Email This Post Email This Post

Stand Up For Your Rights!

Featured

Thomas Jefferson said the following in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and institute new Government….”

Some say the U.S. was founded on racist principles.  But our founding documents are based on principles of democracy and representative gov’t that originated 2500 years ago in ancient Greece and Rome.  The aspirational principles expressed in our founding documents led to the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and women’s right to vote.  America’s founding principles are timeless, so their relevance is not diminished by the passage of time, technology, or the current culture of corruption.

Like the founders, I believe the Creator, not government, has endowed all human beings with unalienable rights.  Tyrannical governments may be able to restrict the exercise of those rights, but whether slave or free, we still retain our unalienable rights.  So as stated in the Declaration of Independence, people create governments for the purpose of securing their rights.  Since America’s founding, all governments have adopted universally accepted notions of morality, i.e., they have laws prohibiting murder, theft, slavery, etc., but like America, keeping corruption in check is an ongoing challenge.  So the role of government is to provide and enforce a moral framework that secures the unalienable rights of its citizens. 

Legitimate representative government is based on the informed consent of the governed.  But both political parties use spin, a.k.a. fraud, to misinform, divide and disenfranchise otherwise engaged citizens.  This allows a small group of lobbyists and politicians to manufacture a false consent and implement illegitimate policies harmful to America.  Then the same group of deceptive insiders blame misinformed citizens for the problems facing our nation.  This has led to an endless cycle of bipartisan finger pointing where, by design, politicians and lobbyists (superpacs) are not accountable for their actions.  It’s a criminal bipartisan scheme to game the democratic process and eliminate Constitutional checks and balances.  America’s founders recognized the ongoing threat of tyranny, so the Declaration of Independence establishes the right of citizens to abolish governments that fail to secure their unalienable rights.

Bipartisan leaders work together to chip away at our unalienable rights.  Republicans used national security issues to implement the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and warrantless wiretapping.  Democrats use social and environmental issues to continually increase government control over citizens.  They’re like tag team wrestlers, so no matter which party is in power, our freedoms are slowly being taken away.  Some say you can’t fight city hall, but that notion is spread by those who want citizens to give up their rights without a fight.

We admire sports teams who fight to the very end, even if the game appears lost.  Citizens must adopt the same attitude when fighting for unalienable rights.  A never give up attitude enabled Dr. Martin Luther King and his followers to achieve victory.  The founders ended the Declaration of Independence with these words: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.  They understood the price of freedom, and if we want to preserve the rights they fought and died for, we must make a commitment to organize and stand up for our rights.

In order to understand the challenges facing representative governments around the world, current events must be viewed in a historical context, i.e., there have always been, and always will be, corrupt elites who want to enslave the people.  And, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, industrial economies have dominated the global economy because manufacturing generates enormous wealth in the form of jobs, technology and investment.

Bipartisan leaders and their “private” sector cronies prefer dictatorship to representative government so they’ve partnered with China’s communist regime.  By moving much of America’s manufacturing base to China under the guise of free trade, US leaders are subsidizing a totalitarian economic model and selling off the U.S. economy to foreign governments.  The objective of bipartisan leaders is to create a global economy dominated by totalitarian regimes, a.k.a. globalization.  The Wall Street Journal article ”China’s Superior Economic Model”, demonstrates that many US leaders favor China’s totalitarian economic model.

Presidents Bush and Obama have told college students they’re competing with Chinese workers.  But working conditions in Chinese factories are slave like, so how can Americans compete with China without first becoming slaves?  China’s Vice President Xi describes the US/China relationship as a cooperative partnership, and partners don’t compete, they work together to achieve common goals, like bringing China’s totalitarian model to America.  Fortunately, when tyranny occurs we can look to the past for encouragement.  For example, many colonists felt defeating the British Empire was an impossible task.  But before the collapse of every dictatorship, the oppressed thought it would never end, and after the collapse of every dictatorship, they wondered how it lasted as long as it did.

Media propaganda is a serious threat to the unalienable rights of citizens.  It’s used to manufacture a false consent, therefore the powers exercised by our government are unjust and illegitimate.  Without propaganda, Hitler could not have convinced German citizens to follow him into hell, and propaganda, i.e., the fraudulent left/right narrative, is more sophisticated than ever.  Left, right and center media each contain fragments of truth but never connect the dots.  This propaganda technique is called compartmentalization.  It’s used to create factions that facilitate a divide and conquer agenda.  

If citizens want to know where the tyrants have buried the bodies, i.e., the corpse of  America’s prosperous Republic, look behind issues the fraudulent left-right media agree on.  A prime example is globalization and free trade.  Fareed Zakaria has a Sunday show on CNN, which most people consider leftist.  Fareed does a segment each week called “What in the World?“, which recently covered the topic of globalization.  Like right wing media, Fareed extolled the virtues of free trade and globalization, and said the Great Depression was exacerbated by the implementation of protectionist trade polices (tariffs).  But as usual, the facts about free trade and globalization don’t fit the fraudulent media narrative.

Now Obama is calling for fast track trade authority to implement a new “free” trade agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  The following text and next two paragraph are from the previous link.  What’s wrong with fast track?  For most of the past 200 years, Congress negotiated trade policy and wrote the laws to oversee trade, as required in the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.  This power was first transferred to the Executive Office when Nixon was granted Fast Track in 1974 as part of his consolidation of presidential power.  Fast Track expired in 2007

As far as President Obama is concerned, the TPP is entering the home stretch.  All he needs now is for Congress to vote to grant him Fast Track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, and it’s a done deal.   Fast Track would allow the President to sign the TPP before it goes to Congress.  Members of Congress would then have a short time period to hold an up or down vote and would be prohibited from making amendments.  Without Fast Track, which was used to pass NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it is unlikely that the TPP could be signed into law.

The Obama administration has been negotiating the TPP in secret for more than three years.  Unlike past trade agreements, the text of the TPP is classified and members of Congress have restricted access to it.  If they do read the text, they are not allowed to copy it or discuss any specifics of it.  However, more than 600 corporate advisers have direct access to the text on their computers.  The secretive negotiations creating the TPP are a threat to representative government and a usurpation of citizens rights. 

There’s a list of posts at the top right side of the screen, you can click on a topic that interests you or scroll through the posts.  As you read through them, you’ll find information from both sides of the media and political debate.  I’m a conservative, but getting the whole truth requires connecting the bits of truth that exist on both sides of the left/right debate.  There’s quite a bit of information overlap in the various posts because establishing a factual baseline is necessary for countering media spin.  Corrupt elites use media to divide and conquer because they know the pen and keyboard are mightier than the sword.  So the purpose of this website is to connect the dots, arm citizens with accurate information, and create a united citizenry.

Thank you for your interest in the challenges facing our nation.  Albert Einstein said ”The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them and do nothing”.  Stand up for your rights, i.e., use em or lose em!

Email This Post Email This Post

Is America Becoming a Police State?

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.

After the 911 attack, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security gave the Federal government broad powers over State and local police forces.  Ben Franklin said: “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither, and will lose both.”  If you believe the government narrative justifying the exchange of freedom for security, check out my post on terrorism.  The persistent consolidation of power in the Federal government, including the executive branch, is a trend that will result in a dictatorial police state.  The leadership of both political parties support the concept of a unitary executive, which is the ideological basis for the trend toward an imperial presidency.  

Check out this article from the ABA Journal, the legal journal of the American Bar Association.  It raises some important points about the militarization of America’s police force.  I don’t agree with everything it says, but citizens have a duty to inform themselves so they can defend their rights with the facts.  The following are the first three paragraphs of the article.

Are cops constitutional?  In a 2001 article for the Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal, the legal scholar and civil liberties activist Roger Roots posed just that question. Roots, a fairly radical libertarian, believes that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow for police as they exist today. At the very least, he argues, police departments, powers and practices today violate the document’s spirit and intent.  [Roots writes], “Under the criminal justice model known to the framers, professional police officers were unknown,”

The founders and their contemporaries would probably have seen even the early-19th-century police forces as a standing army, and a particularly odious one at that. Just before the American Revolution, it wasn’t the stationing of British troops in the colonies that irked patriots in Boston and Virginia; it was England’s decision to use the troops for everyday law enforcement. This wariness of standing armies was born of experience and a study of history—early American statesmen like Madison, Washington and Adams were well-versed in the history of such armies in Europe, especially in ancient Rome.

If even the earliest attempts at centralized police forces would have alarmed the founders, today’s policing would have terrified them. Today in America SWAT teams violently smash into private homes more than 100 times per day. The vast majority of these raids are to enforce laws against consensual crimes. In many cities, police departments have given up the traditional blue uniforms for “battle dress uniforms” modeled after soldier attire.

Email This Post Email This Post

Is America’s decline the result of globalization?

The term globalization was popularized during the late 90′s in conjunction with the implementation of “free” trade policies.  Free trade is based on the notion there’s nothing exceptional about America, it’s just one nation among many, so we shouldn’t use trade policy to protect our economy and Constitutional liberties.  The architects of free trade want policies that are free from legal and moral Constitutional constraints.  This is a fundamental shift in U.S. trade policy.  In 1789, our founders placed tariffs on textile imports to protect the domestic textile industry from King George III, his private sector cronies, and their predatory monarchist ideology.  From then until the Clinton/Bush free trade policies, protectionist trade policies were instrumental in protecting Constitutional liberties and building the world’s most prosperous manufacturing economy.

