By Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
The city of Worcester, Massachusetts has one helluva deal for ya! Turn in your guns, and you'll get a free flu shot in return.
It's all part of the city's annual "Goods for Guns Buyback Program" which sounds like an April Fools joke but actually isn't.
So here's how it works: You locate a firearm that might protect you from violent crime or even a runaway criminal government someday, and you bring it to the police department. Then they destroy your gun and in return for this, theyassault you with mercury-laced vaccines and call it "even."
Hmmm... gee, sounds like a bargain if you're a brain-dead zombie. Me think guns bad, vaccines good, must destroy guns... take vaccine shots...watch TV... drink fluoride. Government GOOD!
Oh, but it gets better. Not only do you get jabbed in the arm with a vaccine containing mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum, you also get economically sodomized in the exchange.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Support Reversing Indefinite Detention of Americans!
Bows to a Muslim King and a Communist Ruler, but will kill or detain Americans!
Help us reverse this travesty of justice by clicking here and emailing your senators.
The Senate is taking up the 2013 NDAA this week. Several senators are poised to put forth amendments to revoke or narrow the indefinite detention powers that we've been fighting so hard over the last year.
Demand Progress members have sent hundreds of thousands of emails to Congress and have helped fund the courageous lawsuit by Chris Hedges et al -- which recently spurred a federal judge to rule that indefinite detention is unconstitutional.
Because there are several amendments in play, our ask is broad and simple: Please urge your Senators to support any and all amendments to revoke or narrow indefinite detention powers.
Earlier this year we helped push an anti-indefinite detention amendment to the House's version of the NDAA to the brink of passage. The Senate is friendly turf for us: We have a real chance of winning this fight.
Please email the Senate in front of its critical vote -- it could happen this week.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Popular Food Companies Don't Want You to Know About GMO Foods They Sell!
I just took action on this issue and thought you might find it interesting too.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is calling on honest food advocates everywhere, not just in California, to boycott brands for betraying their customers by opposing GMO labeling. It's time we sent a message to the big corporations that we CARE about the food we eat and want it labelled so we know exactly what is in our food!
Won't you join me and take a couple of minutes to fill out a petition to send them this message?
They stomped on our right to know. Now it's time to get even.
Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative, was narrowly defeated last week thanks to a relentless, deceitful $46-million advertising blitz. Among the largest bankrollers of the NO on 37 campaign were huge multinational food and beverage companies whose subsidiaries make billions selling some of your favorite organic and "natural" brands.
Brands like Kashi. Honest Tea. Naked Juice. Muir Glen and Morningstar Farms.
It's time to boycott the companies whose dirty money confused and scared millions of California voters into voting No on Prop 37. It's time to plaster their facebook pages with this message: We won't support you until you support us. It's time to call their consumer hotlines, complain to their store managers. It's time to tarnish their holy organic and natural images, to expose their hypocrisy and greed.
It's time to raise a little hell.
The OCA is calling on all consumers to boycott these 10 organic and natural traitor brands:
• PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito's Organic, Tropicana Organic
• Kraft (Donated $2M): Boca Burgers and Back to Nature
• Safeway (Member of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which donated $2M):"O" Organics
• Coca-Cola (Donated $1.7M): Honest Tea, Odwalla
• General Mills (Donated $1.2M): Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar
• Con-Agra (Donated $1.2M): Orville Redenbacher's Organic, Hunt's Organic, Lightlife, Alexia
• Kellogg's (Donated $791k): Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger
• Smuckers (Donated $555k): R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic
• Unilever (Donated $467k): Ben & Jerry's
• Dean Foods (Donated $254k): Horizon, Silk, White Wave
Tell these companies that if they want your loyalty - and your grocery dollars - they must do two things:
1. Speak out publicly in favor of the pending GMO Labeling Ballot Initiative (I-522) in Washington State in 2013, as well as the pending GMO labeling bills coming up in Vermont and other states.
2. Contribute as much or more money to the Yes on I-522 Campaign in Washington than their parent corporations spent to defeat Prop 37.
Prop 37 was narrowly defeated, by dirty money and dirty tricks. But it spawned a huge, national consumer movement that is fired up and more determined than ever to fight this battle until we win the right to know if our food has been genetically modified. We're already collecting signatures in Washington State, talking to legislators in Vermont and Connecticut. A 30-state coalition is formulating a plan to collaborate on GMO-labeling laws and initiatives.
You are a part of this movement, and today we're calling on you, on the millions of consumers who were outraged by the NO on 37's dirty campaign, to send a clear message to the traitor brands who helped kill Prop 37, in the only language they understand: lost profits and lower sales.
By Ronnie Cummins, Director Organic Consumers Association/Organic Consumers Fund - November 15, 2012
Won't you join me and take a couple of minutes to fill out a petition to send them this message?
***************
They stomped on our right to know. Now it's time to get even.
Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative, was narrowly defeated last week thanks to a relentless, deceitful $46-million advertising blitz. Among the largest bankrollers of the NO on 37 campaign were huge multinational food and beverage companies whose subsidiaries make billions selling some of your favorite organic and "natural" brands.
Brands like Kashi. Honest Tea. Naked Juice. Muir Glen and Morningstar Farms.
It's time to boycott the companies whose dirty money confused and scared millions of California voters into voting No on Prop 37. It's time to plaster their facebook pages with this message: We won't support you until you support us. It's time to call their consumer hotlines, complain to their store managers. It's time to tarnish their holy organic and natural images, to expose their hypocrisy and greed.
It's time to raise a little hell.
