The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

Restoring state sovereignty

Don Hank

The San Bernardino terror and the ease with which two jihadi killers entered and took up permanent residence in the US show that the US is putting US citizens in harm’s way.

Look, Folks, the solution is right in front of us and its name is state sovereignty.

Large central governments controlling large swaths of territory comprised of regions with people holding different political opinions and different cultures are an evil in themselves, because ultimately, a small group grabs all the power via “education” and the msm and produces a situation for the people that threatens life and basic freedoms.

Central government is the culprit here, and Europe is instructive. The EU has grabbed virtually total political power over European nations. Yet now that the EU is insisting on opening its borders to Muslim refugees in defiance of the will of the people and the nations, there are nations that defy them refusing to open their borders, such as initially Hungary, and later, at least partially, the Balkan countries,and now even Sweden, the country with the most open-border policy of all Europe. Under duress, European nations are rediscovering their sovereignty.

It’s not that the EU lacks laws to stop them, but it has no real power over them in cases where the exercise of such power threatens the security and liberty of the nations. They can’t enforce laws that are patently bad.

Our US states are analogous to these EU nations and their dire situation is also analogous. Our states do have a God-given right to sovereignty when the central government literally harms the citizens of the states as they are doing now with Obama’s resettlement of Syrian refugees and his policies of amnesty and open borders, all by fiat. Every American must know that no law that forces a people to harm itself can be Constitutional, regardless of whatever the Supreme Court says. The imported jihadis themselves are bringing this to light as they did in San Bernardino.

Eventually, our US states will be forced to do what Hungary and its copycats did and close their borders.

Here is what should be done now and will be done once enough Americans have died:

States that no longer wish to commit suicide will decide who enters their territory. If a person, even a US citizen, tries to enter a state, they may be denied entry on the basis of background checks. If they entered the US illegally, they may be barred — even if Washington gave them citizenship, because the state may decide whether this person was entitled to that based on the security concerns of the state. The states must be keenly aware that the Feds have overstepped their bounds as defined by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution (see below). If a person desirous of entering a state has entered the US illegally, then the state may deny them entry on those grounds, legitimately claiming that the federal government exceeded the powers granted to it under the Constitution.

Naturally, the Supreme Court will declare the state’s position un-Constitutional. However, we must examine the European model to see what can be accomplished regardless of the wishes of central-government agencies, such as the Supreme Court, which today is nothing but an interest group defending the Washington cabal and no longer represents the people of the US. Again, taking our cue from Europe, the EU government has declared, under the Schengen Agreement, that no EU nation may close its border except under specific extraordinary circumstances that threaten the country in question. However, initially, when the Hungarians closed the border, the requisites defined by Brussels may not actually have been met for this closing. However, the Hungarians, the Balkan countries and Sweden did not beg the EU dictators in Brussels for help in securing their borders or seek legal recourse. They simply resorted to their sovereign right to self-determination, bypassing the EU, and made it clear that this is the way it is going to be. Brussels made noises that they would be punished, but nothing happened. In a revolutionary move, Budapest (like the capitals of the other renegade nations that followed suit) faced down Brussels and won, at least for now, thereby restoring its sovereignty and providing for its own security. Indeed, in so doing, it caused the other above-cited nations to take notice and still others seem poised to do the same. EU officials are now warning of a potential collapse of the EU, and although dire consequences are elicited by the cunning EU officials, there could be no better solution. The same can happen in the US, with states declaring a state of emergency following a mass jihadi murder, and while the US could bluster and threaten, if the state stood firm, there would be little Washington could do short of civil war.

If a person is from a terror exporting country and has entered the US after a certain age, say, 15, then they can be denied entry into a state based on the fact that their country of origin is a terror exporting country. If it can be proved that they are not SUNNIS, then the state may allow their entry. ONLY the SUNNIS are pursuing jihad (where do we read that in our PC press? Even Trump ignores this fact).  Whether this is “constitutional” or not is irrelevant. The state must stand firm or perish. Indeed, the grounds for doing so could be a declaration of state-level emergency or even a claim that the state is at war (with jihadis, for example), whatever it takes.

The legal grounds for state-level initiatives are clear:

Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.

The clear-cut grounds for the states to ignore US statues are that the US has failed to protect the states from invasion and/or domestic violence — as it actually did by admitting the San Bernardino jihadis into our country — and if the Supreme Court makes excuses for the jihad-sponsoring government, then it too must be defied on the simple grounds that it too is blatantly ignoring the above-cited clause. A grave risk to the people of the state is always legitimate grounds to ignore federal orders because no government can demand that its own people commit suicide. Everything depends on the will of the people to survive and to know and understand their God-given rights to life and liberty.

This restoration of basic state sovereignty could either happen now at the discretion of states with security minded populations or – based on the European model — it will happen spontaneously when it becomes clear that this kind of security is vital to keep the population safe from imminent harm. For now, there are enough libertarians and leftist liberals to convince the sheeple of most states that the absurd borderless-world ideology trumps security.

But once a critical mass of terrorist murders has been reached, there will be a spontaneous and unstoppable movement to secure our people, with or without the approval of our terror-supporting federal government, and the states will be at the forefront.

Trying to replace our corrupt central government with people who actually care about our nation’s security will fail as a permanent remedy, just as it has failed in Europe. A Trump presidency may be a vital stop-gap measure, but in fact, given the fickle nature of national political sentiment, only the individual states can provide for their security in the long run.

Sooner or later we will learn the valuable lesson that the states have the right to self-determination and only need to reclaim it. Those that lose this right to the federal government do so voluntarily by surrendering their sovereignty, ie, wrongly taking federal statues and their interpretation by a corrupt and ideology-driven Supreme Court – rather than We the People — as supreme. The number of dead Americans that lead us to that awakening depends on how soon our states respond to the threat.