John D. Rockefeller said “competition is a sin”.  You can’t have a capitalist market economy without competition, so Rockefeller was advocating for an economy dominated by price fixing cartels, not unlike Communist China.  This Wall Street Journal article titled “China’s Superior Economic Model”, is based on comments by Intel CEO Andy Grove.  Grove said China has “demonstrated that a plan for job creation must be the number one objective of state economic policy.”  This is the socialist rhetoric Republicans claim to oppose while defending trade policies that subsidize Chinese communism.  Oops!

Republicans say they support free markets.  But based on the “free” market, Aramco, a Saudi State owned company owns half of America’s largest refinery, and the governments of China and Qatar are acquiring U.S. based Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) export facilities. Apparently, foreign government ownership of US industry is their definition of a free market.  The Saudis use their stake in Motiva as a market for their crude.  Is it more efficient to ship crude oil from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. instead of using the glut of North American oil?

The point is, free markets have nothing to do with market efficiency or freedom from government intervention.  The term “free market” is a euphemism for managed global markets that serve the strategic interests of monopolistic multinationals their political cronies who reject the notion of sovereign representative governments and unalienable rights.  That ‘s why State owned companies, which are fronts for totalitarian regimes, are given free reign in the imaginary free market.  The Rockefellers of the world prefer China’s command and control economic model, so they implemented free trade policies that have transferred Trillions in investment capital, technology and assets to Communist China.  I consider this treason.

We live in a hostile world governed by the use of force, including the use of economic force.  So the primary purpose of trade protection is not to shield U.S. industry from competition, but to protect our Constitutional freedoms by protecting our economy.  The framers of the Constitution wanted a market economy, not a free market, i.e., a market free from legal and moral Constitutional constraints.  By inserting the Commerce Clause into the Constitution, they made market principles subordinate to the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  But the Commerce Clause is limited.  In his ruling on Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts said the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” but he betrayed the intent of the framers and ruled it a Constitutional tax.

Ronald Reagan did not betray the intent of the founders.  He protected U.S. markets from communist policies, i.e., he did not allow US multinationals to transfer Trillions in investment capital and technology to the Soviet Union because they had cheap labor.  Why not?  Because it would’ve subsidized a communist ideology that threatens our liberties in a democratic, Constitutional Republic.  Did the U.S. economy suffer because Reagan rejected free trade with the Soviet Union.  Of course not.  His philosophy was peace through strength, which meant a strong economy that enabled us to destroy the Soviet Union’s communist ideology.  Likewise, we could destroy China’s communist regime by placing tariffs on Chinese imports.  Anyone who thinks China is not a threat equal to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, should check out this hearing on human rights abuse in China.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, industrial nations have dominated the global economy.  Why?  Because manufacturing generates enormous wealth via capital investment, technology and jobs.  When free trade was being debated in the late 90′s, bipartisan leaders said it would transition America to a “low wage service economy”.  But they didn’t say that transitioning from the world’s largest manufacturing economy, to a low wage service economy, is by definition a radical economic decline.  As indicated in the previous link, countries that manufacture and export more than they import, experience higher growth rates and a higher standard of living.  The same principle applies to business, i.e., businesses that sell (export) more products than they buy (import), are more profitable.

During the 80′s there was concern about America’s ability to compete globally.  Japan was on the rise but we went through corporate downsizing and welfare reforms, and by the mid 90′s, America again dominated the global economy and had balanced the Federal budget.  What “happened”?  Free trade happened.  There’s a direct correlation between free trade, the decline of America, and the rise of Communist China’s command and control economy.  In my opinion, free trade is designed to sell America off to foreign governments run by totalitarian regimes.

Communism, fascism and monarchies are all examples of totalitarian regimes.  The American Revolution was fought to free America from the chains of the British monarchy.  But the domestic fight against totalitarian ideologies didn’t end with the Revolution.  America’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, was a leader of the Federalist Party, which wanted a strong central gov’t similar to a monarchy.  Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, adamantly opposed the Federalist agenda, i.e., a strong central government and central bank (like the Fed) which would infringe on the rights of States and individuals.  Unfortunately, the Federalist vision for America, which includes free trade, is dominating American politics.  Check out the section on “Monetary Policy” in the PDF Knowledge is Power.

The U.S. military has also been globalized, i.e., it no longer protects the interests of the U.S. domestic economy or Constitutional principles, it protects the interests of global corporations and politicians that prefer China’s totalitarian economic model.  Many people believe the Iraq war was about oil, and for the most part it was.  But much of Iraq’s oil is going to China.  So the U.S. military was used to subsidize Chinese communism by securing Iraqi oil.  Meanwhile, Wall Street lobbies for Cap and Trade which limits America’s ability to use it’s lowest cost and most abundant energy resources.  The resulting higher energy costs will harm America’s ability to compete globally and creates incentives to export U.S. fossil fuels.

CNBC reported that Afghanistan is the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”, and Chinese State Owned Entities (SOE’s) have started mining in Afghanistan.  Coincidentally, China is one of the largest manufacturers of lithium batteries for electric cars.  And the plan is to build large banks of lithium batteries to store the intermittent energy produced by wind and solar farms.  So Afghanistan is our first war for “clean” energy and American blood and treasure are subsidizing China’s booming manufacturing economy.  US political and business leaders should be prosecuted for aiding the enemy.

The subprime bubble masked the catastrophic economic effects of free trade, but now we’re seeing the harsh reality of a low wage service economy come into focus.  Municipalities, States and the Federal government have made promises based on revenues from an industrial economy, and they will not be able to keep those promises.  Bankrupting the world’s most powerful democratic republic is what the architects of free trade intended.  They’re ideologically opposed to market economies and representative government. Free trade, a.k.a. globalization, was an opportunity to achieve a bloodless coup d’etat and create a global command and control economy.

Patriotic Americans should oppose free trade policies that are transitioning America from the world’s most prosperous manufacturing economy, to a low wage service economy.  Conservatives recognize Obamacare as a fundamental transformation of America, which it is.  But America’s transformation is a bipartisan agenda beginning with the Clinton/Bush free trade agreements.  Followed by the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NSA wiretapping, mandates for clean energy, amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, and gun control, which are all part of America’s incremental transformation to a totalitarian system.

These policies are part of a forced transition from a democratic market economy, to a tyrannical command and control economy.  The fraudulent left vs. right narrative is part of a divide and conquer strategy, and is a key part of the tyrannical agenda.  Homeland Security and the Patriot Act will be used to control citizens opposed to the economic decline caused by Clinton/Bush free trade policies, Obama’s policies, and financial sector tyranny.

If citizens want to know where the tyrants have buried the bodies, i.e., the corpse of  America’s prosperous democratic republic, look behind issues the fraudulent left/right media agree on.  A prime example is globalization and free trade.  Fareed Zakaria has a Sunday show on CNN, which most people consider leftist.  Fareed does a segment each week called “What in the World?“, which recently covered the topic of globalization.  Like right wing media, Fareed extolled the virtues of free trade and globalization, and said the Great Depression was exacerbated by the implementation of protectionist trade polices (tariffs).  But as usual, the facts don’t fit the media’a fraudulent narrative.

Some say the electronic trinkets produced in China would be too expensive if manufactured in America.  But virtual slave labor has always existed in foreign countries, and before free trade, America’s economy thrived without exploiting cheap labor abroad.  Many leaders say government should be run more like a business.  Well, multinational corporations spend billions implementing policies that PROTECT their market share and global competitiveness.  They even engage in corporate espionage to gain competitive advantages that US leaders give away via free trade.

Businesses don’t engage in anything remotely resembling free trade.  Why?   Because providing the competition with capital and technology guarantees failure.   Doing so would cause shareholders to demand criminal prosecution of the Board of Directors and top officers, which is what should be done to politicians who have intentionally traded away America’s economic future.   Manufacturing is the engine of economic growth, so outsourcing manufacturing in exchange for cheap trinkets is like the Native Americans selling their sovereignty for beads and blankets.

American history teaches the concept of manifest destiny.  But how many fur traders, homesteaders and gold miners were thinking about manifest destiny when they moved West?   Few if any, they didn’t even know what the phrase meant.  Manifest destiny is the language of ruling class elites, i.e. merchant bankers and industrialists.  They moved common folk across the American West like pawns on a chess board.  Ruling class elites wanted conflict with the Indians so they could call in the cavalry and manifest their destiny.

The new frontiers for today’s ruling class are Communist China and emerging markets.  Free trade is preparing the way for the global cavalry and final phase of manifest destiny.  For all intents and purposes, US financial elites and industrialists have seceded from the Union.  They’ve allied themselves with China’s totalitarian regime and are engaged in economic terrorism against the United States.  Media and politicians support this treasonous alliance and they exploit class and race divisions as part of a divide and conquer agenda.  They want divided Americans to blame each other and fight over the economic crumbs left behind by free trade and the financial crisis.  We’re all Indians now.

Now Obama is calling for fast track trade authority to implement a new “free” trade agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  The following text and next two paragraphs are excerpts from the previous link.  What’s wrong with fast track?  For most of the past 200 years, Congress negotiated trade policy and wrote the laws to oversee trade, as required in the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.  This power was first transferred to the Executive Office when Nixon was granted Fast Track in 1974 as part of his consolidation of presidential power.  Fast Track expired in 2007.