The OCA is calling on all consumers to boycott these 10 organic and natural traitor brands:
• PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito's Organic, Tropicana Organic
• Kraft (Donated $2M): Boca Burgers and Back to Nature
• Safeway (Member of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which donated $2M):"O" Organics
• Coca-Cola (Donated $1.7M): Honest Tea, Odwalla
• General Mills (Donated $1.2M): Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar
• Con-Agra (Donated $1.2M): Orville Redenbacher's Organic, Hunt's Organic, Lightlife, Alexia
• Kellogg's (Donated $791k): Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger
• Smuckers (Donated $555k): R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic
• Unilever (Donated $467k): Ben & Jerry's
• Dean Foods (Donated $254k): Horizon, Silk, White Wave
Tell these companies that if they want your loyalty - and your grocery dollars - they must do two things:
1. Speak out publicly in favor of the pending GMO Labeling Ballot Initiative (I-522) in Washington State in 2013, as well as the pending GMO labeling bills coming up in Vermont and other states.
2. Contribute as much or more money to the Yes on I-522 Campaign in Washington than their parent corporations spent to defeat Prop 37.
Prop 37 was narrowly defeated, by dirty money and dirty tricks. But it spawned a huge, national consumer movement that is fired up and more determined than ever to fight this battle until we win the right to know if our food has been genetically modified. We're already collecting signatures in Washington State, talking to legislators in Vermont and Connecticut. A 30-state coalition is formulating a plan to collaborate on GMO-labeling laws and initiatives.
You are a part of this movement, and today we're calling on you, on the millions of consumers who were outraged by the NO on 37's dirty campaign, to send a clear message to the traitor brands who helped kill Prop 37, in the only language they understand: lost profits and lower sales.
By Ronnie Cummins, Director Organic Consumers Association/Organic Consumers Fund - November 15, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
My Claim with the Citizens Financial Protection Bureau
Well, for those of you homeowners in foreclosure or who have been foreclosed upon who don't know about this, I'm informing you about the Citizens Financial Protection Bureau which is set up to help sort out questions and complaints on mortgages, credit cards, student loans and more.
So, I filed a complaint against the bank who is foreclosing on me, U.S. Bank, NA. It is taking awhile to get this going, but there is finally SOME response from them.
First, US Bank is stating that it is not them, but BoA who is suing me. (Then how come the plaintiff, the lawyers and every piece of paperwork filed by the suing party list US Bank only...not even a mention of BoA!). So, they passed it on to BoA. Here is the correspondence from BoA, and my disputed response!
Dear Debra Reagan:
Bank of America’s Office of the CEO and President acknowledges receipt of your correspondence on
November 9, 2012, forwarded on your behalf by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We welcome the opportunity to address your concerns.
Some of the concerns raised in your inquiry are currently the subject of an adversarial proceeding (active litigation, mediation, arbitration, etc.) between you and Bank of America.
After discussion with our counsel, we have determined that in view of the connection between some of the concerns raised in your inquiry and the current proceedings, it is appropriate for our counsel to respond directly to you. Accordingly, the inquiry has been forwarded to our counsel, who will respond to you or your counsel as appropriate. The concerns that are not a part of the legal proceedings are addressed below.
In your correspondence, you stated that you have been discriminated against due to your gender. You further expressed that your appraisal was inflated above market value. I trust I have accurately summarized your concerns.
As to your claims of discrimination, Bank of America is committed to helping customers achieve the dream of sustainable home ownership. Our responsibility as a fair, ethical and equitable lender is to ensure that any loan we fund helps our customers meet their goals. To that end, Bank of America conveys to you that we are an equal opportunity lender and servicer of loans. Bank of America does not tolerate discrimination on a prohibited basis in any aspect of the lending process. All of our associates are responsible for complying with the Bank’s Fair Lending Policy and for bringing to the attention of management any questions or issues regarding this Policy or its implementation. Although your complaint did not include sufficient detail for Bank of America to identify and properly research, if you believe that the allegation of discrimination is still relevant, please provide a more specific explanation of the events that transpired and/or supporting documentation so we may further research your claim.
In regards to your appraisal, Bank of America used an independent professional third party licensed appraiser in order to substantiate the property value in support of your loan application. An appraiser must meet certain qualification requirements before their report will be accepted by the lender; however, a lender’s acceptance of an appraiser’s report is not an endorsement of either the appraiser or the appraisal report.
They stated:
Some of the concerns raised in your inquiry are currently the subject of an adversarial proceeding (active litigation, mediation, arbitration, etc.) between you and Bank of America.
***************
Untrue. It is U.S. Bank, NA who is suing me. BoA might have filed it, as their service agreement states that its their job, but it is actually US Bank, NA who is the plaintiff. Only the "holder in due course" can actually bring the suit. And US Bank states that they are the holder in due course. BoA is only the SERVICER, so is only able to file the suit on behalf of the alleged holder. So, the adversarial party is US Bank. Nowhere on any court documents is BoA listed or mentioned.
They stated:
As to your claims of discrimination, Bank of America is committed to helping customers achieve the dream of sustainable home ownership. Our responsibility as a fair, ethical and equitable lender is to ensure that any loan we fund helps our customers meet their goals.
AND
In regards to your appraisal, Bank of America used an independent professional third party licensed appraiser in order to substantiate the property value in support of your loan application.
