Archive for November, 2013

Time for Truth and Justice … for All ?

Wednesday, November 27th, 2013

On this Thanksgiving holiday in America

By W. J. Anthony

Pope Francis has helped Americans understand what has been the meaning of the second paragraph of the American 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 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.”

Consideration of the unalienable Right of the People to pursue their Safety and Happiness reveals that each person has a “birthright” to be secured by Government that is given the just powers to secure the Safety and Happiness of the People.

Governments obtain their “just powers from the consent of the governed”, which means they are honest powers.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence indicates that People in “the pursuit of Happiness” should choose “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.”

Pope Francis indicates that the Governments of capitalist nations are organized to have laws that serve and secure the wealth and power of corporations that are controlled by people who own and control the corporations. Corporations are designed to use their means of production and distribution of goods and services to satisfy the policy goals of the stockholders, who own most of the stocks, rather than serve the safety and happiness of the People.

Cooperatives are designed and inclined to serve the policy of the majority of stockholders, regardless of who owns the majority of stocks.

Wars have proved to serve the wealthy owners of corporations who seek to own, profit and control the means of production and distribution of goods and services and not be obligated to serve the “birthtight” of people who need the goods and services to survive and pursue their human potential.

Pope Francis has rightly described the challenge that humanity faces at this time. War does not serve the “birthright” to satisfy the needs of people in America and People throughout the world.

Thanks to

Igor Bobic – November 26, 2013, 12:48 PM EST8756

Americans would do well to read and understand that the encyclical of Pope Francis appropriately Denounces Trickle-Down Economics “Which Has Never Been Confirmed By The Facts.”

“In his first encyclical released on Tuesday, Pope Francis laid out a broad mission statement which restated the church’s opposition to abortion but also emphasized what it can do for the poor and oppressed trapped in a world of growing income inequality.

“It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new,” the pontiff wrote in the 85-page document. “Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the ‘exploited’ but the outcast, the ‘leftovers’.

The pope also denounced “trickle-down” theories of economics promoted by many conservatives and politicians who espouse an unregulated free market.

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” he said. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”

Did… “We the People” vote for this ??

Wednesday, November 20th, 2013

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Sabotaging Rapprochement with Iran

Stephen Lendman
Activist Post

Multiple previous rounds of nuclear talks failed. Washington orchestrated failure. Israel exerted enormous behind the scenes pressure. So did AIPAC.On November 20, negotiators on both sides meet again. Will this time be different? It remains to be seen what happens.Prospects aren’t promising. Iran’s been offered little in return for major concessions. More on the resumed talks below.

US/Israeli anti-Iranian sentiment is longstanding. Both countries want Iran’s government toppled. France is a willing co-conspirator. So are Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

Nuclear talks are a convenient distraction. Iran’s program is entirely legitimate. It’s peaceful. It has no military component. Western negotiators know it. So does Israel.

It doesn’t matter. They claim otherwise. Doing so furthers their agenda. It reflects longstanding hostility. It continues unabated.

Sanctions define them. Imposing, maintaining and tightening them reflect longterm economic and political war on Iran.

Its 1979 revolution ended a generation of repressive Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi rule. Washington installed him. He was a convenient pro-Western stooge.

On November 14, 1979, Jimmy Carter reacted. His Executive Order 12170 blocked Iranian government property.

Carter lied saying “the situation in Iran constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to (America’s) national security, foreign policy and economy.”

He “declare(d) a national emergency to deal with that threat.”

He “blocked all property and interests in property of the Government of Iran, its instrumentalities and controlled entities and the Central Bank of Iran which are or become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or which are in or come within the possession or control of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

He seized $12 billion in Iranian government bank deposits, securities, gold, and other properties. They included $5.6 billion held by overseas branches of US banks.

In early April 1980, Carter severed diplomatic relations with Iran. A full trade embargo followed.

In January 1981, it was lifted under provisions of the Algiers Accords. Most Iranian assets were unblocked. Iranian Assets Control Regulations remained in effect.

They target Iran’s economy and people ruthlessly. On October 29, 1987, Reagan’s Executive Order 12613 prohibited imports from Iran.

He lied claiming “Iran is actively supporting terrorism as an instrument of state policy.”