As far as President Obama is concerned, the TPP is entering the home stretch.  All he needs now is for Congress to vote to grant him Fast Track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, and it’s a done deal.  Fast Track would allow the President to sign the TPP before it goes to Congress.  Members of Congress would then have a short time period to hold an up or down vote and would be prohibited from making amendments.  Without Fast Track, which was used to pass NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it is unlikely that the TPP could be signed into law

The Obama administration has been negotiating the TPP in secret for more than three years.  Unlike past trade agreements, the text of the TPP is classified and members of Congress have restricted access to it.  If they do read the text, they are not allowed to copy it or discuss any specifics of it.  However, more than 600 corporate advisers have direct access to the text on their computers.  Sachie Mizohata writes in Asia Times, “The TPP is a Trojan horse, branded as a free trade agreement, but having nothing to do with fair and equitable treatment.  In reality, it is precisely a wish list of the 1% – a worldwide corporate power.”

Global elites creating a New World Order sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory.  But President Obama, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, George H.W. Bush, and other world leaders have publicly stated that their objective is a “new world order”.  What does that mean?  Given the decline of America in conjunction with globalization, world leaders talking of a new world order warrants serious consideration.

The link below has a clip of Charlie Rose interviewing Henry Kissinger about globalization.  They specifically talked about the “new world order” as a shift of power and economic growth from the West to the East, i.e., China.  There’s also video of George H.W. Bush saying, on six different occasions, his objective is a “new world order.”   And there’s a clip of UK Primer Minister Gordon Brown declaring a “new world order”.  The video also explains the Federal Reserve’s use of debt to enslave citizens and ends with Biblical predictions of a nuclear holocaust.  Much of the video is subjective, but the fact remains that many world leaders acknowledge their objective is a New World Order (NWO).

The first three minutes of Fall of the Republic illustrates President Obama’s role in creating a new world order.  This link is a Charlie Rose interview with Jim O’Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.  Mr. O’Neill takes credit for coining the term BRIC, which refers to the emerging markets Brazil, Russia, India and China.  The emerging markets represent a NWO led by China’s totalitarian regime.  George Soros says China must be brought into the “new world order” and its currency will replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

In the NWO video, Henry Kissinger used the word globalization to describe the mechanism by which the world is being reordered.  And he emphasized the fact that new global rules are designed to pick winners and losers.  The West, and the U.S. in particular, have been picked to lose. Jim O’Neill also makes this clear in his interview with Charlie Rose.  The winners are totalitarian regimes like Communist China.

After World War II Germany was a pile of rubble, literally.   Sixty years later they’re the strongest economy in the West.  They pay high wages, have a high standard of living, have a low debt to GDP ratio, and are able to compete with communist china.  This is because they protect their economy and manufacturing base.  Don’t buy the lie that America cannot do the same.

The founders ended the Declaration of Independence with these words: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.  Our founding fathers and mothers understood the price of freedom, and if we are going to preserve the representative government they fought and died for, we must be willing to commit time and resources to reverse the policies of globalization.  Another interesting source is the book Godonomics, which illustrates the Biblical principles behind private property rights and market economies based on moral principles.

Email This Post Email This Post

Framing the Financial Crisis

During the 1980′s and 90′s, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund made loans contingent upon a nation’s ability to uphold the rule of law.  These financial institutions defined lawless nations as those where financial elites had achieved exemption from the rule of law and created a culture of corruption.  This post contains evidence that US financial elites and their bipartisan cronies have achieved exemption the rule of law.  The resulting culture of corruption is evident to all who’ve been paying attention.  For those who think this post is a leftist attack on Wall Street bankers, you should know that the CEO’s of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are registered Democrats.  And based on the following information, they are hardcore socialists.

The Congressional Budget Office says it will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion to prop up banks after the 2008 financial crisis.  Some politicians say the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) caused the crisis because it forced banks to make home loans to poor people.  But most of the subprime loans were originated by lenders exempt from the CRA.  Simon Johnson is a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund and a current member of the CBO council of advisers.  He wrote a book titled “13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown”.  He was on CSPAN’s Book TV giving a presentation and said the six largest banks have “captured the State” and have power to “extort” money from government.

President of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, Thomas Hoenig, gave a speech on Obama’s finance reform (Dodd-Frank).  He and said it didn’t eliminate the threat of future Wall Street bailouts, and Too Big To Fail banks are “inconsistent with the concept of capitalism.”  Mr. Hoenig is calling for the reinstatement of Glass Steagall as a means to break up big banks and reduce the threat of future bailouts.  Glass Steagall was enacted in 1934 in order to curb bank speculation that caused the 1929 market crash and Great Depression.  However, President Clinton repealed Glass Steagall in 1999.  It only took nine years to repeat the crash of 1929 and Great Recession.  During a Congressional hearing,  Rep. Brad Sherman said Dodd-Frank’s Resolution Authority gives the Executive Branch (Obama) authority to spend Trillions on future Wall Street bailouts, without a Congressional vote.  This eliminates one of our core Constitutional rights, i.e., no taxation without representation.  Contact your Senators and Representatives and demand the reinstatement of Glass Steagall.

Presidents Bush and Obama said the 2008 financial crisis was unforseen and could not have been prevented.  They lied.  Phil Angelides was Chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which concluded the crisis was preventable.  Listen to 7 minutes of Chairman Angelides speech starting at 7min/55sec.  Then watch the PBS documentary The Warning for more back story.  The Warning  demonstrates that the policies of Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan laid the foundation for the financial crisis.  And President Bush went along with Greenspan’s deregulation of underwriting standards that created Trillions of dollars of home mortgages, without proof of income, job, or assets.  Oops!  Greenspan admitted his flawed ideology contributed to the crisis, but now the Fed is praised for it’s QE to infinity, which is an ongoing Wall Street bailout.

After watching The Warning, watch CNBC’s House of Cards.  It’s important to remember that many Wall Street banks were buying  subprime mortgages on the secondary market, not lending to homeowners who couldn’t repay their loans.  No government agency forced Wall Street banks to buy worthless loans, securitize them, leverage them 50 to 1, and sell them around the world with fraudulent Triple A ratings.  CNBC’s House of Cards demonstrates that ratings agencies used fraudulent computer models to rate junk securities as Triple A.  The models were inherently fraudulent because they were based on the notion that house prices would increase 6% per year, forever.  Oops!

President Obama said Wall Street’s actions leading up to the financial crisis were “legal”.  He lied.  William Black was Deputy Director of the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation during the 1980′s financial crisis.  He helped obtain a 1000 criminal convictions of “elite” bankers.  Mr. Black says public losses from the 2008 financial crisis are “70 times greater” than the Savings and Loan meltdown, but despite compelling evidence demonstrating Wall Street fraud, there have been few criminal prosecutions.

During this radio interview he makes a compelling  case for criminal prosecution of Wall Street bankers.  Black said in 2004, the FBI testified before Congress about an epidemic of mortgage fraud and predicted it would cause a financial crisis.  In 2006, all major lenders were warned that “liars loans” had a 90% incidence of fraud.  But the mortgage industry increased subprime lending to the point that 1 in 3 loans were liars loans when the bubble burst in 2008.  Mr. Black said this constitutes one million cases of fraud per year by the industry. The statute of limitations has not expired, so email his interview to your personal attorney, local prosecutor, Sheriff, State Attorney General, and U.S. Attorney.

The interview with Mr. Black includes securities law expert Lynn Stout, who disagreed with Black’s position on the prosecution of bankers.  She wrote an article explaining the role of derivatives in the financial crisis.  It’s fairly short, requires little knowledge of financial markets, and provides important information regarding the prevention of another derivatives related meltdown.  If you watch The Warning, listen to the interview with William Black, read Ms. Stout’s article, and watch this short clip on naked credit default swaps, you’ll have a solid understanding of the financial crisis.  The clip is Michael Greenberger, former director of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).   Greenberger and Stout explain how a 200 year old British common law regulating derivatives can help prevent another crisis.

Neil Barofsky was Special Inspector General for TARP, the 700 billion dollar bailout program.  Regarding the nine largest banks, he said “it didn’t matter if they were cooking the books on their balance sheets, Treasury was giving them money anyway, in fact, if they had even larger holes on their balance sheets due to FRAUD, that would’ve been only more reason for Treasury to give them money.”  Mr. Barofsky had spent the prior eight years prosecuting bank fraud, and when he made the statement about Wall Street fraud, he did not qualify it by saying alleged fraud.  And yet, Obama’s Justice Department has not prosecuted a single executive of the nine largest banks.  During debate over TARP, Rep. Marcy Kaptur said ”high financial crimes have been committed…these criminals have so much political power, they can shut down the normal legislative process of the highest law making body of this land.”

Rep. Brad Sherman led a bipartisan revolt against the TARP bailout bill because much of the money was going to foreign banks.  During an interview on CNBC, he said ”the bank of Shanghai can transfer all of its toxic assets to the Bank of Shanghai in Los Angeles, its subsidiary, which can sell them the next day to the Treasury”.  He continued saying “foreign markets are being told they are getting the money….assets now held in China and London can be sold to U.S. entities on Monday and sold to the Treasury on Tuesday”.  During debate in the House, Sherman said some members were told the U.S. would be placed under martial law if TARP was not passed.  Sounds like extortion to me.