****
They might actually have these proper business practices, but they did NOT use them in this case, because it was not BoA with whom I originally dealt with. It was Countrywide Home loans, Inc! And they DID take advantage of me being a newly divorced woman (they saw me as an easy mark to not know financial dealings) and, their appraiser NEVER stopped in and inspected the house to appraise it. You cannot properly appraise a house by just viewing the outside! And of course if a lender uses the appraiser's report as a basis for a loan that the home is actually worth what the appraiser's estimate is and allegedly lends money based upon that estimate, then that lender is accepting that the appraiser's report as accurate and has done the "proper" job of appraising the home. But Countrywide has been found to not have done proper and fair dealings when it comes to their loans and appraisals, as BoA is well aware of! And I happen to be one of the many that is a victim of this.
I even have 3 reports from a hand writing expert that states definitely that the signatures on my promissory note and 2 assignment of mortgages of the company officers endorsing and assigning them are forged.
So, while it may be true that BoA might have proper trade practices, they are not the bank/lender that I did business with! Countrywide is, and they have committed fraud. Even the FTC said that CW committed fraud upon me by overcharging me on fees, and sent me a check (a small pittance of what the actual damage was) to "reimburse" me for it.
So, as far as this answer goes, it does NOT address what Countrywide did and has no bearing upon my claims nor case because it's not BoA's actions that is at issue here. It's what happened at the origination of the loan with Countrywide that is. Also, it's US Bank, NA's foreclosure suit and their fraudulent paperwork that is at the heart of this suit. Unless of course BoA would like to lay claim that the paperwork is theirs. Then by all means, I'll be glad to include them in my counterclaim as a party of the fraud!
I will be filing these reports in court this week. If needed here, I can supply them, just let me know.
**************************************************************
Bank of America’s Office of the CEO and President acknowledges receipt of your correspondence on
November 9, 2012, forwarded on your behalf by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We welcome the opportunity to address your concerns.
Some of the concerns raised in your inquiry are currently the subject of an adversarial proceeding (active litigation, mediation, arbitration, etc.) between you and Bank of America.
After discussion with our counsel, we have determined that in view of the connection between some of the concerns raised in your inquiry and the current proceedings, it is appropriate for our counsel to respond directly to you. Accordingly, the inquiry has been forwarded to our counsel, who will respond to you or your counsel as appropriate. The concerns that are not a part of the legal proceedings are addressed below.
In your correspondence, you stated that you have been discriminated against due to your gender. You further expressed that your appraisal was inflated above market value. I trust I have accurately summarized your concerns.
As to your claims of discrimination, Bank of America is committed to helping customers achieve the dream of sustainable home ownership. Our responsibility as a fair, ethical and equitable lender is to ensure that any loan we fund helps our customers meet their goals. To that end, Bank of America conveys to you that we are an equal opportunity lender and servicer of loans. Bank of America does not tolerate discrimination on a prohibited basis in any aspect of the lending process. All of our associates are responsible for complying with the Bank’s Fair Lending Policy and for bringing to the attention of management any questions or issues regarding this Policy or its implementation. Although your complaint did not include sufficient detail for Bank of America to identify and properly research, if you believe that the allegation of discrimination is still relevant, please provide a more specific explanation of the events that transpired and/or supporting documentation so we may further research your claim.
In regards to your appraisal, Bank of America used an independent professional third party licensed appraiser in order to substantiate the property value in support of your loan application. An appraiser must meet certain qualification requirements before their report will be accepted by the lender; however, a lender’s acceptance of an appraiser’s report is not an endorsement of either the appraiser or the appraisal report.
They stated:
Some of the concerns raised in your inquiry are currently the subject of an adversarial proceeding (active litigation, mediation, arbitration, etc.) between you and Bank of America.
***************
Untrue. It is U.S. Bank, NA who is suing me. BoA might have filed it, as their service agreement states that its their job, but it is actually US Bank, NA who is the plaintiff. Only the "holder in due course" can actually bring the suit. And US Bank states that they are the holder in due course. BoA is only the SERVICER, so is only able to file the suit on behalf of the alleged holder. So, the adversarial party is US Bank. Nowhere on any court documents is BoA listed or mentioned.
They stated:
As to your claims of discrimination, Bank of America is committed to helping customers achieve the dream of sustainable home ownership. Our responsibility as a fair, ethical and equitable lender is to ensure that any loan we fund helps our customers meet their goals.
AND
In regards to your appraisal, Bank of America used an independent professional third party licensed appraiser in order to substantiate the property value in support of your loan application.
****
They might actually have these proper business practices, but they did NOT use them in this case, because it was not BoA with whom I originally dealt with. It was Countrywide Home loans, Inc! And they DID take advantage of me being a newly divorced woman (they saw me as an easy mark to not know financial dealings) and, their appraiser NEVER stopped in and inspected the house to appraise it. You cannot properly appraise a house by just viewing the outside! And of course if a lender uses the appraiser's report as a basis for a loan that the home is actually worth what the appraiser's estimate is and allegedly lends money based upon that estimate, then that lender is accepting that the appraiser's report as accurate and has done the "proper" job of appraising the home. But Countrywide has been found to not have done proper and fair dealings when it comes to their loans and appraisals, as BoA is well aware of! And I happen to be one of the many that is a victim of this.
I even have 3 reports from a hand writing expert that states definitely that the signatures on my promissory note and 2 assignment of mortgages of the company officers endorsing and assigning them are forged.
So, while it may be true that BoA might have proper trade practices, they are not the bank/lender that I did business with! Countrywide is, and they have committed fraud. Even the FTC said that CW committed fraud upon me by overcharging me on fees, and sent me a check (a small pittance of what the actual damage was) to "reimburse" me for it.
