Archive for February, 2013

Who … should put America’s interests … first ?

Tuesday, February 26th, 2013

Monday,  February 18,  2013

America  Shamed Again: A colonized people

Paul Craig Roberts
Activist Post

Americans have been shamed many times by their elected representatives who cravenly bow to vested interests and betray the American people. But no previous disgraceful behavior can match the public shame brought to Americans by the behavior of the Senate Republicans in the confirmation hearing of Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Forty Senate Republicans made it clear that not only do they refuse to put their service to America ahead of their service to Israel, but also that they will not even put their service to America on a par with their service to Israel. To every American’s shame, the Republicans demonstrated for all the world to see that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Israel Lobby. (The Israel Lobby is not their only master. They are also owned by other powerful interest groups, such as Wall Street and the Military/Security Complex.)

The most embarrassing behavior of all came from the craven Lindsay Graham, who, while in the act of demonstrating his complete subservience by crawling on his belly before the Israel Lobby, dared Hagel to name one single person in the US Congress who is afraid of the Israel Lobby.

If I had been Hagel, I would have written off the nomination and answered: “You, Senator Graham, and your 40 craven colleagues.”

Indeed, Hagel could have answered: The entire US Congress, including Rand Paul who pretends to be different but isn’t.

The real question is: Who in the Congress is not afraid of the Israel Lobby?

The hatchet job on Hagel is driven by fear of the Israel Lobby.

Perhaps the worst affront Israel’s American representatives ever inflicted on the US military was the coverup of the Israeli air and torpedo boat attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. The Israeli attack failed to sink the Liberty but killed and wounded most of the crew. The survivors were ordered to silence, and it was 12 years before one of them spoke up and revealed what had happened (James Ennes, Assault On The Liberty).   Not even Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could get Washington to own up to the facts.

The facts are now well known, but as far as Washington is concerned they are dead letter facts. The entire event has been moved to some parallel universe.

Why are the Senate Republicans out to destroy Hagel for Israel?

The answer is, first, back when Hagel was a US Senator he refused to be intimidated by the Israel Lobby and declared, “I am a US Senator, not an Israeli Senator.” In other words, Hagel did the impermissible. He said he represented US interests, not Israel’s interests. Hagel’s position implies that the interests of the two countries are not identical, which is a heresy.

The second part of the answer is that Hagel doesn’t think that it is a good idea for the US to start a war with Iran or for the US to permit Israel to do so.

But a US war with Iran is what the Israeli government and its neoconservative agents have been trying to impose on the Obama regime. Israel wants to get rid of Iran, because Iran supports Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon, thus preventing Israel from annexing that territory and its water resources, and because Iran supports Hamas, the only Palestinian organization that tries to oppose Israel’s total theft of Palestine, although Iran has never supplied Hamas with effective weapons.

The two organizations that oppose Israel’s territorial expansion, Hizbollah and Hamas, represent large numbers of Arab peoples. Nevertheless, both are declared, on Israel’s orders, to be “terrorist organizations” by the servile US Department of State, which in all reality should be called the Israeli Department of State, as it never puts US interests before Israel’s.

In other words, Hagel did not grovel. He did not say how much he loved Israel and how it would be his great honor to sacrifice all other interests to Israel’s, how he has waited his entire life for the chance to serve Israel as the US Secretary of Defense.

Hagel is not an opponent of Israel. He merely said, “First, I am an American.” His lack of craven subservience is unacceptable to the Israel Lobby, which has branded him an “anti-semite.”

Lindsay Graham, in contrast, has what it takes to be Israel’s perfect choice for US Secretary of Defense.

Graham will go out of his way to please the Israel Lobby. He will pull out all stops and behave with maximum servility to a foreign power in his effort to embarrass the President of the United States and his nominee, a war veteran and former US Senator who simply thinks that the US Congress and the executive branch should put American interests first.

Senate Majority Leader Reid has used Senate rules to keep Hagel’s nomination alive.

If Lindsay Graham succeeds in doing the Israel Lobby’s dirty work, he will have handed a defeat of the US President to the Israeli Prime Minister, who has demeaned the President of the United States for not doing Israel’s bidding and attacking Iran.

Americans are a colonized people. Their government represents the colonizing powers: Wall Street, the Israel Lobby, the Military/Security Complex, Agribusiness, Pharmaceuticals, Energy, Mining, and Timber interests.

Two elected representatives who tried to represent the American people – Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich – found representative government to be an inhospitable place for those few who attempt to represent the interests of the American people.

Like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Gerald Celente, I stand with our Founding Fathers who opposed America’s entanglement in foreign wars. In an effort to prevent entanglements, the Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to Congress.  Over the years Congress has gradually ceded this power to the President to the extent that it no longer exists as a power of Congress. The President can start a war anywhere at any time simply by declaring that the war is not a war but a “time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military action.” Or he can use some other nonsensical collection of words.

