More Great Ideas

Yes, We Can Abolish the IRS

June 14, 2013 by Chip Wood

Jay Leno knows what his audience likes to hear. In his opening monologue last week, the “Tonight Show” host had a wonderful suggestion on how we should deal with the Internal Revenue Service:

“President Obama says he’s renewing his efforts to close Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay? How about closing the IRS? Why don’t we do that?”

The reaction, you won’t be surprised to hear, was thunderous applause. So Jay offered a follow-up suggestion: “How about shipping the IRS to Guantanamo Bay?” The laughs and applause were long and loud.

OK, let’s admit we’re not going to ship America’s most unpopular agency to a remote corner of Cuba — as attractive as the idea might be. But let’s not overlook the incredible opportunity we’re being given here.


Bless their arrogant little hearts. By spending taxpayers’ money so foolishly, and targeting conservative and patriotic groups for special scrutiny, the bureaucrats at the IRS have given us the best opportunity in years to rein in their power.

Rein it in? Heck, how about launching a national campaign to abolish this odious agency once and for all?

I’m not kidding. The scandals embroiling this detested agency have presented us with a tremendous opportunity to expand the debate from the IRS’s misbehavior and instead put the emphasis on an issue that could truly transform this country: Let’s replace the income tax with something a whole lot simpler and fairer. That’s the best way to abolish the IRS.

Everybody admits that the present tax system is an abomination. The tax code is so complicated that it is virtually impossible for the average taxpayer to understand. But that’s just the least of the objections to it.

The graduated income tax is an essential part of the plot to transform our free and independent Republic into a socialistic state. Very few Americans are aware that a graduated income tax was one of Karl Marx’s essential recommendations to create a communist society. In fact, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax is the second plank of his Communist Manifesto.

Long before the present scandals erupted, the IRS was the most hated and feared agency of the U.S. government. It’s easy to understand why. What other agency can grab your bank account, padlock your business or seize your property (including your home) without even bothering to get a court order?

President Ronald Reagan’ son, Michael Reagan, put it very well when he wrote in a recent column:

The federal income tax code deserves the death penalty for a lot of good reasons. It’s unfair, overly complex, horribly politicized, harmful to individuals and the economy, helpful to the forces of big government, and impossible to understand without a CPA.
It’s also a costly waste of money and time. Just complying with our unnecessarily (but deliberately) complicated federal tax system costs Americans about $430 billion a year, according to economist Arthur Laffer.

Right. So how do we convert the present anger about IRS abuses into an effective national campaign to abolish the IRS? We need to make it an issue — maybe the issue — of next year’s national elections.

Remember, every seat in the House of Representatives will be at stake in 2014. Barack Obama has already promised to do everything in his power to see that Democrats regain a majority there.

I shudder to think what will happen to this country if he succeeds. Can you imagine what it will be like if Nancy Pelosi wins back her title as Speaker of the House of Representatives?

Needless to say, the left will pull out all of the stops to campaign against “the rich.” We’re about to see some of the nastiest, most scurrilous campaigns in history. They’ll make the “Granny Off The Cliff” commercials from the last go-around seem mild by comparison.


But there is one issue that will appeal to every working American: curbing the outrageous abuses of the IRS. Eliminating the graduated income tax is the best way — in fact, the only way — to do so.

The two most popular proposals out there to replace the present tax system are the flat tax and the FairTax. The former would impose a simple flat-tax percentage on all incomes, with only a few deductions still allowed. The latter would replace an income tax with a national sales tax.

Which one should we favor? I like what Reagan had to say about this argument:

If my father Ronald Reagan were around today, I know what he’d do.
He’d do exactly what I’d do — get the flat-taxers and the fair-taxers together in a room and have them hash out a single tax reform program to sell to the American people.
…
The Flat Tax and the Fair Tax each have pluses and minuses that need to be debated. But in the end it really doesn’t matter which idea triumphs.
America and all Americans would be better off with either one. Either would eliminate the progressive tax system and make federal taxes simpler, fairer, smarter, and apolitical. And, best of all, either one would kill the IRS as we know it — forever.

I can’t think of anything that would do more to help our economy than eliminating the progressive income tax. Existing businesses would expand. New businesses would be started. Millions of new jobs would be created.

No longer would April 15 represent a dreaded national nightmare. Instead, your tax obligation would be easy to calculate and reasonable to pay. Our savings in time, effort and anguish would be enormous.

Instead of a system built on fear and intimidation, we would be proud to have helped to create one that is simple, reasonable and fair.

Replacing the present system won’t be easy. But our enemies have given us an incredible opportunity to go on the offensive against the monstrosity they have birthed. Let’s take full advantage of it.