So, as far as this answer goes, it does NOT address what Countrywide did and has no bearing upon my claims nor case because it's not BoA's actions that is at issue here. It's what happened at the origination of the loan with Countrywide that is. Also, it's US Bank, NA's foreclosure suit and their fraudulent paperwork that is at the heart of this suit. Unless of course BoA would like to lay claim that the paperwork is theirs. Then by all means, I'll be glad to include them in my counterclaim as a party of the fraud!
I will be filing these reports in court this week. If needed here, I can supply them, just let me know.
**************************************************************
Let's see how good the CFPB really is in figuring out this mess, eh?
Our 2nd Amendment Right & Holder's Actual Statement
I would like to address an email I've received about Attorney General Holder's "comment" on our right to bear arms.
There is an alleged "quote" from Holder being blindly passed around that he said "We have no right to possess guns". While the MEANING of what he said may equate to that sentiment, his actual comment was different.
What happened was this:
In D.C. v. Heller, Holder joined the Reno-led amicus brief, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold the handgun ban and claimed that the Department of Justice from Franklin Roosevelt through Bill Clinton had always believed that the Second Amendment does not protect any rights of individuals to own guns for personal use.
After the D.C. Circuit ruled against the handgun ban, Holder complained that the decision (and here is what Holder actually DID say) “opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.”
OMG! God forbid that us Americans actually exercise our 2nd amendment right, eh? But here is where the liberals say....but the 2nd amendment does no such thing. So, let's visit the 2nd amendment for a wee bit!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Now because most liberals see the FIRST part in yellow, they say, that this guarantees the STATES, not the individual, to be armed. But, they conveniently skip over the 2nd half in red! Why do I say that? Because after reading "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" part, and a person cannot see what is plainly being said and say that this amendment doesn't give individuals a right to bear arms either has to be only reading the 1st half of that or completely stupid! Now, as much as I would LOVE to think the latter of most liberals who hold this belief, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that it's the former and urge them to finish reading the fricking fracking statement!
AND, I urge those who pass on information like this email, to research it before doing so. This way, you'll be educating others (and yourselves) to the facts....and not just blindly passing on information that isn't factually true (although may be sentimentally true).
There is an alleged "quote" from Holder being blindly passed around that he said "We have no right to possess guns". While the MEANING of what he said may equate to that sentiment, his actual comment was different.
What happened was this:
In D.C. v. Heller, Holder joined the Reno-led amicus brief, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold the handgun ban and claimed that the Department of Justice from Franklin Roosevelt through Bill Clinton had always believed that the Second Amendment does not protect any rights of individuals to own guns for personal use.
After the D.C. Circuit ruled against the handgun ban, Holder complained that the decision (and here is what Holder actually DID say) “opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.”
OMG! God forbid that us Americans actually exercise our 2nd amendment right, eh? But here is where the liberals say....but the 2nd amendment does no such thing. So, let's visit the 2nd amendment for a wee bit!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Now because most liberals see the FIRST part in yellow, they say, that this guarantees the STATES, not the individual, to be armed. But, they conveniently skip over the 2nd half in red! Why do I say that? Because after reading "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" part, and a person cannot see what is plainly being said and say that this amendment doesn't give individuals a right to bear arms either has to be only reading the 1st half of that or completely stupid! Now, as much as I would LOVE to think the latter of most liberals who hold this belief, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that it's the former and urge them to finish reading the fricking fracking statement!
AND, I urge those who pass on information like this email, to research it before doing so. This way, you'll be educating others (and yourselves) to the facts....and not just blindly passing on information that isn't factually true (although may be sentimentally true).
Monday, November 19, 2012
The Constitution Con
The first function of the founders of nations, after the founding itself, is to devise a set of true falsehoods about origins - a mythology - that will make it desirable for nationals to continue to live under common authority, and, indeed, make it impossible for them to entertain contrary thoughts - Forrest McDonald (E Pluribus Unum)
Sunday, November 18, 2012
EBT riots: What will happen when government entitlements stop?
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
EBT cards are modern-day food stamps, except they're electronic. In essence, they are government-issued debit cards that allow recipients to spend taxpayer money for their own groceries.
EBT stands for "Electronic Benefit Transfer," and it means transferring money from the pockets of working taxpayers into the hands of those who, for one reason or another, are either not working at all or are living below the poverty requirements set by the government. This transference is done at gunpoint, essentially, through the enforcement of federal tax collection. EBT benefits have more than doubled during the Obama administration's last four years, creating tens of millions of new dependents who now vote based almost entirely on who gives them the most handouts. (No wonder Obama got re-elected, eh? MY emphasis).
Wal-Mart, one of the favorite destinations of EBT card users, proceeded to run transactions manually and then batched them into the JP Morgan Chase processing system once the system came back online. But elsewhere, stores were met with growing frustration from EBT card holders who were angry that their government money cards suddenly stopped working.
In this case, the EBT outage only lasted less than one day. But given that they are tied into a globalist bank which looks almost certain to fail once the global debt collapse unfolds, the question of the day is this: What's going to happen when the bank running all the EBT transactions goes belly up?
The EBT false flag riots
Why is all this important to understand? Because on the day the EBT cards are shut off, there will be mass riots of EBT card recipients who are suddenly thrust into an emergency.
In fact, shutting off the EBT cards is actually one way to initiate a false flag event in America. It works like this:
1) Purposely shut off all EBT cards. (Takes just two seconds at JP Morgan.)
2) Blame it on a cyber terrorist attack and use the crisis to institute harsh new police state controls over the internet. ("Never let a good crisis go to waste...")
3) Allow the "EBT riots" to unfold. Keep the National Guard away for long enough to let things get out of control and have scary footage broadcast on the evening news.