In the first few years of the 21st century, the executive branch has invaded two countries, violated the sovereignty of five others with military operations, and has established military bases in Africa in order to counteract China’s economic penetration of the continent and to secure the resources for US and European corporations, thus enlarging the prospects for future wars. If the Republicans succeed in blocking Hagel’s confirmation, the prospect of war with Iran will be boosted.
By abdicating its war power, Congress lost its control of the purse. As the executive branch withholds more and more information from Congressional oversight committees, Congress is becoming increasingly powerless. As Washington’s war debts mount, Washington’s attack on the social safety net will become more intense. Governmental institutions that provide services to Americans will wither as more tax revenues are directed to the coffers of special interests and foreign entanglements.

The tenuous connection between the US government and the interests of citizens is on its way to being severed entirely.

This article first appeared at Paul Craig Roberts’ new website Institute For Political Economy.  Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

” … endowed by their Creator with … “

Saturday, February 23rd, 2013

Thanks to Roi Tov . . . “The Cross of Bethlehem”

Haredim: “Better to serve in the Nazi Army than in the IDF”

Video available here; since it belongs to another website I cannot assure the functionality of the link. Considering its content, it may be soon taken off the web. It is in Hebrew.


A fortnight ago, Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett said in the Knesset: “It’s impossible that Haredim won’t serve in the army.” This happened as leading rabbis of his Religious-Zionist movement met leading ultra-Orthodox rabbis in an attempt to create a historic alliance between the movements (see IDF battles Jewish Orthodoxy). In a surprising show of mental flexibility and lack of principles, this happened while Bennett’s party is likely to become a key partner in Netanyahu’s next government and the ultra-Orthodox may stay out. Bennett’s comment and his subsequent meeting with Netanyahu were considered by Haredim as a Cain-event; they were betrayed and killed by their brother-in-faith. His words couldn’t pass unnoticed. On February 18, Channel 7 released a video taken at the entrance of Yeshivat Mir, the largest Jewish college in Israel and probably the entire world, minutes before Bennett was to speak. Two Haredi men speak in the short video, saying things that have never before been broadcast by Israeli networks. Readers not familiar with the situation of the Haredim in Israel can find a short summary at the bottom of this page; all others are invited to keep reading the astonishing texts.

Haredi IDF Soldiers, Nahal Battalion 97
Zionism and the State of Israel
IDF Soldier and Haredim
To Rule Jerusalem
“It is better to die!”

The video begins with an agitated Haredi man speaking in poor Hebrew; when he gets too upset he moves into bastard-Yiddish. I don’t speak the latter thus the comment is partial; I tried to keep his peculiar style. The softest thing he said was “It is better to die than to be with the Zionists.” He was kind enough to inform us the reason for his statement, “They are thieves, they took control of the lands here, they are thieves, the Zionists.” However, the main topic was not land ownership; he added, “We will not go to the army, it is better to go to the Nazi Army than to the Zionist Army, it is better, much better… Nazism meant only death, this is much worse… (he moved to Yiddish).” Near the end, another Haredi appears and adds a few words, “He [Bennett] has only one more seat [than Haredi Shas]. What is this? From where comes his arrogance…”

“See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us”—Ecclesiastes 1:10

These words weren’t new. In fact, Israelis will be easily capable of quoting even worse ones; sadly under the international censorship enforced by certain organizations, it is impossible to repeat abroad what is common knowledge in Israel. Can I give a useful hint? Otherwise, my work wouldn’t be finished, as his wasn’t

About a year ago, Haredi protests in Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem, produced unforgettable images, like the one accompanying this paragraph, before being violently repressed by the Zionist police. The protesters claimed that the Zionist state was behaving towards them as badly as Nazi Germany had treated their ancestors. The feeling of the Ultra-Orthodox that they are discriminated against by the secular State of Israel is well based, as are similar claims by many other segments of this troubled society.

There was nothing new here. The second man in the video spoke of Bennett’s arrogance. The latter is a prominent officer in the IDF, an army accused by a formal UN document for its “arrogance of power” and for “inflicting terror.” Ultra-Orthodox Jews feel the same towards the State of Israel.

Fanatic Humanists

It is easy to dismiss the claims of the Haredim with a variety of secular arguments. Yet, facts show that Haredim are correct. Ambiguity allows manipulations. Nowhere is that clearer than with the modern misuse of the word “fanatics.” Religious people accept that not everyone can choose this path. The beautiful text on Judgment Day, in Matthew 25:31-46, explains how there are two types of people, those accepting God and His values and those not. Here is part of it:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
—Matthew 25:34-40

In other words, a religious life allows pluralism. That’s true also for Islam; the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes non-Islamic people. In sharp contrast, humanists expect everybody to accept their valueless world. In their narrow-minded interpretation, they call “fanatic” everyone rejecting their foolish chit-chat. They are the only fanatics in this equation. Eventually, they want to transform everybody into a fanatic-secularist, servant of a secular government. This is what allows the unending Western wars, which are not opposed by most of the Western electorate. Secret wars conducted under secret laws can not be justified. People of God don’t take part in them. If Haredim join the Israeli army, they have a real reason to fear losing their souls, and that, as our friend stated, “is worse than Nazism.”