The banks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed to fail.  They were holding 6.3 TRILLION of toxic assets and liabilities when they collapsed and were dumped on taxpayers in 2008.  The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) investigated the collapse of Fannie and Freddie.  Commissioner Byron Georgiou said both institutions were “cooking the books”, and lobbyists on both sides of the isle protected the banks while they engaged in illegal activities.  The FCIC concluded: 1) the financial crisis was preventable.  2) Regulators looked the other way rather than take action to prevent the crisis.  3) Big banks took irresponsible risks and taxpayers are stuck with bill.

In order to cover up the cost of toxic assets dumped on taxpayers and Trillions still held by banks, Congress pressured the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to relax mark to market rules.  These rules were put in place after Enron’s collapse and require large companies to mark balance sheet assets to current market value.  But now, the relaxed rules allow gov’t and banks to falsify the value of toxic assets on their balance sheet.  Small business owners would be charged with fraud for engaging in similar accounting practices.

Desmond Lachman is a former Deputy Director of the International Monetary Fund.  He said, ”if the Federal Reserve balance sheet is marked to market, the Fed would have an enormous negative position”.  Systemic fraud is the new accounting standard for government and Wall Street.  Political leaders say cutting spending is a priority for restoring fiscal soundness.  But if my accountant is cooking the books and embezzling from my business, I can cut  spending to zero and still go bankrupt.  So the first priority is holding Wall Street and bipartisan criminals accountable, then cut spending. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) did a partial audit of the Federal Reserve’s response to the financial crisis.  It revealed that 16 TRILLION has been lent at near 0% interest, much of it to foreign banks, meanwhile, the U.S. economy is starved of capital and investment.  The link will get you to Table 8 on page 131 of the GAO report.  The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: 1) Price stability  2) Full employment.  These mandates apply specifically to the domestic U.S. economy, not the global economy.  But as noted in the following paragraph, the Bank of International Settlements says US banks are one of the largest providers of credit to foreign markets like China.

Investors Business Daily ran an article saying ”…despite the commitment of nearly 20 TRILLION in taxpayer funds to prevent another crisis, lending has stalled or shrunk”.  But that’s only half the story.  The other half is, while bailed out banks are starving the U.S. economy of capital, they’re lending to emerging markets.  George Soros was on CNBC and cited data from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), he said US and EU banks are the largest supplier of credit to emerging markets like China.  So bailed out banks are financing Communist China’s 8% GDP growth while U.S. growth is near zero and the real unemployment rate is 15.1%.  

President Obama never mentions the 8.6 Trillion needed to prop up failing banks.  Why?  According to Open Secrets, Wall Street is one of his biggest campaign contributors.  And in return, Wall Street has never had it better, the stock market has nearly tripled in value while economic growth is stagnant.  The Fed’s money printing (QE) policies are driving up the stock market, but it also devalues the dollar so our dollars are worth less, which means we pay more for goods and services.  Economists define this inflation as a tax, so when the Fed purchases 40 Billion per month of toxic mortgage backed securities to prop up Wall Street banks, it’s really a tax.  President Obama and the Fed’s policies have dramatically increased income inequality in America, and the top 1% have never had it better.   So the Democrats alleged desire to reverse this trend demonstrates their grotesque hypocrisy.

President Obama and bipartisan leaders say economic policies are intended to grow the domestic economy.  But it’s not growing.  Is this just another oops moment?  Of course not.  US policies are designed to subsidize the global economy, a.k.a., globalization.  Why?  Bipartisan and corporate leaders prefer China’s totalitarian model.  Evidence of this can be found in a Wall Street Journal article titled China’s Superior Economic Model.  The article is written by Andy Stern, former President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the premise of the article was based on comments by Andy Grove, founder and Chairman of Intel.

Congressman Brad Sherman was Chairman of the House Foreign Relations subcommittee on trade.  During a CSPAN interview, he said US trade with China is “the most unbalanced trade relationship in the history of international trade”, and this “cancerous” trade relationship is driven by “enormous corporate power”.   Mr. Sherman forgot to mention union leaders like Andy Stern who also prefer China’s totalitarian economic model.  Under the guise of free trade, US leaders are transferring American capital, technology and jobs to China as a means to subvert America’s representative government.

Rep. Sherman also talked about trade deficits resulting from trade with China, and the effect on the U.S. debt.  He said, ”you have to have some really bad policies to take the most productive nation in the world with the best workforce, and I mean the United States, and turn it into the greatest debtor nation in history.  And by God, we’ve had bad trade policies that have achieved that objective.”  It’s worth noting that Rep. Sherman used the word “objective” when describing the catastrophic effects of free trade.  Even Warren Buffet said trade deficits are changing America from a shareholder economy to a sharecropper economy, where foreigners own us and we work for them.  Free trade and globalization are an attack on U.S. sovereignty and unalienable rights.  Contact your elected officials and tell them so.

Wall Street and their bipartisans cronies have structured the global economy (globalization) in a way that subsidizes China with U.S. capital and technology.  The decline in growth resulting from free trade and de-industrialization was masked by the subprime bubble.  Given a 2003 warning that Fannie and Freddie posed a systemic risk to financial markets, and the 2004 FBI warning that mortgage fraud would cause a financial crisis, it’s difficult to believe financial and political leaders did not foresee the crisis.  It’s possible the subprime bubble was intentionally created to cover up the economic contraction caused by free trade and outsourcing.  When the bubble burst, average citizens were blamed for living beyond their means and the structural decline resulting from free trade wasn’t even mentioned.

Some say the electronic trinkets produced in China would be too expensive if manufactured in America.  But virtual slave labor has always existed in foreign countries, and before free trade, America’s economy thrived without exploiting cheap labor abroad.  Many leaders say government should be run more like a business.  Well, multinational corporations spend billions implementing policies that PROTECT their market share and global competitiveness.  They even engage in corporate espionage to gain competitive advantages that US leaders give away via free trade.

Businesses don’t engage in anything remotely resembling free trade.  Why?   Because providing the competition with capital and technology guarantees failure.   Doing so would cause shareholders to demand criminal prosecution of the Board of Directors and top officers, which is what should be done to politicians who have intentionally traded away America’s economic future.   Manufacturing is the engine of economic growth, so outsourcing manufacturing in exchange for cheap trinkets is like the Native Americans selling their sovereignty for beads and blankets.

American history teaches the concept of manifest destiny.  But how many fur traders, homesteaders and gold miners were thinking about manifest destiny when they moved West?   Few if any, they didn’t even know what the phrase meant.  Manifest destiny is the language of ruling class elites, i.e. merchant bankers and industrialists.  They moved common folk across the American West like pawns on a chess board.  Ruling class elites wanted conflict with the Indians so they could call in the cavalry and manifest their destiny.

The new frontiers for today’s ruling class are Communist China and emerging markets.  Free trade is preparing the way for the global cavalry and final phase of manifest destiny.  For all intents and purposes, US financial elites and industrialists have seceded from the Union.  They’ve allied themselves with China’s totalitarian regime and are engaged in economic terrorism against the United States.  Media and politicians support this treasonous alliance and they exploit class and race divisions as part of a divide and conquer agenda.  They want divided Americans to blame each other and fight over the economic crumbs left behind by free trade and the financial crisis.  We’re all Indians now.

During a hearing on Dodd-Frank’s Resolution Authority, Republican Don Manzullo said it’s a safety net for “you guys that screw up on Wall Street”.  Economist Jeffery Miron replied saying the Resolution Authority is a “blank check” for future bailouts, and it will  “institutionalize TARP” for bank holding companies.  Dodd-Frank gives the F.D.I.C. resolution authority.  The FDIC is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch so future bailouts can be made without Congressional approval.  The Constitution states that all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, the branch of government most accountable to the people.  So allowing the executive branch to spend Trillions without Congressional approval violates a core Constitutional principle, no taxation without representation.  

The 2014 budget is another example of taxation without representation because bipartisan members of Congress admitted they didn’t read the bill.  If they’re not reading spending bills, they cannot be representing the interests of their constituents, i.e., taxation without representation.  The following text and next paragraph are from an article in USA TODAY:  The nearly 1,600-page spending bill includes all 12 of the individual annual spending bills packaged into a $1.012 trillion “omnibus” spending bill.  The bill will have gone from unveiling to law in just six days, while the normal appropriations process is structured to take months and allow for more lawmaker input.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., holding up the thick bill on the House floor, criticized the House for voting on a bill “that nobody has read.”  McGovern cited a concern held by lawmakers in both parties that the details of the omnibus are likely to trickle out after the bill has become law.  ”I’m willing to bet in a week or so we’re going to read an article about something being in the bill that nobody knew about,”.  Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, characterized the bill as a “monstrosity.”  She said ”while Americans suffer the consequences of Obamacare, Congress is trying to rush through another massive bill before reading it,”

The premise of our founding documents is equality before the law, not equality of income or outcome.  America is a nation of laws, not a nation of women and men who can impose their tyrannical aspirations on sovereign citizens.  Criminal elites have created a legal double standard and placed themselves above the law.  This was the fundamental problem facing American colonists before the Revolution.  Thomas Jefferson addressed this problem in the Declaration of Independence, which was a criminal indictment of King George that provided a moral and legal basis for the Revolution.  The founders ended with these words: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.  They understood the price of freedom, and if we are going to preserve the rule of law they fought and died for, we must be willing to commit time and resources to restore the rule of law. 