Leno had the right idea — and his audience loved it. Let’s seize the day. After all, we have nothing to lose but our chains.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Thanks to:

We The People and Our Rights

The End of Barack Obama? This approaching Obama scandal will change the White House Administration and our country, overnight. Full access here.

 

Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty

June 7, 2013 by Chip Wood

PHOTOS.COM

A majority in the U.S. Senate has told President Barack Obama not to do it. There’s no doubt that an overwhelming majority of Americans would oppose it — if the media ever told them about it.

Nonetheless, this past Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Obama will sign a controversial gun-control treaty promulgated by the United Nations. “We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official languages is completely satisfied,” Kerry said in a prepared statement.

Although the treaty is being touted as a way to prevent “illicit trade in conventional weapons,” it actually does far more than that. Among other outrages, it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own.

In other words, this U.N. treaty would mean the end of our 2nd Amendment rights. And Kerry says Obama will sign it. What kind of madness is this?

Resolutions condemning the treaty were promptly introduced in both branches of Congress. The measures submitted to the Senate by Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and to the House of Representatives by Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) declare that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States, as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

Then in March, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) submitted an amendment to the budget bill that urged the Obama Administration “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” Inhofe’s amendment was approved by a vote of 53 to 46.

So a majority of Senators have publicly declared their opposition to this dangerous treaty. Doesn’t sound like there’s much chance the treaty will get a positive vote by two-thirds of the Senate, which the Constitution says must be done for any treaty to take effect.

Despite rumors to the contrary, I don’t think even Obama — surely one of the most arrogant people to ever occupy the Oval Office — will try to do an end-run around this Constitutional requirement. But still, the President has come out in favor of it. And Kerry says the Administration is eager to sign it.

Which makes me wonder, have these guys lost their minds?

I’ll grant you, both men have made it clear throughout their careers the utter disdain they hold for the idea of any Constitutional restraints on their actions. But still, coming out in support of such a flagrantly unConstitutional measure now makes me wonder what is really going on here.

I’ve heard suggestions that the U.N. gun control treaty is being brought forward now to distract us from all the other scandals that are besetting the Obama Administration. But that’s as unlikely as the idea that the Administration decided to unleash the story of what the IRS did to Tea Party and other patriotic groups in an effort to distract people from two other scandals — the Administration’s response to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and the Justice Department’s surreptitious seizure of some reporters’ emails.

Okay, so we now know that the IRS actually planted the question that led to the story first breaking about how they targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. And of course it was incredibly stupid to ask for donors’ names and addresses and even questioning what some of the applicants believed.

Passing on some of that private information, so it could be posted on-line by a left wing group, compounded the folly. Clearly, some heads will have to roll over all of this. By the time Congress finishes its various investigations, some IRS employees may even face criminal penalties. From what we know, they should.

But I haven’t seen enough evidence yet to convince me that the IRS scandal will reach into the Oval Office. Yes, Obama set the tone that led to the malfeasance below him. But I don’t think he issued the orders. Unlike Watergate, there’s no recorded conversation or other smoking gun here: or, so far as we know, any impeachable offense.

But that’s emphatically not the case with the Administration’s active support of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Obama and his allies, including Kerry, know exactly what they’re doing. And they seem determined to proceed, no matter what anyone says.

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty was going nowhere last year. Obama, who was running for reelection, said he opposed it. Negotiators couldn’t agree on terms.

But then on Nov. 7 — one day after Obama won his second term — the President reversed himself and instructed our delegation at the U.N. conference to agree to a “Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” to be held in New York City in March.

When that conference voted to send the treaty to the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. representatives fully supported the move. Subsequently, on April 2 the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of its passage. The vote was a lop-sided 154 to 3. The Untied States was one of the “ayes.”

The “no” votes came from three of most notorious human-rights violators in a body that’s filled with them — Iran, Syria, and North Korea. China and Russia joined 21 other nations in abstaining.

How many of those countries were founded on the principle that the citizens’ rights come from God, not government? How many have anything resembling our own Bill of Rights, where the people’s rights (and the limitations on their rulers) are spelled out so forcefully and specifically?

I’m pretty sure the answer is zero.

No, those 154 countries represent some of the most repressive regimes on earth. There aren’t too many friends of freedom sitting in that glass palace on the East River.

The United Nations is been a notorious hotbed of anti-American sentiment since the day it was founded. We don’t have many friends there and never have. Heck, its very creation was virtually a communist plot against this country, as G. Edward Griffin proves in The Fearful Master, his invaluable study of the origins of this one-world monstrosity.

Allowing the United Nations to void our 2nd Amendment rights, and determine gun-control policies for this country would be a huge step down the road to our own enslavement. As I said before, it’s utter madness.