“…Iran has conducted aggressive and unlawful military action against US-flag vessels and merchant vessels of other non-belligerent nations engaged in lawful and peaceful commerce in international waters of the Persian Gulf and territorial waters of non-belligerent nations of that region.”

On March 17, 1995, Clinton’s Executive Order 12957 prohibited US involvement with Iranian oil development. His May 9, 1995 EO 12959 substantially tightened sanctions further.

His August 19, 1997 EO 13059 prohibited virtually all trade and investments with Iran.

In 1996, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) became law. In 2006, it was renamed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA).It prohibited US and foreign oil development investments. Violators face stiff penalties. They include denial of Export-Import Bank of the United States help, rejection of export licenses, and a ban on all or some violating company imports.

In 2008, banks and other US depository institutions were prohibited from processing transfers between Iranian and non-Iranian banks.

In 2010, America’s Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) became law. It extended sanctions imposed by the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act. It punishes companies doing business with Tehran’s oil sector. It went further.

Section 103 prohibits importing certain Iranian foodstuffs and carpets. Other provisions ban Iranian product and service imports directly or through third countries

Exporting goods, technology, or services are prohibited, including from offshore locations. Some humanitarian related exceptions were made. They were too few to matter.

Overall, US individuals and companies located anywhere are prohibited from engaging in dealings of any kind.

They include purchases, sales, transportation, swaps, financing, or brokering transactions related to goods or services of Iranian private or government origin.

Other sanctions target financial institutions, insurers, and shippers involved in helping Iran sell oil. Previous loopholes were closed. An illegal embargo was tightened.

On July 1, 2012, an EU oil import embargo took effect. It covers crude oil, petroleum and petrochemical products, oil related businesses, natural gas, equipment and technology, selling Tehran’s refined products, new investments, and dealing with its central bank.

On October 9, 2012, Obama’s EO 13628 headlined “Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions with respect to Iran.”

Section 218 covers non-US companies incorporated and operating outside America. They include ones owned or controlled by US corporations.

Foreign US subsidiaries henceforth are administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

Draconian sanctions were further tightened. US companies can be sanctioned for foreign subsidiary violations. Henceforth, they’re required to assure compliance.

Section 219 requires “issuers” disclose information in either annual or quarterly SEC filings pertaining to prohibited Iranian transactions. If discovered, one or more US government agencies must investigate.

US financial institutions are prohibited from making Iranian loans or providing credits. Foreign exchange transactions, subject to US jurisdiction, are barred.

Transfers of credit or payments between or through financial institutions, subject to US jurisdiction, are prohibited.

Property and interests in property in America are blocked. They may not be “transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.” Foreign branches are included.

Americans are prohibited from “investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of a sanctioned person.”

Prohibitions were enacted against companies involved in mining uranium with Iran; selling, leasing or providing oil tanker services; or offering insurance to the National Iranian Tanker Company.

On July 1, 2013, new sanctions were imposed. They affect Iran’s currency, the rial. They prohibit foreign financial institutions from conducting “significant” transactions using it. At issue is making it “useless” abroad.

Iran’s shipping and shipbuilding sectors are affected. Selling, supplying, or transferring “significant” goods or services by non-US companies is prohibited.

Trade in precious metals, graphite, aluminum, steel, metallurgical coal and software for integrating industrial processes is restricted.

Iran’s auto sector is affected. It includes light and heavy vehicles, passenger cars, trucks, buses, minibuses, pick-up trucks and motorcycles.

Anti-Iranian congressional sentiment is longstanding. Israel wants sanctions stiffened. Its lobby exerts enormous pressure.

On July 31, House members passed the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013. They did so overwhelmingly (400 – 20). It tightens sanctions further.

It imposes a near oil embargo. It limits Obama’s ability to lift sanctions if a deal is struck.

It prohibits companies or individuals from doing business in America if it conducts or facilitates significant financial transactions through Iran’s central bank.

It includes other draconian provisions. A similar Senate bill may follow. Israel and AIPAC demand it.

The UN Charter’s Chapter VII deals with “action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.” Under Article 41:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.

These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42 goes further stating:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43 permits force to maintain peace and security.

Iran isn’t at war. It threatens no one. It seeks rapprochement. It prioritizes peace. Sanctions imposed are for political reasons. They have no legitimacy.

They harm ordinary Iranians most. They’re imposed for that reason. Doing so violates international law.