4) Once things are bad enough, announce Martial Law and bring in the troops to turn America's streets into a Nazi-style police state surveillance and enforcement system, complete with TSA-run checkpoints on all major roads.
What's required to make this happen? Nothing more than turning off the EBT cards for 72 hours. That's it! It's just a single change to a single line of code at JP Morgan Chase, and it's mission accomplished for the globalists.
Yesterday's EBT outage, in fact, may have been a practice run for the real thing. When the globalists want riots to unfold, they now have the tool to make it happen.
If you thought the idea of tens of millions of angry EBT debt card users was bad, just consider what happens when all the former federal employees don't get their pension funds anymore. Or if social security checks are eroded down to the point where they are essentially worthless. That's when you're going to see real social unrest across America, and that day is a finite number of weeks away. It will arrive as sure as the sun comes up, and when it does arrive, there's going to be unprecedented chaos in the streets as all the suckers who lived their lives dependent on the federal government suddenly come to find out the whole thing was a Ponzi scheme.
Yep: A Ponzi scheme. The U.S. government is running the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world, and just like every Ponzi scheme that has ever existed, it will sooner or later collapse. When that day comes, you will want to make sure you have stored food, water, silver coins, ammo, emergency medicine and all the usual preparedness supplies.
And be prepared to defend your supplies from those who refused to prepare. Because if there's one thing that EBT cards have taught tens of millions of America, it's that "YOUR stuff belongs to THEM!"
Editor of NaturalNews.com
EBT cards are modern-day food stamps, except they're electronic. In essence, they are government-issued debit cards that allow recipients to spend taxpayer money for their own groceries.
EBT stands for "Electronic Benefit Transfer," and it means transferring money from the pockets of working taxpayers into the hands of those who, for one reason or another, are either not working at all or are living below the poverty requirements set by the government. This transference is done at gunpoint, essentially, through the enforcement of federal tax collection. EBT benefits have more than doubled during the Obama administration's last four years, creating tens of millions of new dependents who now vote based almost entirely on who gives them the most handouts. (No wonder Obama got re-elected, eh? MY emphasis).
EBT food stamp systems goes down for hours across multiple states
Yesterday, the EBT card system, which is managed by JP Morgan Chase, suffered a six-hour outage across ten states.Wal-Mart, one of the favorite destinations of EBT card users, proceeded to run transactions manually and then batched them into the JP Morgan Chase processing system once the system came back online. But elsewhere, stores were met with growing frustration from EBT card holders who were angry that their government money cards suddenly stopped working.
In this case, the EBT outage only lasted less than one day. But given that they are tied into a globalist bank which looks almost certain to fail once the global debt collapse unfolds, the question of the day is this: What's going to happen when the bank running all the EBT transactions goes belly up?
What happens when the free EBT money stops?
Remember how Obama supporters threatened to riot in the streets if Romney won the recent presidential election? There's a huge class of Americans who have become so dependent on the system of government handouts that they have no ability to survive any other way. These people will riot when the free money is cut off.The EBT false flag riots
Why is all this important to understand? Because on the day the EBT cards are shut off, there will be mass riots of EBT card recipients who are suddenly thrust into an emergency.
In fact, shutting off the EBT cards is actually one way to initiate a false flag event in America. It works like this:
1) Purposely shut off all EBT cards. (Takes just two seconds at JP Morgan.)
2) Blame it on a cyber terrorist attack and use the crisis to institute harsh new police state controls over the internet. ("Never let a good crisis go to waste...")
3) Allow the "EBT riots" to unfold. Keep the National Guard away for long enough to let things get out of control and have scary footage broadcast on the evening news.
4) Once things are bad enough, announce Martial Law and bring in the troops to turn America's streets into a Nazi-style police state surveillance and enforcement system, complete with TSA-run checkpoints on all major roads.
What's required to make this happen? Nothing more than turning off the EBT cards for 72 hours. That's it! It's just a single change to a single line of code at JP Morgan Chase, and it's mission accomplished for the globalists.
Yesterday's EBT outage, in fact, may have been a practice run for the real thing. When the globalists want riots to unfold, they now have the tool to make it happen.
If you thought the idea of tens of millions of angry EBT debt card users was bad, just consider what happens when all the former federal employees don't get their pension funds anymore. Or if social security checks are eroded down to the point where they are essentially worthless. That's when you're going to see real social unrest across America, and that day is a finite number of weeks away. It will arrive as sure as the sun comes up, and when it does arrive, there's going to be unprecedented chaos in the streets as all the suckers who lived their lives dependent on the federal government suddenly come to find out the whole thing was a Ponzi scheme.
Yep: A Ponzi scheme. The U.S. government is running the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world, and just like every Ponzi scheme that has ever existed, it will sooner or later collapse. When that day comes, you will want to make sure you have stored food, water, silver coins, ammo, emergency medicine and all the usual preparedness supplies.
And be prepared to defend your supplies from those who refused to prepare. Because if there's one thing that EBT cards have taught tens of millions of America, it's that "YOUR stuff belongs to THEM!"
Ron Paul's Farewell Message
This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the end of the year I'll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.
It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.
To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.
The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.
All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn't give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn't give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.
The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.
The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there's no "loot left to divvy up."
Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.
During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.
I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.
Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be "progressive" ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.
They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.
Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.
But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.
The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.
The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.
The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn't produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.
If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.
If it's not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.
This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn't succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely -- that is until it too fails. There's a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won't be pretty.
The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.
If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.
Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it's for one's own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.
Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.
Just this recognition -- especially if we move in this direction -- increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.
But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.
Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.
It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.
After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today's possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.
• Undeclared wars are commonplace.
• Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
• The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
• Debt is growing exponentially.