Let’s make sure that Barack Obama, John Kerry and their left wing allies don’t get away with it.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

-Chip Wood

P.S. Once again I’ll be serving as master of ceremonies for FreedomFest, “the world’s largest gathering of free minds,” in Las Vegas, Nevada this July 10-13. Check out the amazing line-up of speakers, programs and debates at Freedom Fest. I encourage you to attend this inspiring gathering. If you do, please be sure to stop by and say hello.

Thanks Again to:



Join Personal Liberty Digest for more up to date articles and critical information concerning the direction of The United States of America.

Will Washington Ever Listen?

Amnesty Watch Wed May 22 Today: Senate committee approved amnesty bill (as expected) -- Now the real battle begins, and it depends on you

"Ironically, the only promise the sponsors of this legislation have kept is their promise to block any attempts to improve the proposal. As a result, we are left with legislation that is fundamentally unchanged and fatally flawed. It will not become law..." -- Senate Judiciary Committee Member Jeff Sessions SEND A FREE FAX with Sen. Sessions' message to your two Senators. He is right in his assessment of the bill, and he will BE right on his prediction of killing the bill if NumbersUSA members deal with actions such as those in this email. Despite the raucous cheers of illegal-immigration activists in the Senate yesterday, THINGS ARE TURNING OUR WAY. Yes, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a terrible amnesty/more-immigration bill yesterday by a 13-5 vote (which we always expected). But this has been a week of very positive developments suggesting a shift in momentum in our direction. And, now that the bill is out of Committee, the other 82 Senators who have been using "the bill is still being amended in Committee" as cover to avoid taking a position on the bill will have to decide if they will support or oppose it. This is your moment to help them make the right choice. NumbersUSA Deputy Director Anne Manetas has helped prepare the following opportunities and information to help you do that. Thursday Webcast to Prepare for Recess: 1 p.m. Thursday (Eastern time). www.StopAmnesty.com You can watch it at any time later, but from 1-2 p.m. (EDT) you can email questions and be part of an interactive conversation about what has happened and what you can do in your states. Senators will begin returning to their home states today for the Memorial Day recess. Most won't be back in their DC offices again until Monday, June 3rd. This recess provides a critical opportunity for you to get in touch with your Senators and let them know what you think of S. 744. It is an amnesty-first-and-enforcement-maybe-later bill that also triples total immigration. Melanie Oubre and Van Esser of our Local Activism Team will be contacting you with specific opportunities over the next week but you can get a full briefing on what's going on during recess by watching the LIVE WEBCAST. You can submit your questions today and tomorrow morning at: webcast@numbersusa.com Van and Melanie will answer your questions on air tomorrow. New Faxes Joe Jenkins has just finished posting a new round of faxes. Please make sure your Senators continue to hear from you during recess by sending the following fax: www.numbersusa.com/faxes?ID=14725 SIGNS OF PROGRESS AND HOPE Anne was concerned that many of you might be just a little discouraged by seeing news last night that the Gang of Eight Amnesty had so easily passed the committee. So, she has provided the following items from this week as signs of important building blocks for defeating the S. 744 amnesty-immigration increase legislation when it comes to a vote on the Senate floor in mid-June. Conservative Leaders Come Out Against S. 744: While NumbersUSA is non-ideological, we know that conservative opposition to the Gang of 8 amnesty is essential to killing the bill. The media have tried to make it seem like the majority of conservative forces are in line with pro-enforcement leaders like Grover Norquist and all kinds of corporate lobbies and their billionaire owners. So we were delighted yesterday to see a coalition of over 150 conservative leaders sign an open letter opposing S. 744. You can rea d more about the effort on their website: http://www.stopgangof8.com/ Thousands of anti-amnesty petitions delivered in locally-run rallies across the nation: Yesterday, activists all over the country rallied against S. 744 in "Remember 1986" events, urging their Senators to remember the mistakes of the 1986 IRCA amnesty which provided amnesty but only broken promises of enforcement. You can read Melanie's wrap-up of yesterday's events in her blog at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/moubre/may-22-2013/americans-remember-1986-coast-coast.html This is really exciting reading (and pictures) about so many of your fellow citizens getting out in public and drawing a lot more attention to the disaster that this bill promises. Judiciary Committee Reports Un-i mproved Bill Out of Committee: While we were repeatedly disappointed in the lack of compassion for American workers and taxpayers shown by the majority of the Judiciary Committee during its two-week markup process, the result was good news. That is, the fact that the Judiciary Committee reported a bill out that is as bad or worse than it was when it was introduced should make it easier to kill on the Senate floor. At this point, the legislation would so dramatically increase immigration numbers and rewrite i mmigration policy that it would be impossible to amend it to an acceptable point. Hatch-Schumer H-1B Compromise Angers Union Leaders: While the compromise increasing H-1B visas and loosening protections for American workers worked out by Senators Hatch and Schumer led to Sen. Hatch voting to pass the Gang bill out of the Judiciary Committee yesterday, it caused a rift in the delicate Big-Business/Big Union coalition that had been so widely touted as a key to the success of the Gang of 8 bill. After the deal was announced, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the changes "unambiguous attacks on American workers." Of course the entire bill is an attack on unemployed American workers, but it will be interesting to see if Union leaders use this opportunity to stand up for American workers or if they continue to seek ways in which to allow federal immigration policies to drive down wages. Immigration Reform Caucus Founder Launches Ad Campaign: Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who founded the Immigration Reform Caucus while in Congress, has launched a series of radio ads opposing the Gang of 8 bill in various markets nationwide. Congressman Tancredo's message is airing on the same shows that are airing Sen. Marco Rubio's ad defending the bill. Tancredo's ads provide a helpful truth-squad function to the false claims made in the Rubio ads that are funded by the coalition of Mark Zuckerburg (Facebook founder) in an effort to promote the Gang's bill. CLOCK IS TICKING S. 744 could come to the Senate floor for a vote in the second or third week in June. So, the clock is ticking. Now is the time when Senators are forming their positions on this legislation so it is absolutely critical that they hear from their constituents who oppose it. Your activism over the next two weeks is essential to leverage the developments of this week in order to pull more Senators away from a YES vote on the Senate floor. Please continue to look for and respond to our Action Requests. And let us know if there is som ething we can do to help. We can't do this without you. Your country is depending on you right now. roy beck Wed, May 22nd Thanks goes out to Numbers USA