Ron Paul calls Iranian sanctions an act of war. The New England Journal of Medicine calls them “a war against public health.”

Imposing them violates World Trade Organization (WTO) provisions. WTO members may curb trade with other nations for security reasons. None whatever exist. Iran is nonbelligerent.

Blockades are acts of war. Punishing sanctions impose a limited one. In July 2012, Francis Boyle urged Iran to sue America, Britain and France. Do so at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if crisis conditions escalate, he said.

“The restraining order would be to prevent a military attack on Iran, to prevent any type of blockade of Iran to prevent the imposition of further economic sanctions by these three states against Iran, and also their pursuit of more sanctions against Iran at the United Nations Security Council,” he stressed.

In his book titled “The Grand Chessboard,” former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said “it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate American-Iranian hostility.”

Both countries share numerous regional strategic and economic interests, he added. “Any eventual reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran.”

Both sides should pursue it, Brzezinski said. Iran wants it. President Hassan Rohani seeks rapprochement. America and Israel remain hardline. So does France.

Flynt and Hillary Leverett said the US president “should reorient American policy toward Iran as fundamentally as President Nixon reoriented American policy toward the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s.”

“(D)ecades of US policy toward Iran emphasizing diplomatic isolation, escalating economic pressure, and thinly veiled support for regime change have damaged the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East,” they added.

It’s “clearly time for a fundamental change of course in the US approach to the Islamic Republic.”

Washington/Israeli/French policy remains hardline. On November 20, nuclear talks resume in Geneva.

French President Francois Hollande colludes with Israel. He deplores rapprochement. He expressed four demands. They may be tougher than reported.

He wants strict daily international supervision of all Iranian nuclear facilities. He wants uranium enrichment to 20% halted.

He wants Iran’s enriched stockpile reduced. He wants construction of its Arak heavy water reactor terminated. He may have other unannounced demands.

They’re over-the-top. Perhaps they’re intended to sabotage upcoming talks.

Last minute French amendments prevented a reported November 9 agreement. Israel exerted enormous behind the scenes pressure.

Washington went along. Russia wasn’t informed. Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov said he opposed the changes.

Senior Iranian lawmaker Mohammad Hassan Asafari said if Congress imposes new sanctions, Tehran will cease negotiating.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) provisions permit uranium enrichment. President Rohani calls doing so “our redline.”

He seeks rapprochement. So do other senior Iranian officials. They won’t surrender their sovereign rights to get it.

Israel demands it. So does Washington. France is a willing partner. Future prospects look grim.

Regardless of what emerges from this week’s talks, don’t expect longstanding anti-Iranian hostility to end.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Thanks to Chuck Baldwin … and …

Friday, November 8th, 2013






By Chuck Baldwin
November 7, 2013

I realize it is hard for some people to understand (especially those holding political office), but in the United States, “We the People” are the sovereigns. America has no king. In America, “We the People” are Caesar. Someone rightly said, “In America, the people rule; they have the power of the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Amen. And in this land of liberty, nothing is more important than the jury box. The right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers is a benchmark principle of a free land.

Juries have immeasurable power. Not only do they have power over the fate of the accused, they have power over the accusers. No one has more authority than a jury–not even the judge. And without hyperbole I can say that a constitutionally literate, fully informed jury is pretty much all that stands between the ballot box and the cartridge box.

In a letter to Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” And two years before the first musket shot was fired that started America’s War for Independence, a Boston lawyer by the name of John Adams said, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

All of the rhetoric of modern judges notwithstanding, juries have a constitutional duty and obligation to judge, not only the merits of the case before them, but also the merits of the law which brought the accused before them. And America’s Founding Fathers agree with what I just said.

John Adams said, “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” Again, this is from one of our country’s most celebrated attorneys, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and America’s second President. America’s first Supreme Court Chief Justice agreed with Adams. John Jay wrote, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

The rest of America’s founders agreed with Adams, Jay, and Jefferson. US Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration, Samuel Chase, wrote, “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Patrick Henry said, “Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off…This gives me comfort, that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.”

Protect its neighbors is exactly what a jury in Liberty County, Florida, recently did. The neighbor in the case was none other than the county sheriff, Nick Finch. covers the story:

“Nick Finch, the Florida sheriff arrested in June after he defended the Second Amendment, has been declared ‘not guilty’ of the charges brought against him by the State of Florida, according to [former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff] Richard Mack.