Do you agree or disagree with the above analysis? Post your response at the forum below.

Further reading

http://conpats.blogspot.com/2014/02/chuck-kolb-02162014.html

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141110

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

No, Obama is not a Muslim

No, dummies, Obama is NOT a Muslim

 

by Don Hank

 

I regularly receive propaganda pieces from various organizations with assertions representing a very common viewpoint among Neocons, worded essentially as follows:

The recent sham and highly dangerous deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons development is proof enough that the president sides with “his people” over not just Israel but also the rest of we [sic] real Americans.

In fact, this nuclear deal with Iran shows that Obama is not a Muslim. Since he was brought up in Sunni Indonesia (99% of Indonesian Muslims are Sunnis), then if he took seriously the religion in which he was steeped, “his people” would be Sunnis, the enemies of Shiite Iran. The Muslim world is dominated by the Saudis, the Gulf states and Turkey, all of which are SUNNIS, the arch enemies of Iran, which is predominantly Shiite.

Iran is the only fully SHIA-majority country in the world. The Sunnis are responsible for all terror attacks and populate ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Nusra and all throat slitting anti-Christian terror groups. Unlike the Iranian SHIA, the Sunnis, especially the Wahhabi sect, believe that all non-Sunnis must convert or die. Iran obviously does not support this concept.

The Sunnis rarely attack Israel, which sometimes has collaborated with the Islamic terrorist group Al-Nusra, for ex, in the Golan Heights. There is apparently a symbiotic relationship between Israel and terrorist groups, as shown here and here.

According to the theorists who believe Obama is a Muslim, he would be a Sunni, and indeed, he bowed before the Sunni king of Saudi Arabia and was also enrolled in a Sunni Muslim school in Indonesia.

Yet he has made this nuclear deal with the Shia in Iran which could theoretically enable Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. This is a real puzzle for those who postulate that Obama is a Muslim but not for normal rational people.

I suspect Obama has in fact been influenced by his most intimate advisor Valerie Jarrett, who grew up in Iran. I do not think there is any further explanation for this. The Saudis are livid over this deal.

Further, no devout Muslim would promote the homosexual agenda as Obama does.

The problem with Obama is not that he is a Muslim but that he belongs to the New World Order that seeks to eliminate white America and traditional American culture, especially Christianity. Some of the people behind the Obama-is-Muslim meme are seeking precisely the same goal.

 

What Adolf did with malice, Merkel does with kindness

What Adolf did with malice, Merkel does with kindness

They’re just as dead…

by Don Hank

 

Germany is finding out what cosmic justice is (if you are a Christian, you call it divine justice).

Back in 2011, Germany pledged 100 million euros to support the Arab Spring. Angela Merkel was from the government and was here to help.

It may have been supported with all the best of intentions, but the Arab Spring started wars that immediately got out of control and brought terror, chaos and mass emigration to the Middle East, which is still ablaze now, 4 years later. The people who warned this would happen were very effectively silenced by the German government, which is very good at this sort of thing, having practiced at it since the 30s.

Thus, the promised democracy didn’t materialize and thousands upon thousands died.

Germany, undaunted, and always wanting to be the hero that saves the day, offered the immigrants refuge in Germany. Just as the Kanzlerin had forgotten that it was her and her allies’ support for the Arab Spring that brought them there, Angela Merkel carelessly forgot to tell them there would be a limit to the number of them taken in.

During the first days of the immigrant wave, she spoke via news sources, scolding and threatening with legal consequences all the countries that refused to open their doors as she had done, suggesting to the world that they were selfish scrooges while she was a morally superior Joan of Arc.

Then all of a sudden, reality slapped Angela in her angelic face: German capacity was overburdened.

So she found herself obliged to do what some of the other, more realistic, nations had done – the ones she had scolded for doing what she was now doing. She closed Germany’s borders.

But so what? Germany is the biggest exporter in Europe and the 2nd biggest in the world after China, thought Merkel. We’ll let them in once we get a little richer. And then we’ll…

OOOOOPPPS!!! Volkswagen, one of the main drivers of German exports was spotlighted by the EPA as a fraud, having lied about emissions from VW diesels! It will cost the company up to $18 billion dollars!

Today, VW stocks are down 25% and that could be just the beginning.

There’s more than one moral here (but a euro says Frau Merkel will not learn any of them):

1– Respect the sovereignty of other countries. Trying to export democracy – especially to a country that already has a democratically elected government and respects its minorities (think Syria) – will have unexpected consequences, such as causing untold harm to the country you wanted to “help” and bringing ruin to your own country.

2 – Don’t let success go to your head. You could go from rags to riches overnight. So don’t set yourself up as the savior of the world with infinitely deep pockets.

3 – If you are helping others, don’t throw stones at those who are not doing what you are doing. They might just be smarter than you. There are a lot of immigrants who made it to Austria or Hungary, for example, but not quite to Germany and are seriously PO’d as they contemplate the closed border; and some other countries who bowed to pressure from Merkel to open their borders and let in immigrants are now stuck with a lot of disgruntled immigrants insisting to go to Germany, where they are no longer wanted by the Chancellor whose heart was bigger than her brain.

Merkel has a problem that she wouldn’t have if she had had a little foresight and common sense.

The German nation killed a lot of people in the Third Reich by being mean and selfish.

Now they are killing them with kindness in the Fourth.

They’re just as dead either way, Angela.

Frau Kanzlerin, can the world ask you a favor?

No more favors, please.

Thank you!

Don Hank

 

The Newt behind the suit

Newt is a good talker. So was Obama, remember?

Don Hank

In election cycles, Newt Gingrich knows how to talk like a conservative. Like Obama, he knows how to cater to his constituency (see link and quotes below).