This website provides evidence for a criminal indictment of US leaders, however, I’m not advocating for armed rebellion as a remedy.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights are still the law of the land, and the law is on the side of “We the People” who believe in unalienable individual rights.  We need to create a groundswell of support that will force our public prosecutors to take legal action against criminal elites.  Media and politicians cover up the effect of the financial crisis on the national debt.  Check out the post Fraud and the Federal Debt for evidence of the cover up.  Use the evidence compiled in the website, share it with your friends, business associates, local prosecutor, Sheriff, State Attorney General and U.S. Attorney.

For the whole non-partisan story about the manufactured decline of America, click on the PDF file Knowledge is Power.  Another interesting source is the book Godonomics, which illustrates the Biblical principles behind private property rights and market economies based on moral principles.

Email This Post Email This Post

The Boston Tea Party, it wasn’t just about taxes

The following text is from the World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1969:       The Boston Tea Party was a raid by American colonists on three British ships in Boston Harbor on Dec. 16, 1773.  A band of citizens disguised as Indians threw the contents of 340 chests of tea into the bay.  This was one of the incidents that led to the Revolutionary War in America.

Many colonists were determined not to pay taxes to the British government.  Formerly, the tax on tea imported from England was so high that the colonists usually drank smuggled Dutch tea.  In 1767, the British decided to levy a lower duty of three pence a pound on tea, and to collect it.  More people bought the cheaper tea, but independence groups agitated for tax removal.

In 1773, the British government allowed the British East India Company a substantial tax rebate on tea shipped to America, to keep it from bankruptcy.  Soon tea was on its way to Boston, consigned to individuals who were given a monopoly on its sale.  Colonists feared the tea monopoly would put local merchants out of business, and that other retail businesses might also be made into monopolies.  (end of excerpt)

The King of England had given the British East India Company a monopoly on the sale of tea, so this, as well as taxation without representation, was a major factor leading to the Revolutionary War.  It’s clear our founding fathers viewed the tyranny of private sector monopolies, backed by the British government, as a threat to their liberty and prosperity.  As a conservative, I believe market capitalism provides the greatest amount of freedom for American citizens to conduct business.  But a market that’s “free” to create monopolies that can buy judges, politicians and elections, and eliminate competitive markets to the detriment of our nation, is a betrayal of the men and women who’ve fought and died for American ideals.

The American economy grew rapidly during the first 100 years and soon monopolies like Rockefeller’s Standard Oil began to threaten competitive markets.  Many corporations formed trusts that controlled market prices and destroyed competition.  Farmers and small businessmen demanded government protection from monopolies and trusts.  The Sherman Antitrust Act, fulfilling one of President Harrison’s campaign pledges, outlawed trusts or any other monopolies that hindered trade.  Fast forward to 2014, and the U.S. economy is again being controlled by government backed monopolies, a.k.a. Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks.  The Congressional Budget Office says it will cost taxpayers 8.6 TRILLION to prop up failing banks.

Most people have heard of the Supreme Court decision involving Citizens United.  Citizens United is a political action committee (superpac), that argued their campaign donations equate to free speech, so they should be allowed to buy and sell elected officials with unlimited campaign contributions.  The Court ruled in their favor, but this violates the Spirit of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were created to protect the unalienable rights of individual citizens, not lobbying groups like Citizens United.  This website is named Citizens United in order to reflect the true meaning of the words as intended by our founders.

After the American Revolution, corporations remained small institutions chartered at the state level for specific purposes.  By law, they could not make political contributions, could not own stock in other companies, were required to serve the public interest, and could only exist for a limited time.  And owners were responsible for losses and crimes committed by the corporation.  Robber barons like John D. Rockefeller led efforts to change laws requiring corporate owners to serve the public interest and be liable for losses and crimes.  The founders protected unalienable rights of individual citizens by limiting the power of corporations.  Click here for a brief history of corporations in the United States. 

The core problem is campaign financing.  The founders did not confer Constitutional rights and citizenship on businesses, only individual human beings.  But today, unions and corporations, including foreign state owned corporations, have been given 1st amendment free speech rights.  Restoring the founders interpretation of “one person, one vote” should be a top priority.  We need to strip unions and corporations of all Constitutional rights because even foreign corporations, owned by foreign governments, have increasing influence over U.S. elections.  This is due to new campaign finance rules put in place by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

Those who defend the perverted notion of corporate citizenship say they’re made up of individuals.  First of all, union and corporate leaders who make decisions about campaign contributions, do not necessarily reflect the intentions of individual members and employees.  Second, if unions and corporations were stripped of all Constitutional rights pertaining to campaign contributions and lobbying, individual members and employees would retain all their Constitutional rights.  In fact, their rights would be enhanced because they wouldn’t be competing with organizations that may not share their political views, and may not even be loyal to the United States.  Thanks to corporate citizenship, we have free trade agreements that are selling America off to Communist China.  A recent example is America’s largest pork processor, Smithfield Foods, which was sold to a Chinese State owned company.

President Obama’s finance reform, Dodd-Frank, was supposed to eliminate future bailouts of TBTF banks.  But in true Orwellian fashion, it did just the opposite.  Democrat Brad Sherman said it gives the executive branch authority to spend Trillions on future Wall Street bailouts, without Congressional approval.  This is accomplished by Dodd-Frank’s Resolution Authority, the part of the bill that institutionalizes TARP and provides Wall Street with a blank checkF.Y.I., most of the original 700 billion TARP bailout went to foreign banks.  Politicians say banks and AIG paid back bailout money and taxpayers made a profit.  Technically it’s true, but they’re getting near zero percent money from the Fed, so in reality, bailout money was paid back with taxpayer money.  And the Fed’s QE3 is buying 40 Billion per month of toxic mortgage backed securities from Wall Street banks, so the bailout continues.

Simon Johnson is a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund.  He’s currently a member of the Congressional Budget Office council of advisers and professor of entrepreneurship at MIT.   In a Senate Budget Committee hearing, he cited JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who’ve said they expect another financial crisis in 3 to 7 years.  Based on their prediction, Johnson said Too Big To Fail banks represent a short term budget liability equal to 40% of GDP (5.6 Trillion), and CBO rules require this be scored in the budget.   Ranking Republican Judd Gregg replied “We don’t score a lot of things around here.”  In other words, they’re cooking the government’s books.

During a presentation on his book 13 Bankers, Johnson said the few hundred people who run the six largest banks have “captured the state” and have power to “extort” money from the government.   Rep. Sherman said members of Congress were told the U.S. would be placed under martial law if TARP wasn’t passed.  Sounds like extortion to me.  During debate over TARP, Rep. Marcy Kaptur said ”high financial crimes have been committed, these criminals have so much political power, they can shut down the normal legislative process of the highest law making body in this land.”   Wall Street tyrants and their bipartisan cronies have eliminated one of our core Constitutional principles, no taxation without representation.

The 2014 Federal budget is a prime example of taxation without representation.  The following text and next paragraph are from an article in USA TODAY:  The nearly 1,600-page spending bill includes all 12 of the individual annual spending bills packaged into a $1.012 trillion “omnibus” spending bill.  The bill will have gone from unveiling to law in just six days, while the normal appropriations process is structured to take months and allow for more lawmaker input.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., holding up the thick bill on the House floor, criticized the House for voting on a bill “that nobody has read.”  McGovern cited a concern held by lawmakers in both parties that the details of the omnibus are likely to trickle out after the bill has become law.  ”I’m willing to bet in a week or so we’re going to read an article about something being in the bill that nobody knew about,”.  Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, characterized the bill as a “monstrosity.”  She said ”while Americans suffer the consequences of Obamacare, Congress is trying to rush through another massive bill before reading it,”

If representatives aren’t reading spending bills, they’re not representing the interests of their constituents, i.e., taxation without representation.  American citizens are being subjected to tyrannical conditions similar to the pre-revolutionary colonies.   King George III had given the British East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade to save it from bankruptcy.  Taxes were used to extract wealth from the colonies and grow other parts of the British empire.  Now, the US government and it’s corporate partners are extracting wealth from America and subsidizing China’s totalitarian regime.  Multinational corporations and unions prefer the centrally planned, communist economic model.  I consider this treason.

When enough citizens are empowered with the truth, it will be possible to restore representative government.  This was true when our nation was founded.  Without publications like ”Common Sense” by Thomas Paine and others, our founders would not have had the groundswell of support  necessary for revolution.  The first step toward liberty is informing the public.  Knowledge is power.  For more info and solutions, check the post on globalization.  Another interesting source is the book Godonomics, which illustrates the Biblical principles behind private property rights and market economies based on moral principles.

Email This Post Email This Post

Did CNN say Obama is a dictator and his policies are ruining America’s economy?

Fareed Zakaria has a show on CNN called “GPS”, and each week he does a segment called “What in the world?”.  On November 17,  2013, this segment was about “How to ruin an economy”.  Fareed went through the following checklist of policies that will ruin a nation’s economy:

  • Nationalize businesses
  • Create hyperinflation
  • Induce a currency crisis
  • Subsidize, subsidize, subsidize
  • Create a dictatorship

The segment was actually about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and his successor.  But the parallels with Obama’s policies are undeniable and it’s possible CNN was using the segment as subtle criticism of Obama’s failing policies.