Addendum: Jewish Orthodoxy and the Army

On August 22, 1999, the then Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak appointed the Tal Committee, which dealt with the special exemption from mandatory military service in the IDF given to ultra-Orthodox Jews (Haredim and Hasidim). It was headed by retired Justice Tzvi Tal; thus it was named after him. On July 23, 2002, the Tal Law, based on the committee results, was passed in the Knesset. It enabled the continuation of the IDF service-exempt given to yeshiva members (“yeshiva” means “sitting” in Hebrew; it is the name of Jewish religious colleges). At the age of 22, yeshiva members would receive a year of decision in which they would need to choose to continue their studies or to go to work. Those who choose to go out of the yeshiva and work would need to choose between a minimalist army service of four months, and then reserve duties according to the army’s needs, or a civilian service of one year. The service would be done in special IDF units organized according to religious needs, like Nahal Battalion 97 (the IDF has several ethnic units, see Explosion in Sinai).

Secular Jews opposed the law, claiming that it discriminated against them by being forcing them (by default because they don’t get a similar exemption) to serve at least three years in the IDF. Yet, using half-hidden laws, secular Jews can also get service exemptions. In 2005, the State admitted in a response to a bagatz+ petition, that the Tal Law had failed to change enlistment practices of Orthodox Jews. Back then, only a few dozen ultra-Orthodox Jews enlisted in the army as a result of the law; by the beginning of 2012, the number was still below 900. In 1974, only 2.4% of high school graduates about to enroll in the IDF were exempt because they were yeshiva members. In 1999, they were 9.2%; it was 15% in 2012. These numbers are a clear sign of a very benevolent discrimination by the State of Israel towards Haredim and Hasidim. Yet, the same secular Jews who petitioned the High Court on their own behalf, do not oppose other types of discrimination enforced by the IDF towards other minorities.

On February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of Israel annulled the “Tal Law,” with a majority of 6 justices against 3. Dorit Beinisch, then President of the Court supported the decision: “we can help to bring a gradual change,” she said. Asher Dan Grunis, who later replaced her, opposed the decision. He said that the thought the court would bring Haredim to serve in the IDF is “an illusion.” “It doesn’t help the status of the court, we won’t bring change,” he added. In August, the law expired and became one of the main reasons that forced Netanyahu to call for early elections. The main argument of the Orthodox leaders is that they care about their youth, who want nothing but to study Torah. As said, they behave like Asian leaders and thus sound manipulative to the secular crowd.

However, this is not the entire picture. An important part of the religious Jews is made up by the abovementioned Religious-Zionists, who go to the army as seculars do. For the sake of American readers, I must emphasize that all of them practice Orthodox Judaism; Reform and Conservative Jews are not part of this. Following the elections, Naftali Bennet, their leader, is in a tough situation. He has a long history with Netanyahu; it began with love and ended with hatred and a wild attack on him by Netanyahu in the last days of the campaign. Contacts, between Bennet and Lapid in an attempt to form an alliance against Netanyahu were announced publicly. Yet, this is not something Bennett can sell to his electorate. The Bible is above the secular state, allying a heretic “rabbit eater” is absolutely non-kosher. On the same day, leading rabbis belonging to Religious-Zionism caused a major earthquake, signalling a realignment of Israeli politics. The donkey of the Messiah is about to be dismissed.

“But when… to reduce them under… Despotism”

Tuesday, February 19th, 2013

Military professionals agree second amendment is primarily a defense against government tyranny

Paul Joseph Watson

January 31, 2013

Over 1000 Green Berets have signed a letter re-asserting their oath to support and defend the Constitution by protecting the second amendment rights of American citizens.

The letter, which originally featured at, was written by “current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers.”

It highlights the fact that the Constitution was drafted primarily as a means of protecting citizens against “governmental tyranny and/or oppression,” further citing the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who outlined the purpose of the second amendment when he stated, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes,” states the letter. “At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”

The legal precedent of the right to keep and bear arms which includes weapons “in common use” by the military is also documented, as is the definition of the term “militia,” which as Court Justice Scalia ruled in 2008, “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

Tackling numerous sacred cows brought up by gun control advocates, the letter points out that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban was completely useless in preventing mass shootings because instead of using high capacity magazines, shooters like Columbine killer Eric Harris simply bought more 10 round magazines and changed them more often.

The letter also documents how, despite its draconian gun ban in 1996, gun crime in the United Kingdom has continually increased, whereas firearm related homicides in the United States decreased by 9 per cent five years after the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban.

At the end of the letter, eight steps are recommended to reduce gun violence while still maintaining the sanctity of the second amendment, including a repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which allows shooters to carry out their massacres unimpeded by responsible gun owners.

Stricter border controls to tackle the flow of illegal firearms from Mexico are also advocated, as is the return of firearm safety programs to schools. The letter also discourages the proliferation of violence in movies and video games, citing recent scientific studies which draw a correlation between desensitization to violence and aggressive behavior in young people and adults.

Amidst the Obama administration’s effort to curtail the second amendment through both executive orders and legislation, numerous top law enforcement officials from across the country have gone public to assert that they will not follow federal orders to confiscate firearms.

Last week,Gilberton, Pennsylvania Police Chief Mark Kessler promised not to enforce unconstitutional laws that eviscerate second amendment rights.

“I will take my uniform off and I will stand with freedom before I stand with tyrannical thugs,” he stated.

Read the full letter signed by the Green Berets below.


Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…”

The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world.