“The Liberty Co. sheriff was charged with felony ‘official misconduct’ and ‘falsifying public records’ after he released a suspect arrested on an unconstitutional gun charge and removed the arrest file.

“After closing arguments by prosecutors and the defense, the jury took less than 90 minutes to reach its verdict.”

The report continues saying, “During the trial, the sheriff testified that he released Floyd Eugene Parrish, who was arrested for unlawfully carrying a firearm, because he believed the Second Amendment trumped all state gun laws.

“As we reported back in June, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement accused Finch of covering up the arrest of Floyd Eugene Parrish after releasing him from the Liberty County Jail.

“On March 8, Sgt. James Joseph Hoagland of the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office arrested Parrish during a traffic stop after finding a .25 automatic pistol in Parrish’s right front pocket and a holstered revolver in his car, according to court records.

“Parrish was then taken to the county jail.

“After being notified of Parrish’s arrest, Finch took the arrest file and told jailers that Parrish would be released with no charges, according to investigators.

“Finch also ordered both the pistol and revolver be returned.”

See the report: Pro-Gun Sheriff Found Not Guilty

This verdict is one of the most important jury decisions in modern history; and how many reports did you see about it in the mainstream media? Where was ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or FOX News?

Sheriff Finch is a modern-day Daniel. He stood for his principles, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people of his county; and he was thrown into a den of lions by Republican Governor Rick Scott and the FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement). But an eight-person jury acquitted him of all charges and the sheriff was reinstated.

This is what a jury is supposed to do: protect its neighbors from the oppression of unlawful government. And that is exactly what that Liberty County jury did. They deserve the gratitude of liberty-loving people all over the United States.

It is pathetic and sad that Governor Scott did not stand with Sheriff Finch as he should have done. Scott threw this modern-day Daniel into the lion’s den, but God delivered him. Now the people of Florida should throw Governor Scott into the lion’s den (as King Darius did to Daniel’s accusers) by impeachment and removal from office for not defending the US Constitution, as he took an oath to do. I guarantee you that Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Samuel Chase, and John Jay would have stood with Sheriff Finch. And so would US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Justice Holmes said, “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”

And bringing “a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact” is exactly what a Liberty County, Florida, jury did. They upheld the constitutional right of people to keep and bear arms, and they repudiated the Florida State gun-control laws that abridge that right under the rubric of license.

In truth, every law-abiding citizen in this country has a right under the US Constitution to carry his or her arms–concealed or open. It is past time for county sheriffs, State governors, and local juries to follow the example of Sheriff Finch and this Liberty County, Florida, jury. It is time for freedom-loving people in all 50 states to demand that these copious State and local gun-control laws that prohibit or restrict the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms be expunged. That means, if you are called upon to serve on a jury in a case involving a law that restricts the Second Amendment right to freely keep and bear arms, you should do what this Liberty County, Florida, jury did and acquit the accused.

All over America, sheriffs and governors pretend to be supporters of the Constitution. All over America, sheriffs and governors give lip service to the Second Amendment. It is time the American people start demanding more than lip service from their elected officials. We need sheriffs like Nick Finch. And we need governors like…well, like PATRICK HENRY. (Sadly, I can’t think of a single governor today to use as an example.)

Patrick Henry said he depended on his neighbors, when sitting as a jury, to protect him. Happily, Sheriff Finch has some good neighbors. But in truth, juries do more than protect individuals; they protect liberty itself. Any law that infringes on or contradicts the Bill of Rights should be considered null and void by any citizen-jury. In this way, it is the citizen-jury, not the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of a law’s constitutionality. Without the veto power of the jury (call it nullification, if you will), America is not a country of, by, and for the People: but a country of, by, and for the politicians and judges.

Kudos to Sheriff Finch and the people of Liberty County, Florida.

If you would like to send personal kudos to Sheriff Finch, here is the website with his contact information:

Florida Sheriffs Association—Sheriff Nick Finch

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

Click here to visit home page.

© 2013 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck’s complete bio here.



By Our deeds … do they know US ?