It’s important to remember that, in the past, the socialist policies of Hugo Chavez were held in high regard by CNN and other left leaning networks.  So on the surface, this criticism of Venezuelan socialism might indicate an ideological shift by CNN.  But I wouldn’t bank on it.

Regarding Obama the dictator, it’s a historical fact that dictatorial regimes can only take power when there’s support from financial elites.  Propagandists on the left say big government is good and big business is bad.  Propagandists on the right say the opposite, i.e., big business is good and big government is bad.  But history proves that dictatorial regimes are almost always the result of a public-private partnership involving big government and big business.

The 2014 budget is an example of the same tyranny faced by pre-revolutionary colonists, i.e., taxation without representation.  The following text and next paragraph are from an article in USA TODAY:  The nearly 1,600-page spending bill includes all 12 of the individual annual spending bills packaged into a $1.012 trillion “omnibus” spending bill.  The bill will have gone from unveiling to law in just six days, while the normal appropriations process is structured to take months and allow for more lawmaker input.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., holding up the thick bill on the House floor, criticized the House for voting on a bill “that nobody has read.”  McGovern cited a concern held by lawmakers in both parties that the details of the omnibus are likely to trickle out after the bill has become law.  ”I’m willing to bet in a week or so we’re going to read an article about something being in the bill that nobody knew about,”.  Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, characterized the bill as a “monstrosity.”  She said ”while Americans suffer the consequences of Obamacare, Congress is trying to rush through another massive bill before reading it,”

If representatives aren’t reading spending bills, there’s no way they can be representing the interests of their constituents, which means there is no representation for taxation.

Email This Post Email This Post

The Ethanol Debacle

President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act into law in 2005.  The law mandated the creation of artificial markets for biofuels like ethanol, as well wind and solar farms.  Energy independence is the purported objective, but Senator Coburn recently said Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) may force two Oklahoma refineries to shut down.  He went on to say “we’ve got a regulation out there that’s actually going to kill our ability to provide gasoline to the country”. 

Ethanol proponents say the industry is not subsidized but the facts indicate otherwise.  Refiners are forced to blend ethanol with gasoline and have to purchase credits (RINs) if they don’t.  According to this article, RINs “operate as a flexible subsidy for biofuel producers and are paid for by U.S. refiners.”  And the refiners total cost of compliance in 2013 is 19.6 Billion dollars.  The cost of compliance is under the heading “Ethanol’s costs are the refiner’s tax”.  This cost is passed onto consumers at the pump, and it will increase if the EPA forces refiners to increase the amount of ethanol they blend.  Continental Resources is the largest independent oil company in America.  Continental’s CEO, Harold Hamm, says ethanol mandates drive up the cost of gasoline at the pump 9 cents per gallon and force the export of gasoline.  

Monroe Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Delta Airlines, anticipates spending tens of millions of dollars in the next several months to acquire credits because it does not blend its own ethanol into gasoline.  The company called the ethanol policy “absurd” because it requires more ethanol than the U.S. market can use.  But it’s more than absurd, it’s a criminal fraud like Obamacare because falsified climate data was used to justify clean energy mandates.

Federal Clean Energy mandates are just as destructive to the U.S. economy and concept of capitalism as Obamacare.  For example, our nation has a 250 year supply of coal but taxpayers are forced to subsidize wind farms.  And solar farms subsidize Communist China’s manufacturing.  Check out the post Saudi Arabia, China, and Arab Emirates Own Critical U.S. Energy Infrastructure.  Bipartisan leaders allow foreign governments to own U.S. energy infrastructure while clean energy mandates force us to export low cost fossil fuels.  And this is their idea of energy independence?  Contact your elected officials and tell them to repeal clean energy and Obamacare mandates.

Clean energy mandates are preventing energy independence by limiting use of domestic fossil fuel reserves.  In 2013, the ethanol mandate will cost refiners, and eventually consumers, 19.6 Billion dollars.  Meanwhile, the U.S. has so much cheap natural gas, domestic oil wells burn off (flare) a billion dollars worth per year.   If we use natural gas as a transportation fuel, our domestic reserves are equivalent to 3 times the Saudi oil reserves.   And natural gas is already piped into millions of American homes, which could be part of a nationwide system of fueling stations.  For on climate fraud check out this post on Climategate.  You’ll find links to the CEO’s of General Electric and Exxon Mobil calling for cap and trade and carbon taxes.

Email This Post Email This Post

BOMBSHELL: ISRAEL’S TEMPLE MOUNT MAY NOT BE UNDER MUSLIM CONTROL

Bob Cornuke is a former policeman, S.W.A.T. team member, and F.B.I. investigator.  He also has decades of archaeological experience and has authored ten books.  His latest book titled “Temple”, provides compelling evidence that refutes the belief that the Temple Mount, currently under Muslim control and a focal point of the Arab-Israeli conflict, is the site of Solomon’s temple.  Mr. Cornuke’s evidence demonstrates that the alleged temple mount is actually the site used by ancient Rome to administer the conquered nation of Israel.  And the Western Wall, or wailing wall, is actually part of the protective wall that Rome built to defend its administrative site.

The Temple Mount may be the most contested and potentially explosive piece on land on earth.  But if Mr. Cornuke’s scriptural evidence is correct, the temples of Solomon and Herod were in the City of David, which means the site is currently under Israeli control.  So the potentially catastrophic dispute over the alleged temple mount is all for naught, and Israel could begin rebuilding its temple at any time.  Bob Cornuke is well respected among Biblical scholars, and some of the world’s leading scholars believe his research and conclusions are correct.  Check out Mr. Cornuke’s interview on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.  The interview begins at 1:02:15 into the program.  For more info, check out Bob Cornuke’s website.

Email This Post Email This Post

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don’t think so but…

There’s a website named the Daily Paul (DP) that’s allegedly “dedicated to restoring constitutional government to the United States of America”.  The site receives a lot of traffic and promotes the ideas of Ron Paul.  After following the site for a couple weeks, I realized that many of those commenting and posting were anarchists, and most of them claimed that Ron Paul is an anarchist.  So I wrote a post titled Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don’t think so but…  The post received hundreds of comments, most from anarchists claiming Ron Paul as one of their own. The anarchist arguments seemed blatantly contradictory because Ron Paul advocates for Constitutional government while anarchists work for the destruction of all government.  

Those who value representative government and the rule of law should learn more about the subversive nature of anarchism and how it’s manifested at the highest levels of the global economy.  For example, global banks launder hundreds of billions of dollars for drug cartels, mafia organizations, and illegal arms dealers.  The anarchists at DP refer to these black markets as anarcho-capitalism and participants as ancaps.  Anarchists attempt to hide the subversive/criminal nature of their ideology behind the libertarian philosophy of Ron Paul.  You can learn more about the ancap ideology by clicking on the link in the previous paragraph.

During the Bush 41 administration, Catherine Austin Fitts was assistant Secretary at the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  October 19, 2006, she was interviewed on Jefferson Public Radio in Ashland Oregon.  She said “HUD is being run as a criminal enterprise….it can’t be run as a criminal enterprise unless intentionally run that way”.  This was about eighteen months before the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were part of HUD’s oversight responsibilities.  Their collapse resulted in 6.3 Trillion dollars of toxic assets and liabilities being dumped on taxpayers.  Ms. Fitts went on to say “there is no government, only large defense contractors and large banks who run  a government mechanism”.  She cited a Justice Department spokesman who said 500 billion to a Trillion dollars generated by fraud and drug cartels is laundered through the New York Stock Exchange every year.

For more info on government lawlessness, go to my pdf Knowledge is Power and read the section titled “State Department and Defense Spending”.  If interested, there’s a couple links to my DP posts below.  Click here to view a list of all my DP posts and comments.

Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, a Fascist Regime

 Rand Paul: One Person Can Make a Difference

Email This Post Email This Post

Saudi Arabia, China, and Arab Emirates Own Critical U.S. Energy Infrastructure

The Motiva oil refinery in Port Aurthur Texas is the largest processor of gasoline and diesel in the United States.  The Saudi State owned oil company, Aramco, owns fifty percent of Motiva.  A New York Times article says Saudi ownership in Motiva is “meant to ensure that Saudi Arabia will retain an important market for its crude in the United States at a time when American politicians are declaring their intention to wean the country off imported oil.”

Qatar is one of the United Arab Emirates on the Arabian Peninsula.   And the only thing the Arabian Peninsula exports more of than oil is Islamic extremism.  But the US government is allowing Qatar to purchase a liquid natural gas (LNG) facility in Port Aurthur Texas.  Like Saudi ownership in Motiva, Qatar’s share of the LNG facility will be State owned.  China’s communist government  has also invested a billion dollars in Cheniere Energy’s LNG export facility in Louisiana.

Republicans oppose U.S. government ownership of domestic industries, but they support foreign government ownership that threatens our national security.  For example, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are fascist monarchies.  Those who live under monarchies are not considered citizens with rights, they are subjects of the king.  These fascist regimes torture their subjects if they advocate for a representative government  that would secure their unalienable rights.  So it’s reasonable to conclude these fascist regimes will use their influence in the U.S. to subvert our representative government.