We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society.

Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute.

In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that?  Of course we all want to find a solution.  But, is the problem really guns?

Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem?   Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere?  We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years.

In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford.

What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns.  Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland.   Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns.   After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition.  Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months.   Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period.   Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world.

In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.  ”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012):

“The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny.

Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.   It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.  The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:  “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“.   Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”

“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.  The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect.  A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose: “[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban].  Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations.  When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate.  His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff.  In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff.  On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law.   After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election.  And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes.  At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens.  When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate?   Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem.  No single course of action will solve the problem.  Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1.  First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2.  We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate.

One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems.  Things that work can be shared.  Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions.

Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns.  We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3.  We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community.  In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable.  We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007.  “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496).    Therefore, we strongly re  commend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about.   General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!”  Leave war to the Professionals.  War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference.   While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs.  Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders.  Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer.   We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them.  Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

Can the American people stop … the American Empire ?

Wednesday, February 13th, 2013

William Blum

Official website of the author, historian, and U.S. foreign policy critic.

The Anti-Empire Report #113

By William Blum – Published February 7th, 2013

American Foreign Policy – Have our war lovers learned anything?

Over the past four decades, of all the reasons people over a certain age have given for their becoming radicalized against US foreign policy, the Vietnam War has easily been the one most often cited. And I myself am the best example of this that you could find. I sometimes think that if the war lovers who run the United States had known of this in advance they might have had serious second thoughts about starting that great historical folly and war crime.

At other times, however, I have the thought that our dear war lovers have had 40 years to take this lesson to heart, and during this time what did they do? They did Salvador and Nicaragua, and Angola and Grenada. They did Panama and Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan and Iraq. And in 2012 American President Barack Obama saw fit to declare that the Vietnam War was “one of the most extraordinary stories of bravery and integrity in the annals of military history”. 1

So, have they learned nothing? When it comes to following international law, is the United States like a failed state? The Somalia of international law? Well, if they were perfectly frank, the war lovers would insist that the purpose of all these interventions, and many others like them, was to keep the atheists out of power – the non-believers in America’s god-given right to rule the world – or to at least make life as difficult as possible for them. And thus the interventions were successful; nothing to apologize for; even the Vietnam War achieved its purpose of preventing that country from becoming a good development option for Asia, a socialist alternative to the capitalist model; precisely the same reason for Washington’s endless hostility toward Cuba in Latin America; and Cuba has indeed inspired numerous atheists and their alternatives for a better world.

If they were even more honest, the war lovers might quote George Kennan, the legendary State Department strategist, who wrote prophetically during the Cold War: “Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” 2

But after all these years, after decades of American militarism – though not a day passes without some government official or media acolyte expressing his admiration and gratitude for “our brave boys” – cracks in the American edifice can be seen. Some of the war lovers, and their TV groupies would have us believe that they have actually learned something. One of the first was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in February 2011: “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.”

And here’s former Secretary of State George Shultz speaking before the prestigious Council of Foreign Relations last month (January 29): “Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be the template for how we go about” dealing with threats of terrorism.

A few days earlier the very establishment and conservative Economist magazine declared: “The best-intentioned foreign intervention is bound to bog its armies down in endless wars fighting invisible enemies to help ungrateful locals.”

However, none of these people are in power. And does history offer any example of a highly militaristic power – without extreme coercion – seeing the error of its ways? One of my readers, who prefers to remain anonymous, wrote to me recently:

It is my opinion that the German and Japanese people only relinquished their imperial culture and mindset when they were bombed back to the stone age at the end of WWII. Something similar is the only cure for the same pathology that now is embedded into the very social fabric of the USA. The USA is a full-blown pathological society now. There is no other cure. No amount of articles on the Internet pointing out the hypocrisies or war crimes will do it.

So, while the United States is busy building bases and anti-missile sites in Europe, Asia and Africa, deploying space-based and other hi-tech weapons systems, trying to surround Russia, China, Iran and any other atheist that threatens American world hegemony, and firing drone missiles all over the Middle East I’m busy playing games on the Internet. What can I say? In theory at least, there is another force besides the terrible bombing mentioned above that can stop the American empire, and that is the American people. I’ll continue trying to educate them. Too bad I won’t live long enough to see the glorious transformation.

Afghanistan: Manufacturing the American Legacy

“A decade ago, playing music could get you maimed in Afghanistan. Today, a youth ensemble is traveling to the Kennedy Center and Carnegie Hall. And it even includes girls.”

Thus reads the sub-heading of a Washington Post story of February 3 about an orchestra of 48 Afghan young people who attended music school in a country where the Taliban have tried to silence both women and music. “The Afghan Youth Orchestra is more than a development project,” the article informs us. For “the school’s many international donors, it serves as a powerful symbol of successful reconstruction in Afghanistan. And by performing in Washington and New York, the seats of U.S. political and financial power, the orchestra hopes to showcase what a decade of investment has achieved.”

“The U.S. State Department, the World Bank, the Carnegie Corporation and Afghanistan’s Ministry of Education have invested heavily in the tour. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul awarded nearly $350,000 footing most of the estimated $500,000 cost. For international donors, the tour symbolizes progress in a country crippled by war.”