• The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
• Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
• The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
• It's now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
• Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
• Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders "isolationists."
• Sanctions are used to punish countries that don't follow our orders.
• Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
• Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.
• Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
• Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
• Why can't Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
• Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
• Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
• Why do our political leaders believe it's unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
• Why can't Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
• Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
• Why should there be mandatory sentences -- even up to life for crimes without victims -- as our drug laws require?
• Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
• Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
• Why haven't we given up on the drug war since it's an obvious failure and violates the people's rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can't even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
• Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
• Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
• Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
• Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
• Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
• Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
• Why can't people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
• Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a "kill list," including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
• Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong.
• Why is it is claimed that if people won't or can't take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
• Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
• Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
• Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren't they the same?
• Why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
• Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
• Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
• Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
• Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it's the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
• Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there's such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there's a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.
Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn't get in the way.
We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.
Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.
It's no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.
The immoral use of force is the source of man's political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned -- or especially when well-intentioned -- the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.
This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.
It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it's permissible to go into one's neighbor's house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.
Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.
Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.
We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.
The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start shouting, "enough is enough," and demand Congress cease and desist.
Two choices are available.
• A government designed to protect liberty -- a natural right -- as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person's liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
• A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously -- though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: "power corrupts."
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There's no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
Today's mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It's amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.
Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a "little" tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a "touch of pregnancy." It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves.
Because it's the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to "do good." They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the "consent of the people." The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.
This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to "do good," as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: "destroying a village to save a village" was justified. It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was "worth it" to achieve the "good" we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.
Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.
First, we recognize that individuals shouldn't initiate violence, then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual's "right" to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.
When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It's then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase -- as are already occurring -- violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program.
When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer just can't be helped.
When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All moral standards become relative. Whether it's bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it's all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.
Some argue it's only a matter of "fairness" that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it's fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that's what the economic slowdown is all about.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.
Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what "a virtuous and moral people" means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.
If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.
If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.
It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.
But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.
Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.
The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it's essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.
Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.
I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.
Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.
If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one's natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one's own talents.
Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement.
Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.
1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.
2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of "blow-back" is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.
3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.
4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.
5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.
Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it's too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.
The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.
What could be more utopian than that myth -- considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It's time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.
No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.
The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It's time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.
Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There's every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.
What I'm talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.
The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won't work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.
Benjamin Franklin claimed "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." John Adams concurred: "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people's beliefs or habits.
A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.
The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.
The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.
It doesn't mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it's easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.
Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it's the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.
The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people's attitudes aren't changed.
To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is "envy" which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is "intolerance" which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.
The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out "the plain truth of things." The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.
It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.
To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.
The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.
How Much Did I Accomplish?
In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways -- thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn't give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn't give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.
The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.
The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there's no "loot left to divvy up."
Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.
Authoritarianism vs. Liberty
If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.
I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.
Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be "progressive" ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.
They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.
Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.
But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.
The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.
The Age of Redistribution
This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone. That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.
The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn't produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.
If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.
We Need an Intellectual Awakening
Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.If it's not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.
This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn't succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely -- that is until it too fails. There's a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won't be pretty.
The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.
If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.
Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it's for one's own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.
Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.
No More 'isms'
The great news is the answer is not to be found in more "isms." The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.Just this recognition -- especially if we move in this direction -- increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.
But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.
Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.
It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.
After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today's possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.
Dependency on Government Largesse
Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:• Undeclared wars are commonplace.
• Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
• The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
• Debt is growing exponentially.
• The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
• Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
• The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
• It's now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
• Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
• Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders "isolationists."
• Sanctions are used to punish countries that don't follow our orders.
• Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
• Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.
Questions
Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:• Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
• Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
• Why can't Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
• Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
• Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
• Why do our political leaders believe it's unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
• Why can't Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
• Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
• Why should there be mandatory sentences -- even up to life for crimes without victims -- as our drug laws require?
• Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
• Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
• Why haven't we given up on the drug war since it's an obvious failure and violates the people's rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can't even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
• Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
• Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
• Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
• Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
• Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
• Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
• Why can't people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
• Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a "kill list," including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
• Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong.
• Why is it is claimed that if people won't or can't take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
• Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
• Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
• Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren't they the same?
• Why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
• Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
• Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
• Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
• Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it's the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
• Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there's such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there's a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.
Trust Yourself, Not the Government
Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible.Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn't get in the way.
We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.
Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.
It's no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.
Economic Ignorance
Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.
The immoral use of force is the source of man's political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned -- or especially when well-intentioned -- the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.
This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.
It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it's permissible to go into one's neighbor's house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.
Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.
No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence
Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.
We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.
The Proliferation of Federal Crimes
The Constitution established four federal crimes. Today the experts can't even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books -- they number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system -- especially the tax code. Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I don't understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start shouting, "enough is enough," and demand Congress cease and desist.
Achieving Liberty
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.Two choices are available.
• A government designed to protect liberty -- a natural right -- as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person's liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
• A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously -- though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: "power corrupts."
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There's no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
Today's mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It's amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.
The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis
Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it's, in reality, a moral crisis. It's the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a "little" tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a "touch of pregnancy." It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves.
A Culture of Violence
American now suffers from a culture of violence. It's easy to reject the initiation of violence against one's neighbor but it's ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people -- practically at will.Because it's the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to "do good." They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the "consent of the people." The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.
This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to "do good," as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: "destroying a village to save a village" was justified. It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was "worth it" to achieve the "good" we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.
Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.
First, we recognize that individuals shouldn't initiate violence, then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual's "right" to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.
When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It's then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase -- as are already occurring -- violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program.
When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer just can't be helped.
When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All moral standards become relative. Whether it's bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it's all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.