But when the chips are down, he has proven to be quite at home in Democrat territory. Too much at home.

Now, the GOP establishment (and the “Tea Party,” which they have virtually co-opted) is saying that only the left-leaning Newt can save us from Obama because he can appeal to “both sides of the aisle.”

As Michelle Bachmann pointed out in the debate, Obama is so weak the Democrats are thinking of replacing him, and the notion that Obama can’t be beaten is patently false. It would be more plausible to say he can hardly win against a warm body.

This election cycle, more than any time in recent history, we don’t have to resort to a centrist or “moderate.” A conservative can win. So it isn’t the lefties and moderates who will determine the direction our country takes in 2012. It is you.

Now look, Greece and Italy, two bankrupt nations, were just forced to accept new presidents, both of whom are big central bankers — the group that blew up the global economy — and on top of that, they are members of the Trilateral Commission, a group that — like the CFR — has designs on world government. That is not a democracy, Folks. It is a technocracy of the EU kind, where your vote is meaningless and you are told what to do, where to sit, what medicine you can take (not natural medicine. Monsanto owns you)  and what you are allowed to raise in your garden, if anything.

America, you do not have to don this yoke. You aren’t bankrupt yet. Well, I could be wrong there….  But at any rate, you don’t have to accept a leader who is in lockstep with the NWO gang who wants to micromanage your life more tightly than the CP controlled the slaves in the USSR. As a member of the CFR, Newt is one of them. He will never be one of us, not even close!

Of course, defeating Newt would require a sufficient number of Americans to toss aside the GOP Kool-Aid, stop being spectators and join the fight!

Do you have it in you?

Don Hank

 

Quote:

In 1995 Newt Gingrich made a dispassionate appeal in the well of the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act. After voting for $1.2 billion dollars in 1994 to fund increased NATO peace keeping missions, the very next year he urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia [SUPPORING MUSLIMS AGAINST CHRISTIANS–DON]! Newt has been pro abortion, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, in support of higher taxes at one time or another, and in favor of expanding the role of the Federal government! He is viewed as being anti-family by many, not only because of his pro choice stance on abortion, but also for his support of gay marriage, and because he has twice divorced and been married three different times. Actions speak louder than words!

 

Quote:

Newt Gingrich has been a member of the ‘progressive’ Council on Foreign Relations since 1990. This NGO, founded in 1921, and bankrolled with BIG MONEY from the Rockefeller Foundation and J. P. Morgan among other internationalists, has been dedicated since its inception to dismantling American sovereignty, de-constructing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and promoting the idea of One World Government!

 http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Newt-Gingrich-Candidate-President-Republican-Primary.html

 

Ghadaffi dies of propaganda overdose

Western hypocrisy exposed

 

Don Hank

I have been debating with a friend over the issue of why Ghadaffi has been treated worse than other leaders of the same region. After all, what Muslim leader has not shown unusual cruelty in the course of his reign?

One thing that my friend brought up was that Ghadaffi had instituted Sharia law.

The problem is that, while Ghadaffi did in fact make a stab at using Sharia as a reference, or sort of Constitution, he soon found that it didn’t work in the real world, and he very shortly abandoned it (see link below).

On the other hand, Obama bowed obsequiously before King Abdullah during a visit not long ago but yet Saudi Arabia has one of the most inhumane treatments of prisoners of any country in the world – thanks to its reliance on Sharia law. So here you have Ghaddafi, who abolished cruel Sharia, vs. Abdullah, whose regime relies on Sharia, and whom do the Western elites (incl notably, Obama) call cruel?

Why, Ghadaffi, of course. (Not saying he wasn’t, but why single him out if other Middle East regimes are arguably more cruel?).

Then my friend, who avidly reads the MSM, said he had read that Ghadaffi had brought poverty to his nation. So I did some internet searches on Libyan poverty and found that the only articles claiming Libyans were poor had been written during the run-up to the Libyan rebellion, by reporters in countries whose leading politicians supported the ouster of Ghadaffi. Does anyone doubt that much of what the MSM reports, and the way they report it, is largely propaganda supportive of government policy, particularly that of increasingly authoritarian governments in Europe and the US?

On the other hand, I discovered that, in 2009, the year with the most complete reporting for all countries in the region, the average per capita income in Libya was several times that in neighboring countries, namely, $9,957 (up to $13,800 this year).

Here are some reference figures for average incomes in other countries that same year:

Afghanistan: $4,526

Iraq: $2,565

Kosovo: $3,080

Morocco: $2,808

Egypt: $2,699

Tunisia: $4,199

 

Now, you will note that Iraqis, who had been under US control since 2003, or about 5 years at the time of that compilation, had an average annual per capita income of only a third that of Libya, while Afghanis, who have been under Western Coalition control since 2001, or about 7 years at that time, earned less than half the income of Libyans. Kosovo, which was also created by the Western powers through war, had some of the lowest income in all of Europe, about one-third of what Libyans earned.

So it doesn’t look as though poverty is a viable argument against Ghadaffi, even though it was a favorite in the MSM in the run-up to his murder. After all, if impoverishment of one’s people is grounds for murdering a leader, then what should we do with the leaders (notably Western ones) responsible for countries poorer than Libya?

But when I articulated these arguments, my friend then said he thought it was more of an issue of wealth distribution, with Ghadaffi receiving vastly more than his share. However, the UN’s calculation of the Gini index, which is the best indicator of wealth distribution, was not collected for the countries that I wanted to study for my analysis, namely, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

So if there are no official data available, then apparently Western anti-Ghadaffi arguments were based solely on speculation and anecdotal evidence.  Yet, if you want to trade Libya anecdotes for Saudi Arabia anecdotes, for example, on the subject of wealth distribution you can swap stories ‘til you drop. Here’s a tofer for you, evidence of both human rights violations and poverty: A blogger was arrested this year in Saudi Arabia for posting evidence of poverty in that country. Not just a tad bit authoritarian? And not evidence that enough poverty exists that the government is scared word might get out.