The State Department’s director of communications and public diplomacy for Afghanistan and Pakistan declares: “We wanted Americans to understand the difference their tax dollars have made in building a better future for young people, which translates into reduced threats from extremists in the region.”

“There’s a lot of weariness in the U.S. and cynicism about Afghanistan,” said William Harvey, an American violinist who teaches at the school, where 35 of 141 students are girls. “What are we doing there? What can be achieved? These concerts answer those questions in the strongest way possible: Cooperation between Afghanistan and the international community has made it safe for young girls and boys to learn music.”

There can be no question that for the sad country of Afghanistan all this is welcome news. There can also be little doubt that a beleaguered and defensive US foreign policy establishment will seek to squeeze out as much favorable publicity as possible from these events. On the issue of the severe oppression of women and girls in Afghanistan, defenders of the US occupation of that desperate land would have you believe that the United States is the last great hope of those poor females. However, you will not be reminded that in the 1980s the United States played an indispensable role in the overthrow of a secular and relatively progressive Afghan government, one which endeavored to grant women much more freedom than they’ll ever have under the current Karzai-US government, more probably than ever again. Here are some excerpts from a 1986 US Army manual on Afghanistan discussing the policies of this government concerning women:

  • “provisions of complete freedom of choice of marriage partner, and fixation of the minimum age at marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men”
  • “abolished forced marriages”
  • “bring [women] out of seclusion, and initiate social programs”
  • “extensive literacy programs, especially for women”
  • “putting girls and boys in the same classroom”;
  • “concerned with changing gender roles and giving women a more active role in politics”. 3

The US-led overthrow of this government paved the way for the coming to power of Islamic fundamentalist forces, which led directly to the awful Taliban. And why did the United States in its infinite wisdom choose to do such a thing? Because the Afghan government was allied with the Soviet Union and Washington wanted to draw the Russians into a hopeless military quagmire – “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War”, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser. 4

The women of Afghanistan will never know how the campaign to raise them to the status of full human beings would have turned out, but this, some might argue, is but a small price to pay for a marvelous Cold War victory.

Guantánamo Bay

People on the left never tire of calling for the closing of the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The fact that President Obama made the closing a promise of his 2008 campaign and repeated it again in the White House, while the prison still remains in operation, is seen as a serious betrayal. But each time I read about this I’m struck by the same thought: The horror of Guantánamo is not its being open, not its mere existence. Its horror lies in its being the site of more than 10 years of terrible abuse of human beings. If the prison is closed and all its inmates are moved to another prison, and the abuses continue, what would have been accomplished? How would the cause of human rights be benefitted? I think that activists should focus on the abuses, regardless of the location.

The War on Terror – They’re really getting serious about it now

For disseminating classified materials that exposed war crimes, Julian Assange is now honored as an official terrorist as only America can honor. We Shall Never Forget 9/11, Vol. II: The True Faces of Evil – Terror, a graphic coloring novel for children, which comes with several pages of perforated, detachable “terrorist trading cards”. Published by Really Big Coloring Books Inc. in St. Louis, the cards include Assange, Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, Ted Kaczynski, Maj. Nidal Hasan, Bill Ayers, and others. 5

Superpower – the film

Starring Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Michel Chossudovksy, Karen Kwiatkowski (Pentagon “defector”), William Blum, Sergei Khrushchev (son of Nikita), Kathy Kelly, and many others: (enter password when prompted: barbarasteegmuller) – 2 hours long.

New Book and talk

The eagerly awaited (I can name at least three people) new book by William Blum is here at last. “America’s Deadliest Export – Democracy: The Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else” is made up of essays which are a combination of new and old; combined, updated, expanded; many first appeared in one form or another in the Anti-Empire Report, or on my website, at various times during the past ten years or so.

As mentioned in the book, activists like myself are sometimes scoffed at for saying the same old things to the same old people; just spinning our wheels, we’re told, “preaching to the choir” or “preaching to the converted”. But long experience as speaker, writer and activist in the area of foreign policy tells me it just ain’t so. From the questions and comments I regularly get from my audiences, via email and in person, I can plainly see that there are numerous significant information gaps and misconceptions in the choir’s thinking, often leaving them unable to see through the newest government lie or propaganda trick; they’re unknowing or forgetful of what happened in the past that illuminates the present; or knowing the facts but unable to apply them at the appropriate moment; vulnerable to being led astray by the next person who offers a specious argument that opposes what they currently believe, or think they believe; and, perhaps worst of all, many of them suffer pathetically from an over-abundance of conspiracy thinking, often carrying a justified suspicion or idea to a ridiculous level; virtually nothing is taken at face value.

The choir needs to be frequently reminded and enlightened to be better able to influence others, to be better activists.

To order a signed copy directly from me you can go to my website:

Who should determine our future ?

Sunday, February 10th, 2013

Is it true that “Whatever will be, will be.”?

By W J Anthony

The problems of our society probably seem overwhelming to many people, and so it also seemed, when I began to write an email reply to a friend who thought there was no solution for the survival of humanity.