Some argue it's only a matter of "fairness" that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it's fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that's what the economic slowdown is all about.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.
Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People
Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what "a virtuous and moral people" means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.
If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.
If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.
It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.
But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.
Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.
The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it's essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.
Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.
I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.
Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.
If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one's natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one's own talents.
Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement.
Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.
Conclusion
What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.
2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of "blow-back" is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.
3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.
4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.
5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.
Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it's too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.
The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.
What could be more utopian than that myth -- considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It's time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.
No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.
The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It's time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.
Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There's every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.
What I'm talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.
The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won't work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.
Benjamin Franklin claimed "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." John Adams concurred: "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people's beliefs or habits.
A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.
The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.
The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.
It doesn't mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it's easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.
Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it's the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.
The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people's attitudes aren't changed.
To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is "envy" which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is "intolerance" which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.
The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out "the plain truth of things." The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.
UNITED STATES THE CORPORATION:THE TRUTH FOX NEWS WILL NOT TELL YOU
Thought this was important info to republish....all credit goes to original publisher below.
Published on Jun 10, 2012 by ruralkiller
"He [Patrick Henry] boycotted the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because, as he so eloquently put it, "I smell a rat " and suspected the worst: that the independent colonies that had thrived for over a century were to be herded under one consolidated government, a vast government apparatus founded not on liberty, but on the bureaucratic dreams of monarchists and mercantilists like Alexander Hamilton."
This presentation (BELOW) will explain some of the issues the American People face in this country today and why. It will show a clear path of destruction of your rights over the last 150 years. This is not everything that is wrong, but it will get you looking at the real truths we are facing. The reason I did this video is I wanted to show the people the proof of what has happened and it will show you the right places to start looking so you can educate yourself. One thing I promise you is this, if you go in search of what has taken us to where we are today you will find an amazing story that goes back thousands of years.
The other thing I want to tell you is this and though it may be hard for people to understand it's not Washington D.C.'s fault. The people have failed to take responsibility for themselves and their government, so when you fail to take responsibility for your actions someone else will and you will not like how that ends up.
Here you will find the Documents in this presentation. http://www.mediafire.com/?f3fkky4f2sqfmhz
I HAVE RELOADED THIS VIDEO CAUSE I FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO SEE...I WILL ADD OTHER LINKS AND FILES FOR MORE INFORMATION...credit for video goes to youtube channel --mwasmuth--
http://sovereignproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SOVEREIGNTY-LOST.pdf
http://www.taroscopes.com/miscellanous-pages/weapons-additional.html
http://www.barefootsworld.net/#index
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/main.html
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/attorneysarenotlawyers13mar05.shtml
http://www.americaindistress.com/about_freedom_package.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm
http://www.uscivilflags.org/home.html
http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/congressman
Published on Jun 10, 2012 by ruralkiller
"He [Patrick Henry] boycotted the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because, as he so eloquently put it, "I smell a rat " and suspected the worst: that the independent colonies that had thrived for over a century were to be herded under one consolidated government, a vast government apparatus founded not on liberty, but on the bureaucratic dreams of monarchists and mercantilists like Alexander Hamilton."
This presentation (BELOW) will explain some of the issues the American People face in this country today and why. It will show a clear path of destruction of your rights over the last 150 years. This is not everything that is wrong, but it will get you looking at the real truths we are facing. The reason I did this video is I wanted to show the people the proof of what has happened and it will show you the right places to start looking so you can educate yourself. One thing I promise you is this, if you go in search of what has taken us to where we are today you will find an amazing story that goes back thousands of years.
The other thing I want to tell you is this and though it may be hard for people to understand it's not Washington D.C.'s fault. The people have failed to take responsibility for themselves and their government, so when you fail to take responsibility for your actions someone else will and you will not like how that ends up.
Here you will find the Documents in this presentation. http://www.mediafire.com/?f3fkky4f2sqfmhz
I HAVE RELOADED THIS VIDEO CAUSE I FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO SEE...I WILL ADD OTHER LINKS AND FILES FOR MORE INFORMATION...credit for video goes to youtube channel --mwasmuth--
http://sovereignproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SOVEREIGNTY-LOST.pdf
http://www.taroscopes.com/miscellanous-pages/weapons-additional.html
http://www.barefootsworld.net/#index
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/main.html
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/attorneysarenotlawyers13mar05.shtml
http://www.americaindistress.com/about_freedom_package.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm
http://www.uscivilflags.org/home.html
http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/congressman
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Obama Threatens 14 US Governors With Immediate Arrest
A chilling report from the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) prepared for Prime Minister Putin warns today that United States President Barack Obama has had served on 14 US Governors National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that if their actions in attempting to form what are called State Defense Forces are not halted they will face“immediate” arrest for the crime of treason.
The use of NSLs in the United States was authorized by the Patriot Act law enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks and forbids anyone receiving them from even acknowledging their existence, and was reauthorized by Obama’s“rubberstamp” Congress this past February over the objections of both civil and human rights groups who warned they mimic similar type“government security notices” enacted under both the former German Nazi and Soviet Communist regimes.
To the issue angering Obama against these State Governors, this report continues, is their attempt to reestablish what are called State Defense Forces which are described as follows:
“State Defense Forces (SDF) (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States.
State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.
The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that State Defense Forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard.”
Important to note is that Obama, as President of the United States is also its most powerful military leader known by the term of Commander in Chief, and is authorized by the Militia Act of 1903 to federalize his individual States National Guard Forces putting them under his command, something he does not have the power to do with State Defense Forces.