During a Senate hearing, Republican Jon Kyl said Saudi Arabia is the “monetary lifeblood of today’s international terrorists”.   Democrat  Charles Schumer said the Saudi Royal family has “made a deal with the devil”.  So why allow Saudi ownership of U.S. energy infrastructure?  Doing so keeps America dependent on foreign oil and helps the Saudi State fund a global network of terrorists.   Furthermore, the U.S. doesn’t need Saudi oil because new technology has vastly increased North American reserves of gas and oil.  Obviously, bipartisan leaders only pay lip service to energy independence and national security.  

Republicans say they support free markets.  But based on the “free” market, Aramco, a Saudi State owned company owns half of America’s largest refinery, and the governments of China and Qatar are acquiring U.S. based Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) export facilities.  Apparently, government ownership of industry is their definition of a free market.  The Saudis use their stake in Motiva as a market for their crude.  Is it more efficient to ship crude from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. instead of using the glut of North American oil?

The point is, free markets have nothing to do with market efficiency or freedom from government intervention.  The term “free market” is a euphemism for managed global markets that serve the strategic interests of monopolistic multinationals their political cronies, who despise the notion of sovereign representative governments and unalienable rights.  That ‘s why State owned companies, which are fronts for totalitarian regimes, are given free reign in the imaginary free market.

Saudi Arabia has partnered with Communist China and they’re building one of the world’s largest refinery’s in Saudi Arabia.  This partnership of communist and fascist regimes may collapse the U.S. dollar by circumventing a 1973 US/Saudi agreement to price oil in dollars.  Pricing oil in currencies other than the dollar will lead to a steep decline in global demand for dollars, and consequently, a decline in demand for US debt.  This will further devalue the dollar and result in a potentially catastrophic rise of interest rates on US debt.  Click here for info on the Saudi/China partnership.  Saudi Arabia also backing al Qaeda affiliates in Syria, who are trying to overthrow the Assad regime.  According to a UK Telegraph article, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan offered Russia a secret oil deal to control the world’s oil markets, if Russia would stop supporting Assad.

CSPAN aired a program demonstrating oil’s critical role in U.S. national security.  The program was a “global oil supply disruption simulation” with senior military, intelligence and industry leaders playing the part of presidential cabinet members.  The simulated scenario was a disruption of oil supplies from the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia.  Participants included former Directors of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Stephen Hadley, General Charles Hadley, Admiral Dennis Blair and former CEO of Shell Oil John Hofmeister.  They all concluded that a disruption of oil from Saudi Arabia would be catastrophic for the U.S. economy.  Unfortunately, they emphasize the the development of green energy rather than domestic fossil fuels.  Hmmm? 

President Obama clearly understands oil’s critical role in U.S. security.  During a speech in Dayton Ohio, he said the price of gasoline would go to $12.00 dollars a gallon if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz.  The following comments come at 2:42 into his speech.

“An even more immediate and direct security threat comes from our dependence on foreign oil.  The price of a barrel of oil is now one of the most dangerous weapons in the world.  Tyrants from Caracas to Tehran use it to prop up their regimes, intimidate the international community, and hold us hostage to a market that is subject to their whims.  If Iran decided to shut down the petroleum rich Strait of Hormuz tomorrow, they believe oil would skyrocket to $300 a barrel in minutes, a price that one speculator predicted would result in  $12-a-gallon gas.”

The good news is, industry experts say U.S. natural gas reserves are equivalent to 3 times the Saudi oil reserves.  T. Boone Pickens cites this information 8 minutes into a speech on the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.  At 15:50 into the video, Pickens is asked about fracking (hydraulic fracturing).  Mr. Picken’s answer demonstrates the proven safety record of fracking for oil and natural gas.  He said fracking began in 1947 and 800,000 wells have been safely fracked in the Ogallala aquifer, America’s largest water aquifer.  The new technology that has greatly increased American oil and gas reserves, is horizontal drilling.  This is the ability to drill down, turn ninety degrees, and drill long distances horizontally in multiple directions.  The reduces the oil industry’s environmental impact because fewer drilling rigs, and the subsequent wells, can access a far greater quantity of oil and gas. 

Unfortunately, the use of domestic fossil fuels are limited by allegations that manmade CO2 emissions cause global warming.  James Inhofe is the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  Check out the following links where Senator Inhofe and climate scientists document the fraudulent peer review process behind global warming data.  Politicians who use climate fraud to restrict use of domestic fossil fuels, represent a clear and present danger to U.S. national security.  In addition to climate fraud, most political and industry leaders embrace misinformation portraying fracking as a new technology without a proven safety record.  Big oil companies may see government restrictions on fracking as a way to limit production, thus keeping upward pressure on crude oil prices.  

The following links are related articles on energy:   Cheniere Energy, An Export Company To Know and Qatar Has World In Its Sights For Power Projects.  The article on Cheniere Energy addresses opposing views regarding the export of low cost natural gas, which will drive up the cost for domestic users.  It also mentions legislation that would prevent export of natural gas produced on Federal land.  This link to China’s investment in a U.S. LNG export facility, says gas produced by fracking shale reserves is one fourth the cost of gas produced from conventional reserves.  That’s why foreign governments are so interested in acquiring U.S. facilities designed for exporting LNG.

If energy independence, U.S. competitiveness, and national security are the objective, the solution is fracking domestic oil and gas reserves and limiting exports.  Unfortunately, Federal “clean” energy mandates support wind, solar and electric cars while penalizing our lowest cost domestic energy sources.  Demand the repeal of “clean” energy mandates and incentivize the production of cars that run on natural gas, which is already piped into millions of homes that could be part of a nationwide system of natural gas fueling stations.

Energy sources like wind farms, solar farms and electric cars, require large quantities of lithium for batteries that store energy.  CNBC reported that Afghanistan is the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”, and Chinese State Owned Entities (SOE’s) have started mining in Afghanistan.  Coincidentally, China is one of the largest manufacturers of lithium batteries for electric cars.  So it seems Afghanistan is our first war for “clean” energy and American blood and treasure are  subsidizing China’s booming manufacturing economy, which is powered by fossil fuels.

Many people believe the Iraq war was about oil, and for the most part it was.  But most of Iraq’s oil is going to China.  That’s because many US leaders believe China’s communist economic model is superior to America’s market economy.  Evidence of this can be found in a Wall Street Journal article titled China’s Superior Economic Model.  So the U.S. military was used to subsidize Chinese communism by securing Iraqi oil.  US political and business leaders should be prosecuted for aiding the enemy.

Clean energy mandates force the export of domestic petroleum products and keep America dependent of foreign oil.  U.S. coal exports subsidize China’s communist economic model while clean energy mandates force U.S. citizens to use expensive alternatives. Citizens should contact elected representatives and tell them them to repeal clean energy mandates.  For more on the terrorist threat posed by Saudi Arabia, check out my post on the Boston Marathon Bombing.  For more on climate fraud and “clean” energy, check out my post on Climategate.

Email This Post Email This Post

IS SAUDI ARABIA FUNDING ISIS-ISIL IN IRAQ AND SYRIA?

This post provides evidence that the Saudi government funds a global network of extremist madrasses (schools) that export Wahhabism, the Saudi State’s official sect and radical ideology of al Qaeda.  This global network provides an endless supply of recruits for terrorist operations all around the world, including Chechnya, the ethnic origin of the Boston Marathon bombers, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, jihadists in Syria, Iraq and Somolia.  This information is important because the US government claims the Saudi State is an “ally” in the War on Terror.

Curtin Windsor, former U.S. Ambassador and Special Emissary to the Middle East during the Reagan administration, wrote an article on Saudi funding of terrorism.  It’s well sourced with many footnotes and is titled “Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism”.  On page 5 under the heading “Exporting Hatred”, Windsor says “the Saudis have spent at least 87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades.”  The footnote referenced security expert Alex Alexiev.  In 2003, Mr. Alexiev testified before the U.S. Senate and predicted the current situation in Iraq.  There’s a link to the Senate hearing later in this post.  Also, check out the section on page 8 of Mr. Windsor’s article titled “Causes of American Inaction”.   Windsor says Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan…

“was also instrumental in the growth of what Daniel Pipes has called a culture of corruption that renders the executive branch of the American government incapable of dealing with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the farsighted and disinterested manner that US foreign policy requires.  Pipes points to a revolving door syndrome afflicting senior diplomats and policymakers who deal with the Saudis in their official capacities.  Very often, they have enjoyed lucrative post-government careers working as consultants for Saudi businessmen…”

In the PBS documentary Black Money, Prince Bandar plays a central role in global corruption.  During the opening segment, Prince Bandar says “I would be offended if I thought we had the monopoly on corruption”. 

Numerous sources, like this article in the UK Independent, cite Saudi Arabia as the primary source of funding for ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq.  While Saddam was in power, the Sunni minority dominated the country, but with Saddam out of power, the Shia majority took power. This is unacceptable to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is a Sunni Islamic State based on Sharia law.  The article in the Independent cites Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6, the British Intelligence Service.  Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar told Dearlove: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”  The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. 

Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasized the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.  He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Iraq’s Sunni majority provinces, are beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with ISIS without their consent.  

The forecast by Prince Bandar, that the 100 million Shia in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni majority, will convince many Shia that they are the victims of a Saudi-led campaign to crush them. “The Shia in general are getting very frightened after what happened in northern Iraq,” said an Iraqi commentator, who did not want his name published.  Shia see the threat as not only military but stemming from the expanded influence over mainstream Sunni Islam of Wahhabism, the puritanical and intolerant version of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia that condemns Shia and other Islamic sects as non-Muslim apostates and polytheists.