In reality, that outlook possibly tempts many sincere people.  Can any American expect to change the foreign policy of the US Government, which provided huge investments of taxes in fomenting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and now in Syria to economically and socially ruin independent third world nations who refuse to be controlled by huge international corporations?  Has any American been able to persuade any US President to follow, as his top priority, the promotion of jobs that are essential for Americans to achieve an economic prosperity without the terror of war?

While sitting at my computer keyboard, ready to reply to my friend, my memory recalled the number one hit song “Que Sera Sera” that I heard sung many years ago by Doris Day.  I asked myself, why did the end of each verse repeat the words, “Whatever will be, will be”?  Was it, perhaps, intended for the words to suggest to the listener that the outcome of our Government’s policies is really beyond the control of America’s people?  That thought led me to search Google on the internet and find the lyrics in English, wanting to find why those words were so popular and if they were able to influence “we the people” to believe that we can not cause or determine the outcome of the future by our efforts to govern ourselves.

What came to mind was an answer to the question of my friend, who asked, “What can we do?”

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, says that the nation into which I was born, was founded on self-evident truths.

“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 to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Those words confirmed for me that, we, the people, have the God-given authority and the responsibility to shape our Government to create a society with the abilities to use the potential of our natural and human resources to produce and distribute the goods and services that can satisfy the lives of “we the people” and thereby determine What we the people will allow to be!

While the meaning of the words of the Declaration of Independence were touching my mind and soul, an email arrived from Patriot Newswire which offered the opportunity to view and hear the recent speech of Dr. Benjamin S. Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC.

See and listen for yourself if we should allow whatever will be, to be:

Whatever will be …will be.

Anything goes ? ” … according to the laws of war.”

Saturday, February 9th, 2013

President Obama,

It is my understanding, throughout the duration of your Presidency, that you have persistently authorized drone strikes on innocent Middle Eastern civilians who were supposedly working for, or somehow affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

As a further matter, you have gone so far as to publicly announce – in accordance to your Administration’s white paper concerning the legalities and justifications concerning your drone policy, which was leaked to NBC – that you have the authority to drone bomb any American citizen.

Full transcript continues below…

The Hill wrote,  “In the document, the Justice Department concludes that a lethal strike against a senior operational leader of al Qaeda — or an affiliated terrorist group — can occur if a three-part test is met: that a high-level American intelligence official has determined the individual poses an imminent threat, that capture is infeasible, and that the strike is conducted according to the laws of war governing use of force.”
The key phrase here is:

“Or an affiliated terrorist group.”

This is chilling.  It is jaw-dropping, rather. Why?  It’s simple. According to multiple documents – such as the FBI’s “Project Megiddo” document from the late 1990s and the FBI’s and BJA’s “Communities Against Terrorism” documents – we, the American people, are considered “an affiliated terrorist group.”

It is also interesting to note the hypocrisy which you have entangled yourself in.  You have made it clear, upon the reauthorization of the NDAA with Sections 1021 and 1022 on December 31, 2011, with this leaked white paper concerning drone bombings, and with your countless public appearances regarding terrorism, that anyone who is affiliated – or somehow deemed a terrorist – shall be denied their Constitutional rights.

However, have you ever noticed the glowing hypocrisy here? Your administration has openly aided the Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria (Reuters, Daily Mail, etc.) firearms.

Aren’t these the very people you’re against? Aren’t these the very people by which you have used to justify the killings of countless innocent civilians?

From what I have seen, and with respect to the policies/actions mentioned above, you and your Administration should be considered a “rogue” group which aids the terrorist faction Al-Qaeda.

If you can’t consider yourself that, then – at the very least – you need to consider yourself “an affiliated terrorist group”.   With that said, it seems as though you need to indefinitely detain or drone bomb yourself, right?   After all, you do meet the requirements for such actions.   Now, of course, this is hypothetical. I wish no harm to you or any of your bureaucrats.   However, I am using this to exemplify your hypocrisy.

Moreover,  it is my understanding that you have gone so far as to justify the killing of 16 year old American citizen, for being a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, by having your Press Secretary come out and say it was moral and just.

Whatever the case may be,  Anwar Awlaki – the 16 year old whom you killed – was denied due process of law,  a jury trial, and was not given the opportunity to defend his case in front of a jury of his peers.

I am a 16 year old high school student myself.  Am I next?  After all, I am considered an affiliated terrorist group because I support the Constitution and Ron Paul.  Will you slaughter me, like you did Awlaki?

Mr. Obama, you will have an uprising on your hands if you do not change your antics.   I am not calling for an uprising – nor do I support one – but I am warning you that a plethora of Americans are growing angry over your policies.

On behalf of the large group of concerned American citizens and from a concerned American high school student,

Alec Scheer,

Founder of We Are 1776

Letter –…

Contact –

Invest in We Are 1776 –…

Before time runs out … on All of US !

Wednesday, February 6th, 2013

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Genetic Roulette Wins Top Transformational Film, Free Until Feb 10

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

If there’s only one more documentary you see in the remainder of your life: Make sure it’s Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives. World renown genetically modified organism (GMO) expert Jefferey Smith, who heads The Institute for Responsible Technology, directed and wrote the film that won Solari Best Film of the Year, 2012 and most recently Aware Guide’s Top Transformational film of 2012.