You know what all this reminds me of?

A movie I once saw about a corrupt sheriff’s department in the south that stopped a car driven by a black northerner and tried to charge him but couldn’t think of a charge. They couldn’t get him for speeding because he wasn’t speeding. They couldn’t get him for drunk driving either because he was significantly more sober than a judge.

One of the deputies finally found a tail light out and they fined him on that flimsy charge.

That is the story of Libya’s Ghadaffi: a failed tail light and now he’s toast.

So what was the real motive behind the persecution and murder of Libya’s strong man, who had brought prosperity to his country and was apparently well enough liked that many of his countrymen laid down their lives for him?

The hypothesis that holds up best to scrutiny is that the Western power elite despises Western culture, especially the Judeo-Christian aspect, and here was an opportunity to rid the Middle East of another secular leader who tolerated Christians and Jews (he imported blacks from southern Africa as laborers and he cooperated with the West in its policies regarding Israel). After all, why else would the Ruling Class import millions and millions of Muslims to Europe knowing that they would not assimilate, that they would cause trouble, and that they oppose Christianity and its trappings? And why did every conflict with Western involvement – Iran, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Egypt, etc. — ultimately wind up with almost all of the native Christians banished from their homeland of generally about 2000 years?

I have shown copious evidence of this anti-Judeo-Christian motive in numerous articles, and with each move that the West makes in the Middle East I become more and more convinced of it:

http://laiglesforum.com/i-told-you-so-again/2697.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/my-government-is-killing-me/2159.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/spare-me-the-crocodile-tears-when-northern-africa-explodes/2215.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/how-western-powers-abet-christian-persecution/2513.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-far-left-connection-to-the-near-east-rebellion/2224.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/2286/2286.htm

 

Check out these links showing the West’s extreme hypocrisy in the Ghadaffi saga:

http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/africa/poverty-persists-in-libya-despite-oil-riches

Libyan average annual gross domestic product per capita has reached US$13,800 (Dh50,868) per year

(written after OBL killed, so very recent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

2009, Libya

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:IRQ&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+iraq

Iraq: $2090 in 2009

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:AFG&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+afghanistan

Afghanistan: $468 in 2009

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

All 2009:

Average annual GDP per capita in Libya: $9,957

Afghanistan: $4,526

Iraq: $2,565

Kosovo: $3,080

Morocco: $2,808

Egypt: $2,699

Tunisia: $4,199

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Wealth distribution:

Gini index: NO DATA for Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/business/worldbusiness/17iht-inflation.1.15359629.html?pagewanted=all

A January wage increase of 5 percent for government employees disappointed those Saudis who earn less than 10,000 riyals, or $2,666, a month, especially after other Gulf countries moved more quickly to raise wages by larger amounts.

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/saudi-video-blogger-reportedly-detained-for-showing-poverty-in-riyadh/?scp=2&sq=saudi&st=Search

Saudi Video Blogger Reportedly Detained for Showing Poverty in Riyadh

A popular Saudi video blogger was detained this week, along with his crew, after his report on poverty in the kingdom’s capital, Riyadh, was viewed hundreds of thousands of times on YouTube, human rights activists said.

The blogger, Feras Bugnah, was arrested on Sunday with his colleagues Hosam al-Deraiwish and Khaled al-Rasheed, in connection with the latest episode of their online show, “We Are Being Cheated,” according to the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association.

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/more-saudi-women-record-driving-videos/?scp=28&sq=saudi&st=Search

Saudi women may not drive

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/saudi-arabia-executes-eight-bangladeshi-nationals-2011-10-07

Beheadings

The beheadings bring the number of executions in Saudi Arabia this year to at least 58, more than double than the 2010 figures. Twenty of those executed in 2011 were foreign nationals.

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF133.htm

2005

And only those with a perverse sense of what constitutes justice would have approved of the news of an Indian man in Saudi Arabia facing the ‘punishment’ of having his eye gouged out.

http://lankapolity.blogspot.com/2011/06/inhuman-treatment-for-sri-lankan.html

6/07/2011

A Sri Lankan who was found guilty for selling liquor in a public place in Taif city Saudi Arabia while being drunk has been subjected to 430 lashes

Corporations: A government in the shadows

Are corporations torch bearers of the free market?

Not even close – despite what the “conservative” media and politicians are telling you

 

Don Hank

There is a certain resistance among the public to admit that it is not you and I but the corporations and their lawyers, partnering with the Federal Reserve, that run America. Many conservatives hate to hear anyone “malign” corporations because to them, corporations, including banks, bear the torch of sacred capitalism. The GOP bosses are content with this situation.

On the other hand, since most big corporations donate mostly to the Democrat party, Democrats — especially those in the media and politics – are also loathe to broach the subject of corporate control over government.

Besides, the same corporations lobbying for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens are also helping build Democrat power. Everyone knows how Latinos tend to vote.

And when it comes to “green” boondoggles, all the fat cats want in on them. They will of course mean a net loss of jobs and enormous subsidies for the most inefficient technologies known to mankind, but “green” subsidies flow freely from government coffers, as anyone following the Solyndra story knows.

Now, many of these corporate lobbyists are pushing very hard for open borders. They donated big bucks to pliable candidates and expect some bang, like more illegal alien labor, for example, and better legal conditions for sending your job overseas. Big corporations and Big Politics want precisely what you dread.

So what about us little people down here?