Drawing on past experience, Dearlove sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s ISIS. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.  Click on the previous link to the UK Independent for more on this story.  More evidence demonstrating Saudi government funding of terrorism, was provided in a Senate Judiciary hearing titled “Wahhabi influence in the United States”.  Republican Jon Kyl chaired the hearing, these are excerpts from his opening statement.

“The problem we are looking at today is the State sponsored doctrine and funding, of an extremist ideology that provides recruiting grounds, support infrastructure, and the monetary lifeblood of today’s international terrorists.  The extremist ideology is Wahhabism, which is a major force behind terrorist groups like al Qaeda…Many questions have been asked about the role of Saudi Arabia and it’s official sect, a violent form of Islam known as Wahhabism…All 19 hijackers [on 911] were Wahhabi followers and 15 of the 19 were Saudi subjects…Journalists and experts have said that Wahhabism is the source of the overwhelming majority of terrorist atrocities in Morroco, Indonesia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Chechnya…[Wahhabism] enjoys immense financial and political resources thanks to support from a sector of the Saudi State…”

Democrat Charles Schumer concurred with Kyl’s opening statement to the Judiciary Committee.  This is part of his opening statement. “The process to counter this hateful ideology [Wahhabism] begins with Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi government must repudiate the Wahhabi extremism that is the source of much of this violence.  That means stopping the funding of extremist madrasses and purging the hate filled textbooks that populate Saudi schools.  If the Saudi’s do not end the funding and teaching of extremism, the cycle of terrorist violence wracking the globe will get worse.”  This is a link to the hearing.

Security expert Alex Alexiev testified during the Senate hearing.  He said “an astounding amount of money is being spent to for the specific purpose of preaching [Saudi] Wahhabi hatred.  The Saudi State funds 10,000 extremist madrasses in Pakistan where approximately “1.7 million children are taught to hate”.  They don’t acquire marketable skills but are “perfectly prepared for a career in Jihad”.  He said more than 40 Wahhabi mosques have sprung up in Iraq and “we’re going hear from them”.  Alex suggested that US leaders tolerate Saudi funding of extremism and concluded his statement saying…

“The evidence of Saudi Wahhabi sponsorship of extremist networks is so overwhelming in my view, that for us to continue to tolerate it, guarantees that we are not going to be able to make meaningful and lasting progress in the war on terror for a long time to come”.

During a 2009 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Af-Pak region, Obama’s special envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, testified before the Committee.  Rep. McCaul asked about Pakistan’s efforts to shut down Taliban madrasses teaching hate and violence.  Holbrooke said Pakistan and the US had done “almost nothing” to shut down madrasses, “but here we are, we have to start again”.  When asked about Pakistani intelligence (ISI) support for the Taliban, Holbrooke said US and Pakistani intelligence had helped set up terrorist organizations, and “there may be some serious legacy issues”.

Holbrooke admitted that funding for the Taliban comes from Saudi Arabia and said, ”we do not have a program to close that down now”.  This hearing was six years after the Senate hearing where Jon Kyl said Saudi Arabia is the “monetary lifeblood of today’s international terrorists.”   But Bush and Obama had no program to shut down Saudi financing.  Oops!  Furthermore, the Taliban movement has always been based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.  So invading Afghanistan could never end the terrorist threat originating in Pakistan, which like Saudi Arabia, is another US “ally” in the war on terror.

Treasury Department lawyer, David Aufhauser, testified before Senator Kyl’s committee in 2003.  He acknowledged the role of Saudi charities in funding global terrorism and said dialogue with the Saudi government “resulted in a far reaching charities initiative, at least a pledge of one…”.  But six years after the pledge, Saudi charities were still funding Islamic extremism, and the US still had no program to shut down funding of madrasses.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of U.S. troops have been maimed or killed fighting terrorism.  Given US and Saudi indifference to the funding of Islamic schools producing terrorists, it’s difficult to believe US and Saudi officials are serious about stopping terrorism.  Mr. Aufhauser emphasized the importance of stopping the funding of Islamic extremism and said

“Much of the evidence in this shadow war is suspect, it’s the product of torture, rewards, betrayals, and deceits.  But a financial record doesn’t lie, it has singular integrity in the War On Terror…I now know after the mission given to me after 911, that preventing a dollar from being misapplied [to fund terrorism], is perhaps the surest singular weapon we have to make sure that the homeland is secure.”

While testifying before the Judiciary committee in 2003, Alex Alexiev said the Saudis were funding extremist mosques in northern Iraq, and “we’re going hear from them”.  Northern Iraq borders Syria, and now al Qaeda in Iraq is on the march in Syria, trying to overthrow the Assad regime.  US leaders refer to al Qaeda in Iraq as ISIS in order to protect their Saudi “allies”.  All al Qaeda had to do was say they’re not backing ISIS and Western leaders took them at their word. But that’s understandable, al Qaeda only killed 3000 Americans when they bombed the World Trade Center, and killed thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq, so why wouldn’t US leaders take al Qaeda leaders at their word, no questions asked?

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan now heads Saudi intelligence, and he threatened Russia because of it’s support for Assad.  According to an article in the UK Telegraph, Bandar offered Russia a secret deal to control the world’s oil supply in exchange for ending support for Assad.  Bandar’s meeting with Putin was full of dire warnings but Putin said:  “Our stance on Assad will never change.  We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters,”  Putin was referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier.

President Obama allegedly opposes Assad’s mass murder of civilians so he proposed bombing the Syrian regime as a remedy.  But he backed down and took political cover behind Putin’s suggestion to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons.  Meanwhile, Assad continues to slaughter civilians with no attempt by the international community to hold him accountable.  Assad’s actions clearly constitute crimes against humanity punishable under the International Criminal Court (ICC).  But Obama and US media do not mention the ICC option because the US is not a signatory.

The ICC, like the U.N., has been co-opted by corrupt globalists who oppose national sovereignty and individual rights, but the ICC should be used to prosecute Assad for crimes against humanity. President Obama and George W. Bush have put U.S. troops in harms way while allying themselves with countries that fund the terrorists killing our troops.  Obama and Bush should be prosecuted in U.S. courts for aiding the enemy because the Saudi and Pakistani regimes are financial and ideological safe havens for al Qaeda and the Taliban.  A conviction for aiding the enemy carries a possible death sentence.

Compelling evidence demonstrates the Saudi government’s role in funding a global network of Islamic extremism, which produces a constant supply of violent jihadists.  The Counter Jihad Report demonstrates that Saudi money has been financing Islamic extremism in Chechnya, and this post provides evidence of the Boston bombers involvement in Islamic extremism.  But the Bush and Obama administrations insist the Saudi State is an ally in the War on Terror, and Obama is a supporter of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.  Hmmm? The reality is, these treasonous alliances allow the US and Saudis to play both sides of the War on Terror, and provide a pretext for creating a global police state.  Consider the US government’s actions since 911.  The Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, Homeland Security, TSA, and indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process.

The Saudi monarchy backed the recent military coup in Egypt, which removed President Morsi, a democratically elected member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  This article from The Guardian cites Dr. Maha Azzam’s analysis of Saudi motives: “What they had was a lethal equation, democracy plus Islamism, albeit under the Muslim Brotherhood.  That was a lethal concoction in undermining the kingdom’s own legitimacy in the long run.  They know full well they do not want democracy, but to have another group representing Islam was intolerable”.  The increasingly totalitarian US regime and Saudi monarchy differed on the method for installing a totalitarian regime in Egypt, but whether by military coup or Islamic extremism, they advance their global police state agenda.

The intended result of the US/Saudi alliance is a perpetually divided world that generates wars for profit, and a geopolitical framework that only leaves citizens with a choice between two evils.  Syria is a prime example, the uprising began with civilians peacefully demonstrating against Assad’s dictatorship.  But Assad’s brutal repression of peaceful protests opened the door for Islamic extremists.  The Saudis and Gulf States spend Billions financing Islamic extremism, and wink wink, nod nod, the US spends Trillions fighting terrorism. President Eisenhower warned Americans about the danger posed by a military industrial complex.  American citizens must condemn the US/Saudi alliance as treason, and demand accountability for the resulting loss of American lives, treasure, and freedom.

Saudi Wahhabism is the dominant sect in Sunni Islam.  The Wahhabi sect considers all non-believers infidels, including the Shiite sect led by the Islamic State of Iran, Iraq’s Shia government, the Syrian regime and Hezbollah.  The US also plays both sides of the Sunni-Shia sectarian war via the US-China partnership.  The US turns a blind eye while China arms Iran with chemical, ballistic and nuclear weapons technology.  Iran then helps arm Syria and Hezbollah.  For more info check out this post on Communist China.

After the 911 attack, some families who lost loved ones refused payments from the US government and sued the Saudi government. The Texas law firm  Baker Botts represented the Saudi government against 911 families.  James Baker, former Secretary of State under Bush 41, is a partner in Baker Botts.   John O’Neill was Director of Counter Terrorism at the FBI prior to 911.  He repeatedly warned of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil, but frustrated by US officials who ignored his warnings, he went to work as head of security at the World Trade Center, and was killed on 911.  To hear his story, watch the PBS documentary, “The Man Who Knew“.