If you’ve been following GMO news for years, you are still sure to learn new, shocking information in this recent release. What’s unique is that even if you’ve never heard of a GMO, the movie is easy to digest without losing its informed audience.Watch it free here until Feb 10 and definitely read and share the following review with your loved ones:

Is Genetic Roulette a downer? According to Aware Guide founder, a top transformational film would “inspire the movement of society towards ideals, values and practices that create a better world for everyone. They focus on solutions, not problems for issues such as: CONSCIOUSNESS, ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, HEALTH, INSPIRATION and SOCIAL ISSUES.”

A summary of the essential topics covered in this documentary can be found below.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Wal-Mart, Pepsi and 20 Major Food Companies Consider Lobbying for GMO Labeling?


Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

A lot of events are converging to create a tipping point to finally allow the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

The FDA is likely to approve GM salmon and apples against the people’s will. Many big food companies have received massive social media backlash from consumers, particularly parent companies to organic ones that heavily funded campaigns against GMO labeling. For instance, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream got shrapnel from some of these “Traitor’s Boycotts” because its parent company Unilever funded to prevent labeling. Ben & Jerry’s will remove its GM ingredients by the end of 2013.

The funded and questionable failure of California’s Proposition 37 has stoked the flames since last September. Consumers have even themselves begun labeling grocery products with a passionate drive to bring awareness to others. Wal-mart got flak last summer for selling unlabeled and possibly dangerous GM sweet corn.

Most recently, Washington state introduced a labeling initiative for the 2013 ballot. Their concern is not only about “right to know” but surrounds fears that unlabeled genetic salmon and apples could seriously damage the economy by getting their exports blocked – especially from countries that require labeled GM food. It is estimated that at least 20 other states are considering labeling initiatives.

Read more »

Love your enemies … “

Tuesday, February 5th, 2013

Before we go to War again, take a look at:

The Cost Of War

Brasscheck TV via
The cost of war is very
rarely itemized in public.

There’s a very good reason
for that.

Here’s the bill – and you’re
the one who has to pay it.


– Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That’s how we grow. Thanks.

Is the End of this . . . yet to come ?

Friday, February 1st, 2013

Thanks to Al Duncan


By Al Duncan

February 1, 2013

“Prior financial dealings with the United States proved that America would not be penetrated easily. The original founders of the United States Constitution had masterfully erected individual, separate institutions to guard against an assault. These independent institutions made it difficult for an enemy to attach their mechanical linkages and frail bridges that were designed to weaken a country’s structure and force its collapse. The only recourse was to directly confront the United States Constitution and dismantle it piece by piece.

“Through the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the road was paved for the United Nations (UN). It was through this United Nations organization that the Elite international bankers intended to conquer the world. This was Global Government and the start of the New World Order.

A huge campaign that spared no effort was orchestrated to misinform the American public regarding its direction and purpose. Senate opposition was rendered so impotent that there was no significant support against the enactment of the United Nations Charter. Subsequently, forty-two members of the United States delegation adopted the United Nations Charter.

The United States Congress then opened a bank account in the name of The United Nations. They authorized the State Department to make annual payments out of the United States Treasury for whatever amount the General Assembly of the UN felt necessary to cover its share of expenses.

“The general consensus decided that the UN headquarters be in the United States. At a cost of $8,500,000, the 17-acre site for the United Nations headquarters in New York was donated by one of the richest banking and oil families in America. The $65,000,000 cost to construct the United Nations building was an interest-free loan paid for by the American taxpayers.

“The United Nations published a Human Development Report with objectives to establish a global tax and form a strong UN military, dubbed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The UN, through NATO, was given authorization as the principal custodian of global human security, and was dubbed, the International Peace Keepers.

All of this took place without public knowledge or approval. Although, Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution specifically prohibits states or their subdivisions from entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation with a foreign political organization.

“The United Nations and its Charter was a monstrous, destructive device that was now permanently attached to the United States Constitution. The UN held the idea of a universal morality, superior to the interests of individual nations, including the initiation of a Social Charter pledging a new global civil society based upon Global Governance. The United Nations Organization was the installation of a world government with an international control of armies, a universal system of money, and the authority to implement and eliminate tariffs and quota restrictions on trade.

“The ability to make treaties provides an extraordinary power that opens the door for subversion. Treaties create international law, and they also make domestic law. They’re superior to ordinary laws since congressional laws are invalid if they don’t conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution.

“Under the Constitution, treaties become the supreme laws of the land. Treaty laws take power away from the branches of Congress and give them to the President or some foreign body. They also take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government or some international body, and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”

“Wait a minute, Lance.” Monique began, “If United Nations treaties supersede the Constitution, the instant the United States became a member of the United Nations, the Constitution was rendered null and void, all sovereignty vanished and the United States was, as of that moment, legally governed by the United Nations. This would also apply to all of the 192 member-states of the United Nations.

“That means since October 24, 1945, any enactment of a treaty attaching the United States to the United Nations Charter—even if it is unconstitutional—by members of the Executive, the Judicial or the Legislative Branches of government makes it perfectly legal under treaty laws.”

