here you withhold it not at the manufacturer's end but at the retailer's end. You are using the retailer instead of the manufacturer to siphon off several billion dollars, depending on the rate of the assessment of a tax.

It may be that several systems can be used. Any one of them might be very useful to the Treasury in accomplishing this purpose. But...for siphoning off purchasing power into the Treasury from day to day, or week to week, or month to month; and it has that advantage.

Now, there is an aspect to this question which was not brought out in the original memorandum which would make the scheme perhaps a little more palatable if certain deductions were made by any method, either by the withholding tax method or direct sales tax method or by Senator Danaher's proposal...."
Statement of Charles O. Hardy of the Brookings Institution

Mr. Hardy: "First...mainly for the purpose of providing an exemption from the tax or forced loan, either one. Now, as has been stated a moment ago, this is a forced loan. It should be pointed out, I think, that you can do the same thing with the mechanics of any other tax, that is, under the income tax you can give out bonds or coupons redeemable in bonds instead of giving receipts for the income tax. You can do that, as far as I can see, with any tax, for the whole schedule of taxes.

I would like to say...that we have to bring about a readjustment of consumption in the country to the amount of consumers goods and services that we can spare the resources to produce under war conditions. First, we have got to devote our productive energies to the war.

Or, you can use the mechanism of the sales tax, as far as I can see, by mopping up the increased purchasing power that is created by the rising amount they receive in their paychecks. On the other hand, if the money is stored up, whether it is in the form of these stamps or in the form where people haven't spent it because they have had no way to spend it, in either case if it is too large a proportion you are going to have the problem, whenever you do turn it loose, that you have now in the other case, namely of having a lot more purchasing power than you have goods and services to make it good with.

That is the answer, I think, to the question that might be raised as to why not carry this principle through and apply it to income tax, corporation tax, and everything else. Obviously, this has the advantage that this definitely sews up the purchasing power in such a way that it cannot be released until we discover the proper way to release it.

I think it has a great advantage over the deficient spending program. This program just postpones the problem of administration, in deciding how much purchasing power is available to release and to what extent it will create the old wartime inflation over again."

Senator Danaher: "Let me ask you this question: Considering the withholding tax, simply the treasury withholds it currently and applies the proceeds against the tax due in a given year..."

Mr. Hardy: "The deduction from salaries and interest, and so on, at the source?"
Senator Danaher: "Yes."
Mr. Hardy: "Yes."
Senator Danaher: "That is a currently applied method of withholding so much of the consumer purchasing power as is represented by the tax collected or withheld."
Mr. Hardy: "That is right."
Senator Danaher: "And the applied as against the tax due."
Mr. Hardy: "Yes. The withholding tax provision has the effect of withholding purchasing power at the time the income is realized rather than a year hence through the income tax structure."
Senator Danaher: "And if it were in effect for 1 year it would apply only 1 year?"
Mr. Hardy: "I assume so."
Senator Danaher: "Yes. Whereas this proposal is a continuing thing."
Mr. Hardy: "It seems to me the essential difference is that the withholding tax plan applies at the point of receipt of income, and this applies at the point of expenditure of income."
Senator Danaher: "Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers."
Mr. Hardy: "Yes. Some people that I talked to about this plan, Federal Reserve people, have been rather favorable to the idea."
Mr. Jacobstein: "Don't you want to add that Mr. Selko pointed out that such difficulties as are encountered in the States are, partially at least, overcome when you have a uniform Federal tax? Where you have a uniform tax all over the country by one administration, the Federal Government, it is easier to administer than a sum total of 48 states. Now that was Mr. Selko's conclusion."

Statement of Milton Friedman, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department

Senator Danaher: "I have only one other thought on that point. In the event of withholding from the owner of stock and no taxes due ultimately, where does he get his refund?"
Mr. Friedman: "You thinking of a corporation or an individual?"
Senator Danaher: "I am talking about an individual."
Mr. Friedman: "An individual will file an income tax return, and that income tax return will constitute an automatic claim for refund." End of document excerpts.
What bald faced lies. "Mop up purchasing power"? Fleecing Americans dry is a more accurate way to describe this terrible injustice against US. How about letting Americans decide to save the fruits of their labor? No, the government wants it all.

* Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to issue money, not the private fed: "To coin money, regulate the value thereof," Cut out the middle man ("Fed") and the Treasury wouldn't "need the money." What a con game.

T. Coleman Andrews. Mr. Andrews (a Democrat) was Commissioner for the first 33 months of the Eisenhower Administration, stated the following in an article for U.S. News & Report, May 25, 1956:

"....We're confiscating property now....That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him."

Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated in one of his speeches in 1946: "The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income.

It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures. Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences --- all of them bad."

Does the average man or woman in America know this?

What do we mean when we say that the IRS is not a government agency? Read this quotefrom an U.S. attorney submitted in court documents in a tax case up in Idaho:

Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States' Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, paragraph #4: "Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government ..."

If the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, just what is it? In a nutshell, the income tax is international in scope and not incumbent upon domestic Americans. That is a provable fact. The IRS for more than 80 years has been misapplying the IRCode against unsuspecting Americans and back up their unlawful activities with brute force. This must stop.

What can you do?

The federal government must generate revenues to operate what our Founding Fathers created: A limited form of Republican government. State constitutions are all guaranteed a limited form of Republican government. America is not a democracy. We believe America is a nation of laws, not lies. We can't have it both ways for political expediency or to please any and every special interest group that bribes politicians at all levels with the politically correct "PAC money."

Sometimes it's difficult to be the messenger of news that people would rather not hear.

However, Americans can no longer remain in their comfort zones because the message isn't what they want to hear. If your house is on fire, you don't sit and continue to watch the television set, you call the fire department. America: Our house is on fire and it is the obligation of every American to safeguard the liberties and freedoms given to us by those who paid the ultimate price. Please join the growing numbers of millions who are ready to take back our country and stop the assault on our rights.

I realize everyone's time is at a premium, but I encourage you to read these recent columns over a cup coffee. Things are escalating and going to get much worse and Americans are going to get caught off guard:

Devvy Kidd © 2001, 2004
P.O. Box 1102
Big Spring, Texas 79721
devvyk@earthlink.net