Obama’s fear of these State Defense Forces, this report says, rests with his not having power over them, and with the bulk of the US Military Forces he does control being stretched to near breaking with the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would leave these State military forces under the control of these Governors in “defacto control” of the United States.
The use of NSLs in the United States was authorized by the Patriot Act law enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks and forbids anyone receiving them from even acknowledging their existence, and was reauthorized by Obama’s“rubberstamp” Congress this past February over the objections of both civil and human rights groups who warned they mimic similar type“government security notices” enacted under both the former German Nazi and Soviet Communist regimes.
To the issue angering Obama against these State Governors, this report continues, is their attempt to reestablish what are called State Defense Forces which are described as follows:
“State Defense Forces (SDF) (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States.
State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.
The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that State Defense Forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard.”
Important to note is that Obama, as President of the United States is also its most powerful military leader known by the term of Commander in Chief, and is authorized by the Militia Act of 1903 to federalize his individual States National Guard Forces putting them under his command, something he does not have the power to do with State Defense Forces.
Obama’s fear of these State Defense Forces, this report says, rests with his not having power over them, and with the bulk of the US Military Forces he does control being stretched to near breaking with the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would leave these State military forces under the control of these Governors in “defacto control” of the United States.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The Dark Side of Science
"Science" has not merely compromised the future of Earth's ecosystems; it has empowered corrupt governments to engage in "scientific dictatorships" where science and technology are routinely used to centralize power and oppress freedom rather than serving humanity. For example, Monsanto's "scientific" agenda has long been to own and control all agricultural seeds while criminalizing seed saving by farmers, thus economically enslaving farmers into a never-ending cycle of dependence on monopolistic, genetically modified seeds available only from Monsanto.
This is but one example of how so-called "science" is being used to crush human freedom and destroy human rights. (Most people would agree that the ability to save seeds from one crop generation to the next is a fundamental human right.)
Read more of this article HERE!
This is but one example of how so-called "science" is being used to crush human freedom and destroy human rights. (Most people would agree that the ability to save seeds from one crop generation to the next is a fundamental human right.)
Read more of this article HERE!
Biblical Events A Reality?
Mike Adams wrote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.
Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God and agents of Evil.
Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America's final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.
But, with that said....he has at least not hidden very well his full intentions of doing away with this country's bill of rights, constitution and our republic. And all of you who re-elected him, DESERVE everything that is about to happen, if we, the people do not overcome your fool heartedness and somehow reign in this government's socialistic/marxist/communistic agenda and return it to the original intentions of our founding forefathers! Let's truly pray to God that we aren't too late and that our republic isn't truly lost for forever!
Obama violates his Presidential Oath, sworn before God
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution spells out the oath of office that every President must take during their swearing in (which is done with one hand laid upon a bible):"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.
Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God and agents of Evil.
Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America's final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.
*********************************************************
And Americans gave Obama the right to take the oath....AGAIN...
and break it.....AGAIN!
Well, in re-electing Obama for a second term, America not only turned its back on the constitution, bill of rights and natural/common law upon which it was founded, but also on God! Now, if I was a believer of the bible's description of events leading up to Armageddon, I'd say that the events leading up to, and including this past election, the re-election of Obama, fits very nicely into the biblical scenario! I guess we'll just have to see if 3 years from now, Obama has really taken on the role of anti-christ and does away with all and any color of legitimacy and shows everyone his true mission in life.But, with that said....he has at least not hidden very well his full intentions of doing away with this country's bill of rights, constitution and our republic. And all of you who re-elected him, DESERVE everything that is about to happen, if we, the people do not overcome your fool heartedness and somehow reign in this government's socialistic/marxist/communistic agenda and return it to the original intentions of our founding forefathers! Let's truly pray to God that we aren't too late and that our republic isn't truly lost for forever!
2012 Election Fraud
Here we go with Florida....AGAIN! In Ohio, Obama won in a county with 108% voter registration. I think every state should be checked. Especially with the news reports that republicans were removed, some physically, from being poll watchers by members of the Black Panthers group (the Black KKK!)!
So, how can you have more votes than the number of registered voters? Do you really think Obama won fairly and with no fraud? If so, then go and put your head back into the sand like a good little socialist ostrich! The rest of us, will keep asking for accountability!
So, how can you have more votes than the number of registered voters? Do you really think Obama won fairly and with no fraud? If so, then go and put your head back into the sand like a good little socialist ostrich! The rest of us, will keep asking for accountability!
Monday, November 12, 2012
Obama's Plan to Take Away Our Guns!
Ok folks, especially those of you who just gave this twerp a second term to finish accomplishing the assault plan on our second amendment right, here is the plan, in black & white, as to how this will be done!
Read UN Gun Grab Follows State Department Plan HERE
Here's an excerpt:
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
Read Freedom From War HERE
Here's an excerpt:
TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES
Read UN Gun Grab Follows State Department Plan HERE
Here's an excerpt:
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
Read Freedom From War HERE
Here's an excerpt:
TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES
The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:
- As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
- Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
- Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
- Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
- Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
DIVORCE AGREEMENT
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, regressive, Marxists, and Obama supporters, et. al.:
We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
1. Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides had such distinct and disparate tastes.
2. We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.
3. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
4. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.
5. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.
6. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
7. We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.
8. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless homeboys, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.
9. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.
10. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
11. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
12. You can have the peace-niks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
13. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
14. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.
15. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
16. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors..
17. We'll continue to believe healthcare is an earned luxury and not a right.
18. We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
19. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya," or "We Are the World".
20. We'll practice trickledown economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
21. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our constitution and our flag.
22. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S.: Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda with you.
P.S.S..: And you won't have to "Press 1 for English" when you call our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)