Monday, November 4th, 2013

November 4, 2013

Putin Ends NATO Missile Pact,

Warns Military To “Prepare For


By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

A sobering report prepared by the Ministry of Defense (MOD) circulating in the Kremlin today states that the 4 NATO F-16 fighter jets scrambled from Turkey hours ago to harass the Il-20 reconnaissance warplanes flying along Russia’s Black Sea coast on one their routine daily missions was in direct retaliation over President Putin’s abrupt canceling of his cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization over missile defense yesterday.

According to this report, and confirmed by the Voice Of Russia News Service, in another powerful and significant move for peace, Putin cancelled a presidential order which in 2011, had set up an interdepartmental working group under the authority of the Russian Presidential Administration designed to develop ways to establish cooperation with NATO in the sphere of “missile defense”.

Many experts and NATO watchers familiar with the decree, and the attempts by the Russian Federation to develop an equal partnership relationship with NATO on the basis of mutual respect and transparency, may now breathe a collective sigh of relief that Putin has finally run out of patience with the alliance.

This MOD report further states that Putin’s “move for peace” against the US led NATO alliance is meant to show the West that he will “retaliate in force” against what he calls US President Obama’s “insane” plan for global tyranny that is even now threatening to destroy America and the European Union.

Even more grimly, this report continues, was Putin’s ordering the strategic forces to carry out a large-scale surprise military drill last Wednesday launching four nuclear missiles that were closely monitored by US intelligence agencies that included the test launch of two land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and two submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

In Putin’s further “preparation for war,” this MOD report says, he also ordered this past Friday that the two Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack strategic nuclear bombers currently visiting South America to stay on indefinite patrol should they be needed to strike the United States.

Not just Putin is gravely concerned over Obama’s war moves either, this report continues, as China this past week joined Russia in overtly threatening the United States with nuclear retaliation.

In what this MOD report calls a “war move against the US,” China last week sent a surveillance ship to Hawaiian waters for the very first time in history in an unprecedented move described as a provocative retaliation to the US naval presence in the East China Sea, publicly revealed a view of its mysterious fleet of nuclear submarines, and its state-run media revealed for the first time that its nuclear submarines can, and will, attack American cities as a means to counterbalance US nuclear deterrence in the Pacific.

Of the greatest concern to both Russia and China regarding Obama this report says, is the American Presidents purging of nearly 200 high ranking US military officers, the latest being US Army Col Eric Tilley commander of the largest American base in Japan who was fired by Obama yesterday.

US sources commenting on this unprecedented purging of these officers are warning that in Obama’s America, the military must forsake their constitutional oath in favor of blind allegiance to their new commander.

To the effect(s) Obama’s purge is having upon the US military was recently described by the WND News Service which reports:

“Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source told WND.”

Even more troubling about Obama, this MOD report warns, is that he now appears to be “descending into madness” as new evidence has emerged that he has ordered US military doctors to design innovative new methods of torture to be used against his enemies, and was quoted as gleefully exclaiming to his top aides, “I’m really good at killing people”.

As to how good at “killing people” Obama has become we noted in our 21 October report titled Evidence That 5 Million Americans Have Been “Disappeared” By Obama Shocks Russia and wherein it was noted how the current US regime is actively planning on eliminating at least 25 million of their dissident citizens.

As to why the vast majority of the American people still adhere to a policy of blind obedience to a leader descending into madness, and in turn threatening to destroy their nation, the Guardian News Service warns is due to the Obama regimes unprecedented attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process in the US which the Associated Press says relies on staged propaganda photos and the Obama regime conducting secret meetings with journalists, “psych-background” sessions, in which reporters were not allowed to record, take notes, or directly attribute remarks.

And in, perhaps, the Obama regimes cruelest move against its own people, indeed the whole world, this past week the Democrat Party controlled US Senate actually passed a bill that codifies and expands NSA spying powers even as the shock of what they have done still reverberates around the globe.

So today, and as our world falls ever closer towards all-out war, one of the few voices of honesty and reason left belongs to the NSA and former CIA spy Edward Snowden who yesterday from his home in Russian exile from the brutal and despotic Obama regime told his fellow Americans… “Citizens have to fight suppression of information on matters of vital public importance. To tell the truth is not a crime.”

Sadly, Snowden’s fellow Americans will not hear these words, nor know the grave danger they are in because of the Obama regime, because they are either too blind to see, or too deaf to hear…or more than likely, both.

November 4, 2013 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.