I wonder what people would say if they knew that the power of their vote is negligible compared to the pressures brought to bear by Big Business lobbies, which effectively dictate policy to your elected officials. I wonder how many have ever figured out that it was your senator’s and congressmen’s utter subservience to corporate lobbyists that made them vote for the TARP bailouts even after receiving phone calls begging them not to vote for it at the rate of 300 calls against the bailouts per 1 call in favor.

I wonder what will happen once the cat is out of the bag.

Maybe We the People will assume our rightful place in this great nation again.

Maybe.

But not unless we put our thinking caps on and realize what is really happening. Try asking yourself honestly: would corporations spend billions of dollars lobbying if they weren’t getting a financial “kickback” in some form or other? And are these kickbacks free or do they cost you money? 

It’s not that long between now and election time. Will your candidate discuss this with you in town meetings or will he mutter something snide, look around and say “next question”? If he isn’t leveling with you on the economy, fire him. You’re his boss and can’t afford another sluggard on your staff.

Where does your presidential candidate stand? I don’t recall the Fox moderators asking about the power of the corporate lobbies. And yet, business as usual in Washington brought down the world economy and cost millions of American jobs.

It’s time to wake up and make the economy and your job the front-burner issue this time around.

DEMAND:

CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF THE MONEY (NO MORE FEDERAL RESERVE)

STRICT CONTROLS ON LOBBYING, ESP CORPORATE LOBBYING

Now recall that the mainstream “conservative” media keep reminding you that the Occupy people are all a bunch of Marxists. So what about Alex Jones and Ron Paul’s followers? They aren’t Marxists and they have attended the Occupy rallies in significant numbers all over the country, teaching independents about the issues, making converts. So have people like Steph Jasky and Karl Denninger, who played a key role in founding the Tea Party, as well as a ton of other top-notch people. All while you stayed home, paralyzed with fear by what you read in the “conservative” press and blogosphere about being tainted by the lefties supposedly in charge. Like that photo of a young anarchist backed up against a police car, pants at half-mast, in an act of defiant defecation. Think anyone follows him? All in all, whatever Marxists may be participating in the rallies out in the cities and towns across the country are clueless non-contenders and will have almost no power in this movement if we play our cards right for a change. As I have said before, the movement is ours for the taking. Why do you think the Republican leaders and their minions in Big Talk Radio are all bad mouthing the movement?

Clue: Many of these people on the street are on to the lobbying games that the corporations – as well as the Fed — are playing, and threaten to spoil things for Big Politics by returning the power to you.

That is the main factor in all the negative press on the right. So why do leftwing politicians high five these young protesters? That’s easy. So far, they’ve been smarter than us. They know they can control the movement and its narrative if they act like they are behind it all. But they’re bluffing.  Yes, ACORN, Soros, Van Jones and other shadowy types with Obama links have in fact dreamed up schemes like this and undoubtedly had a hand in it, just as they no doubt had a hand in the Egyptian riots. But this isn’t Egypt now. It’s our turf, and no one can control it unless we let them. So far, the Left is spinning its wheels as its power slips away. Protesters interviewed on camera, for example, have ripped Obama mercilessly for his failures. The End the Fed movement is all over these rallies and for whatever faults they may have, they are vehemently anti-Obama and pro free market.

So if people like you can start thinking – and acting – outside the box, the whole football can be stripped from the hands of the corporatist elites and, with God’s grace, you can have your country back.

Sure, it will be hard work. And the propaganda aimed at making you think you are in bad company among the protesters will be non-stop. That’s a given.

Some of my Christian brethren are saying that to join the protests would mean being unequally yoked.

But consider this: If a bunch of atheists lobbied to make churches accountable for the actions of pedophile church workers, you wouldn’t side with the pedophiles, would you?

Voting against the pedophiles would not make you an atheist and it would not make you look like one. It would be doing God’s work because pedophiles not only harmd children, they are a stumbling block to the unsaved and give the churches a bad name. Let’s be real: For every candidate you have ever voted for, some unsavory characters also voted for him. So what?

Don’t be afraid to join forces with new people who are starting to get it and are just as mad as you, but maybe don’t have as clear a grasp of the issues. You may be the person who reaches a wishy-washy fence rider.

After all, I can’t think of a single election cycle when people on both sides of the political spectrum have been so mad for the same reasons – irrespective of their ideologies.

What a gorgeous opportunity!

If you let the political elites who stole your country steal the election this time around, don’t blame it on me.

 

Some statistics to consider:

 

http://allthingsd.com/20101223/what-tech-companies-are-spending-in-washington/

 

Verizon spent $3.83 million lobbying on several issues, including taxes and texting while driving, at numerous branches of the federal government, including the White House, Congress, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Trade Commission. It spent $2.96 million in the same period a year ago.

AT&T spent $3.47 million, up from $3.18 million a year ago. Its agenda items included legislation on calling cards, broadband buildouts and distracted driving.

Hewlett-Packard spent $1.6 million–nearly double the $970,000 it spent in the third quarter of last year–chatting with members of Congress and officials at the Department of Justice and the Commerce Department about taxes, immigration and how government agencies use technology in the areas of health care and law enforcement.

Microsoft spent $1.63 million, an increase from $1.49 million a year ago. It visited Congress, the Pentagon and the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security to talk about computer security, how the government buys software and the competitive state of online advertising. It also lobbied the Federal Communications Commission on net neutrality.

Oracle spent $1.6 million, up from $1.3 million, lobbying Congress, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security on patent litigation and the government’s technology spending plans.

Google spent $1.2 million in the third quarter (which TechCrunch noted in October following a press release by Consumer Watchdog), an increase from $1.08 million in the same period a year ago.

IBM spent $1 million, up from $850,000 a year ago, talking about transportation, the power grid, funding for research and the military, on visits to Congress and the Departments of Transportation, Defense, and Health and Human Services.