“You make an excellent point, Monique. But you’ve failed to consider that upon entering public office, every United States official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. So, any illegal act against the Constitution, such as conferring authority to a foreign government, is just that, illegal. And any government official that endorses an unconstitutional law, has automatically violated their oath, nullified their official position, violated the Constitution and committed treason. Furthermore, any public official who’s aware of such a crime being committed is obligated to report that crime or they, too, have violated the law and could become a conspirator to treason. I would venture to say that every member, past and present, of each branch of government since October 24, 1945 has violated their Constitutional oath.

“And therein lies the dilemma; no one will enforce the law against anyone else because they, too, are conspirators.

“It’s now understandable that no charges were filed against the United States President when he violated Constitution law by chairing the United Nations Security Council. We can also understand why no charges were filed when, without Congressional approval, he sent American fighter jets and troops against Libya, a country that presented no threat or harm to America. It’s also clear why charges weren’t brought against the Secretary of Defense when he testified before Congress that he takes orders only from the United Nations—although all of these actions were treasonous. And I could accurately continue with Congress passing unconstitutional laws and the Justices writing unconstitutional laws, along with the writing of unconstitutional Executive Orders, but I’ve already made my point.

“Nothing is, as it appears to be, Monique. The American people believe they’re still living under a Republic and that the United States Constitution is still the law of the land. But they are not and it is not. The members of the three branches of government know perfectly well that America is no longer a Republic and that the Constitution is nothing but an obsolete piece of paper. Therefore, they must keep the American people living in this matrix. And, it is the duty of every bureaucrat and their media lackeys to make sure they stay in the matrix; at least until they’ve eliminated all their legal rights and physical capabilities of restoring America to its original state as a Republic. This is also why they have to confiscate the guns from American citizens.

“I believe that the matrix in which the American people are living will eventually be shattered, but not before all possibilities for a successful revolt have been removed from the reach of the people.

The United Nations was the Trojan horse that dismantled the United State Constitution, rendered all of the people’s rights and freedoms as hollow shells, and caused the demise of America, and every other sovereign nation.

“You see, the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (GATT), the Economic and Financial Organization (EFO), the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Chemical Weapons Treaty (CWT), and all other treaties embrace a Central Bank, the Federal Reserve. The introduction of these treaties helped to demolish sovereignty, economically, militarily and territorially. These institutions were formed to equalize the power-base of all countries through the redistribution of wealth, by regulating the production and distribution of raw materials and food, and controlling the flow of inter-regional investment and migration throughout the world.

“An equitable distribution of wealth had to be established, along with an erosion of sovereignty, to the immediate disadvantage of those nations that possessed the majority of power, chiefly the United States of America. To put it simply, all countries had to be made equal. Since the United States was the most prosperous, she had to be drained of her wealth and reduced to third-world status. To accomplish this, economic controls were placed into the hands of Central Bankers, which also deprived governments of exclusive control over its national currency.

“To fulfill the United Nations economic, social and environmental development program, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was setup to regulate the manufacturer. To control the distribution of all products and eliminate waste, department and grocery store chains became the delivery points of all items. To control the farming industry, the individual farmer was regulated as what to plant and how much to plant.

“Liberalizing trade in goods and services opened the borders to other countries pursuing their own personal agendas, which created the need for a world governing body to supervise the mercantile affairs of the world. By merging into a one-world economic system, the WTO was the authority to administer arrangements and to resolve global trade disputes.

“One of the Articles specifically stated that each member had to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations. The Dispute Settlement Board was the final judge as to whether the WTO’s global rules of trade and tariffs were met. All nations had to abide by these judgments, and financial penalties and sanctions would be imposed if these rules were not met. This wasn’t free trade, it was controlled trade.

“When I asked Mr. Freeman his thoughts on politics, he explained, “Well, son, you picked a subject that really raises the hairs on the back of my neck,” he began. “We haven’t been a Republic for close to a century. I know it sounds crazy, but elected officials sold us out way back in the mid-40s. Every nation, including the United States, surrendered its sovereignty when it joined the UN. And all government officials since then have been coconspirators to their treasonous acts for not exposing it.

“The Bible says it like this; the dragon gave its power to the beast; and all the kings of the earth give their power to the beast. Then they all asked who is powerful enough to make war against the beast?

“Son, the dragon is Satan, the beast is the UN, and all the nations of the world gave their power to the UN. And, I ask you, who’s able to make war against NATO?

“Through the phony two party systems, the Elite, as you call them, select, hire and nominate both candidates so that either vote is a vote for the candidate of their choice, not the choice of the people. Moreover, the issues placed on the ballot only further their agenda. Any other candidates and issues will never see the light of day. But let’s say the people did get enough signatures to place a candidate or an issue on the ballot, then the electronic voting machines will be programed to make sure they never make it. And if a candidate slipped through, which in these times is highly unlikely, they’d be rendered impotent from the gate or just a voice in the wind; and if an issue slipped through, why the Federal Courts would just overturn it.

“Without a shot fired, the United States of America was conquered by a band of criminal bankers almost seventy-five years ago. No, son, I’d never hand over my allegiance to another man to represent me. My loyalty is to God and His son, Jesus Christ, not a man. King Jesus, and Him only, will get my vote in every time.”

© 2013 Al Duncan – All Rights Reserved