Intel spent $830,000, which is notable because the amount decreased from $1.1 million a year ago. Intel was the target of both a private antitrust lawsuit from rival Advanced Micro Devices and a government antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, both of which were intensifying in the fall. Both cases have since been settled. Its efforts were in immigration, government research funding and issues related to trademarks and education.

Yahoo spent $540,000, up from $510,000 a year ago.

Apple, easily the most influential company in consumer technology today, spent relatively little on lobbying efforts: Only $340,000 [BUT they had Al Gore on their board of directors. How cozy. 90% of their political donations went to the Democrats. Did you know that Steve Jobs “invented” mostly cosmetic changes in devices? Can you name an inventor who actually devised the really high-tech stuff like the iPod itself or the Apple computer and monitor electronics? Didn’t think so. They didn’t have dinner with Al Gore—Don Hank].

Facebook spent $120,000.

For a little more on what companies spend on lobbying efforts in Washington, it’s always enlightening to peruse the database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks not only lobbying expenditures but campaign contributions.

As you can see, the CRP shows that, among computer and Internet companies, Microsoft was the leading lobbying spender for the first nine months of the year. The wireless industry’s trade association, the CTIA, led the pack in the telephone equipment and services category, spending more than $6 million. Meanwhile, Verizon and AT&T each spent more than $12 million.

http://www.alternet.org/story/146643/hightower:_washington_overrun_by_11,000_corporate_lobbyists_and_$500_million_in_corrupting_donations

  • 11,195. That’s the number of corporate lobbyists who are presently plying their nefarious trade day and night in Washington’s hallways and back rooms.
  • $2.95 billion. That’s the amount that corporations spent on lobbyists last year alone (a sum more than six times greater than the total spent by all consumer,environmental, worker, and other non-corporate groups combined).
  • $473 million. That’s the sum of money that corporate executives and lobbyists have slipped into Washington’s many political pockets–so far–for the 2010 election cycle, including donations to candidates, leadership PACS, and party committees. We are still seven months from the 2010 elections, and already corporate spending has reached the record-breaking total of $475 million shelled out for the entire 2008 cycle.

 

Does the Left control you?

Don Hank

Answer: only if you let them

I received an email from a friend, incl several warnings about the Occupy [somewhere] movement, written by well-known conservative authors and exhorting conservatives to shun the Occupy Wall St. [or wherever] movement because it is linked to Obama groups and pals like ACORN and Van Jones and is a false flag movement.

Now I agree that we must be careful whom we stand with, because we may be suggesting to people that we agree with the Left — unless we are perfectly clear where we stand!

Consider this: The Left has been pretending to stand with good people ever since day one, while in fact standing with Satan. Stealth is their middle name.

I believe it may be time to turn the tables on them.

Yesterday, I got an email from a TX friend with an attachment showing a pamphlet on the “Occupy Houston” movement.

His point seemed to be that their literature was not well written and that it wasn’t clear what their goals were, so maybe they are bad guys to be avoided.

Ya know what? To me, that is a perfect opportunity for us to go to work. Because they can’t control the sidewalks and there’s no way they can control me.

If I lived in that part of the country and had a few extra hours, I’d make up a large poster reading “BRING BACK THE FREE MARKET” or “NO MORE SOCIALISM, MR. PRESIDENT,” or “SOLYNDRA, THE FRUITS OF ‘STIMULUS’ ” or the like, and I would unabashedly bring it along to the rally and hold it high. Look, if this is a false flag movement and they are just pretending to be on our side, then who would dare to stop me?

This morning I was listening to NHK News from Japan, and they had an international segment featuring the Occupy Wall St. movement in the US.

Unsurprisingly, the people they interviewed said nothing remotely suggesting they were socialist sympathizers, quite the opposite.

I almost fell off my chair when one lady said:

“When Barrack Obama was elected, we assumed that because he was a black man, he would do all he could to help the poor and underprivileged. He has done none of that.”

Yes, yes, I understand Van Jones and ACORN may have ties to the movement.

So what?

When I was in Lancaster, I attended a Tea Party rally and there were some people there who obviously were trying to infiltrate. I suspect they were from ACORN.

Here is what I don’t get: The LEFT infiltrates us all the time and we can see it happening and take it for granted.

Yet if a conservative wants to do the same back to them, all of a sudden, that “taints” us. Funny thing. The Left isn’t “taintable,” but conservatives are? Are we really that weak minded that getting too close to a lefty will rub off on us?

Well, look, if being around a bunch of lefties taints you — that is, influences you — then you are not well enough grounded in your conservatism and your Christian faith to leave your home.

As for me, I say with Paul: I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him against that day.

I mean that with regard to both my Christian faith and my political views. They are intertwined. Jesus’ view on socialism is clearly enunciated in John 6: http://laiglesforum.com/the-religious-left-in-bible-times-part-1/57.htm.

But if you are so timid in your faith and politics, and afraid of being misled by some half-baked Marxists who don’t know even a tenth of what the average conservative knows about history and economics, here is what you need to do:

Don’t ever have anything to do with a leftist. He’ll rub off on you.

Don’t go to town hall meetings and express your views. These meetings are full of lefties. It might rub off.

And don’t take part in surveys, online or off. The other respondents may be leftists. Ooooh, creepy!

Don’t write letters to the editor. The publication in which they are published is probably left of center and you might be thought of as a lefty. What would your conservative friends think of you?

Don’t go to the polls to vote. The polls are full of lefties and might persuade you to pull the wrong lever.

On the other hand, if you know what you believe and why, then go right ahead and attend any meeting or rally you darned well please and let people know how you think. Go ahead and listen to their misguided statements but be prepared to counter them – without fear, without anger, with love. You are dealing with the lost – with the weak, the ignorant. They’re in a much more precarious position than you will ever be. You can be their lighthouse. Why would you want to miss that opporunity? So, assuming you are educated on the issues (don’t try until you are), don’t be afraid to speak your mind and don’t be afraid to hold a poster advertising your view of why America is in a mess. These misguided lefties are the very ones you need to minister to, lovingly, compassionately and in God-given faith and wisdom. The chances are, many, maybe even most, will agree with you by the time you have told them what you think and why.

Consider that one of the main reasons they are in the dark is that conservatives have left them there.

We are the ones who have failed America. It’s time to grow a spine and do our job.

Who owns the movement?

Anwer: Whoever wants it bad enough.

by Don Hank

I caught a lot of flack from my conservative readers over my article suggesting that left and right should come together on the issue of the banking oligarchy. I pointed out that the only president to break the power of the banking elites in America was Andrew Jackson, a democrat, and that ironically, the Tea Party – the antithesis of Democrat ideology – now sounded more like Jackson than any prominent Democrat politicians or writers.

But the elephant in the room was the Occupy Wall Street movement’s apparent link to ACORN, and hence to our far left administration.

I knew about the ACORN link when I wrote the article. In fact, it seems Obama’s favorite Maoist Van Jones also may well be linked to the movement.

All of this is very bad indeed, and there has never been a leftist-organized movement that has been successfully used to the advantage of the right or of constitutionally minded Americans before.

But if my hunch is correct, and if God is with us (or in other words, if we deserve a break in God’s eyes), the Obama camp may be in for a surprise.

You see, there are two separate and opposite narratives going on in this same movement.

The narrative of the group that thought it was in charge is figuring prominently in New York City, blaming Wall Street and capitalism in general, never mind that Big Business is no longer governed by free market capitalist rules but by a series of machinations based on a government-business alliance, known as corporatism (or as fascism by the less charitable).  A perfect example was Apple, headed by the recently deceased Steve Jobs. Around the last elections, about 91% of Jobs’ political donations went to the Democrats, who openly oppose the free market, while the other 9% went to the GOP, which at least pays lip service to the free market. So what does that tell you?

A free market ideology is virtually absent from Big Business today, as though the captains of industry were in a hurry to see their own demise. It is nothing short of surreal.

However, the narrative of the group that is rapidly assuming control of the Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, in Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and elsewhere does indeed support free market principles. Many of these people seem to be coming from Ron Paul’s vast network, and they can be described as independents and libertarians, who, as you know, draw their intellectual sustenance from the free market enthusiasts of the Austrian School, and from Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and the like, and, for whatever faults they may have, they loathe leftist Statism as much as Obama and fellow travelers love it.

According to Asia Times, far from calling for more government intervention to tax the rich, the new (and growing) narrative is a call “to end the banking cartel’s hold on Washington.”

This is a narrative not supported by either party. The GOP likes the corporatism behind the banking oligarchy’s power, which it is desperately trying to continue passing off as “capitalism” and “free market principles.” Likewise, the Democrats like corporatism because it brings money into their private and public coffers with generous donations from corporate fat cats who know that staying on the good side of the Dems will pay big dividends for them, and likewise, that failing to fawn all over these socialists will bring down a torrent of regulator interventions as it did on Gibson Guitar Corp., threatening to drive them out of business.

Probably the last best representatives of free market capitalism are to be found under H in the phone book: Handymen. These men are part of what used to be called the black market in the Soviet Union.

They pay little or no taxes, they hire no one and they are all but invisible to government.

We can only hope that our free market is soon restored to the point that the little guy, including the handyman, can at least dream of working his way into business ownership again, through hard work, creativity, intelligence and a benevolent, laissez-faire government that has no plans either to entangle him in an unholy alliance with it or to squash him like a bug simply for being independent and giving Americans – not Chinese or Mexicans or anyone else — jobs.

There’s a movement out there that started out for the purpose of further destroying sound American economic principles. But in the right hands, this same movement, with a narrative change, could very well bring us back to the free market, over the protests of the hapless left.

It’s ours for the taking.

Is hatred for the Fed erasing the Left-Right divide?

Left and Right vs the banking oligarchs

Are Americans starting to come together?

by Don Hank

The video linked below provides a glimpse of why we are not a free nation, but also, how we can be free if we play our cards right and at least temporarily stop the artificially induced hostilities between Democrat and Republican voters.

Bill Still explains here how the international bank cartel controls our government, just as they do the rest of the world. You and I, on either side of the political divide, no longer have a say in any major decisions.

Remember the first “bailout” bill (TARP), which was signed by Obama and Bush simultaneously on national TV?

That signing was symbolic of the signing away of our sovereignty by both parties, which actually had happened long before that, as marked by the creation of the Fed in 1913.

I recall it as if it were yesterday, that when the TARP bailout was being discussed, congress reported receiving a record number of phone calls and almost all of the callers (of both parties!) begged their legislators not to sign the bill that charged the public with the disastrous policies of bankers and rewarded them for doing the wrong thing.

Yet, despite this almost overwhelming political pressure from the now-disenfranchised American people, the majority of legislators went ahead and passed the bill, proving that their loyalties were not to you, but to shadowy powers higher up.

Bill Still provides the most plausible reason for that incredible dissonance between what we wanted and what the Banking Oligarchy wanted. The banks control the nation and the world, and the banks in fact control the Fed, not the other way around.

But as Bill also shows, there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon. The model for that hope is the State bank of North Dakota, the state with the lowest unemployment and the only State owned bank. It’s not a coincidence.

There is a clue: employment depends on a sound financial and monetary policy.

Here is a brief explanation of the North Dakota state banking system and why it is a model for other states:

http://prorev.com/2009/03/how-north-dakotas-banking-system-could.html

And here is a report on the Utah Monetary Declaration, another attempt to break away from slavery to the Fed:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1168/277/States_to_Financially_Break_Away_from_Federal_Government—Utah_Monetary_Declaration.html

Finally, let me point out something that is absolutely key:

As I have said before, the Oligarchy (Ruling Class) has been able to successfully manipulate the people by cleverly dividing us into two main camps, each with its own vested interests, created by politicians to divert attention from the wizard behind the curtain.

The Republicans created a paradigm to counter the establishment of bank regulations by falsely stating that the banks were part of the free market system and needed “freedom” to operate. If that were actually true, then they would be right, but it was a big lie. As Reagan discovered when he tried deregulation, the banks are guaranteed to a large extent by the Federal government, so they are in some ways immune to failure. That is, a deregulated bank can destroy itself by issuing bad loans, but the government is there to pick up the pieces – by insuring clients at tax payers’ expense. In the Savings and Loans scandal, Reagan had forgotten that fact. He portrayed banks as free market capitalists when in fact they were part of a Private Public Partnership (PPP). So when banks went kaplooey, we the tax payers paid the bill.

So Republicans hate regulations due to a misperception of banks as carriers of sacred capitalism.

On the other hand, Democrats oppose regulations too because they want banks to finance their socialist schemes and this can be best accomplished by unregulated banks in the hands of ideologues dedicated to wealth redistribution – with the proviso that the ideologue bankers get rich implementing it.

By creating and tending these two narratives, the oligarchs have been able to maintain their grip on our finances and money supply.

But now it appears both right and left may be waking up. The treachery isn’t so hard to see now that so many are out of work and people see the huge national debt that will never be paid down.

It was a Democrat president, Andrew Jackson, who broke the backs of the banks, after banking oligarch  Nicholas Biddle brazenly threatened to cause a depression, and then did so, showing that the banks would not shrink from deliberately harming the public to get their way – something they have never ceased doing, acting as a shadow government in the so-called Land of the “Free,” and ultimately bringing down the world economy with the cooperation of both political parties in America and of the EU.

Now, ironically, many Americans who really care about the poor and middle class – beyond mere lip service – are aligned with the Tea Party, and their ideas square perfectly with Democrat Andy Jackson’s. Yet thanks to a strong cognitive dissonance syndrome induced by powerful propaganda efforts, Democrat voters have been trained to shun this group. But, equally ironically, many Democrats support the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is based in part on the proposition of freeing the people from the oligarchs (though with the focus, for example, on race instead of the proposition that all Americans are targeted equally by the Ruling Class).

Thus, in their respective ways, both sides seem to have glimpsed a common enemy, and the old taboos against controlling the banks — taboos on the left and differently-motivated ones on the right — are starting to crack.

If the light should ever go on in the minds of We the People of both parties – and there is no reason to assume it can’t, regardless of the propaganda efforts of both sides of Tyranny – then it will be the bankers’ turn to be afraid.

They will have nowhere to hide.

 

Further reading:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/This-Financial-Mess–Caus-by-Mike-Kirchubel-081227-842.html

“The president of the Second Bank, Nicholas Biddle, was quite candid about the power and intention of the bank when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered.”

Danger ahead — Part I

Diário do Comércio, Olavo de Carvalho

Murdered by fanatical countrymen, Anwar El-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin paid the ultimate price for peace, but the shelf life of the product they purchased is rapidly expiring. Hosni Mubarak’s downfall removes from the scenario one of the few obstacles that have delayed the establishment of the grand Islamic strategic unity designed to establish the Universal Islamic Caliphate, and in so doing, to wipe Israel off the map. A few factors, which the enlightened minds of the usual international commentators cannot even remotely discern, contribute to the rise in danger level of this moment to the nth degree:

The Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological matrix of the revolutionary forces in the Islamic world, may not have given the initial impetus to the rebellion in Egypt, but it is surely the only political organization prepared to take advantage of the chaos and rule the country after Mubarak’s exit. The U.S. government is well aware of this and welcomes the rise of the Brotherhood, proving once again that Barack Hussein Obama has been deliberately working in favor of the enemies of the West. The soothing evasive responses by the State Department in recent days are so contradictory that they amount to a confession of falsehood: first, the Department of State swore that the Brotherhood would remain on the sidelines; then, when it became impossible to continue believing this, it assured us that the Muslim organization had changed, that it had become peaceable and meek as a lamb. Commentators hostile to the government noted that, in turning against Mubarak, Obama was following the example of Jimmy Carter, who, under the same pretext of promoting democracy, helped overthrow an allied government and ended up turning Iran into one of the most fearsome enemies of the United States, a dictatorship a thousand times more repressive than that of the former Shah. The difference, I believe, is that Carter seems to have acted out of sheer stupidity, while it is quite evident that Obama, whose career was sponsored by a Saudi pro-terrorist prince, and whose ties with the radical left are the most compromising you can imagine, is pursuing a rational plan designed to weaken the position of his country in the international context while systematically demolishing the economy at home.

The agricultural policy of the Obama administration seems to have been calculated to foment rebellion. Egypt, a desert country, depends primarily on American wheat, the price of which has risen 70 percent in the last months even as the dollardecreased in value, creating an untenable situation for the Egyptian people. Months earlier, economic analysts warned that the whole thing was about to explode (see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/ 2011/01/31/107813/egypts-unrest-may-have-roots-in.html ).

In other Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen similar rebellions are gradually taking shape, and they are always directed to the same goal: to eliminate pro-Western governments and expand the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. The state of panic that has spread among these governments can be assessed by the fact that, in recent months, they have imported more wheat than ever before, making the life of Egyptians even harder. [End of Part I. To be continued].

Translator: Alessandro Cota, Reviewer: Don Hank

Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is also the founder of the Inter-American Institute. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.