Another Thought Provoking Article

Is America’s Economy Being Sovietized?

May 21, 2013 by Brandon Smith

PHOTOS.COM

The foundation of the Soviet model of trade and investment was centralization. The entire goal of communism in general was not to give more social and political power to the people, but to extinguish alternative options and focus power into the hands of a select few. The process used to reach this end result can vary, but the goal always remains the same. In most cases, such centralization begins with economic hegemony, and it is in our fiscal structure that we have the means to see the future. Sovietization in our financial life will inevitably lead to sovietization in our political life.

Does the U.S. economy’s path resemble the Soviet template exactly? No. And I’m sure the very suggestion will make the average unaware free market evangelical froth at the mouth. However, as I plan to show, the parallels in our fundamentals are disturbing; the reality is that true free markets in America died a long time ago.

The Tyranny Of Planned Economy

The characteristics of a free market society defy the use of centralized planning. Adam Smith’s original concept of free market trade stood as an antithesis to what was then referred to as “mercantilism,” a select few “joint stock companies” (corporations) monopolizing production while using government ties to destroy any new competition. Unfortunately, there are to this day economists and politicians who believe that corporate centralization is a “natural” function of a free market. In reality, corporate monopolies are an unnatural creation of collusion between governments and big-money interests designed to suffocate any entrepreneurship outside of their sphere of influence. Over time, as we now see in the United States today, government power and corporate power begin to hybridize, until one can barely be distinguished from the other.

The bottom line is that you cannot have planned structures, monopolized production or controlled capital flow within an economy and still claim it to be a “free market. There are no exceptions to this rule.

The Soviet system was the ultimate in centralization. Every aspect of financial life was dictated by the communist government, from industrial input and output to investment to food production and rationing to wages and retail prices. Some people might argue that this structure is a far cry from what we now have in the United States, but let’s look at the fundamentals.

Controlled Money Creation

One of the primary tenets of The Communist Manifesto was the creation of a central bank meant to keep tight controls over currency issuance. The existence of a central bank immediately disrupts any chance of a true free market. Central banking without competition allows an oligarchy, whether corporate or political or a meshing of the two, to manipulate interest rates as well as adjust prices through inflation. Lending standards (which the central bank determines arbitrarily) built on fractional reserve banking opens the door to murky debt instruments and toxic financial products that are further used to either fabricate a “high” standard of living (as we saw in the U.S. in the 90s and early 2000s) or execute a bubble implosion causing a lower standard of living (as the U.S. is experiencing today).

Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve through subversive collusion between banking interests and corrupt politicians in 1913, America has not had a free market system. From that point forward, every boom and bust, every interest rate disaster, every inflationary increase in prices has been scientifically engineered.

Dominance Of Industry

Soviet controls on industrial output are legendary. Every part of the resource allocation process became subject to bureaucracy, and this led to stunted manufacturing growth as well as a culture of misrepresented economic data. In the United States, the establishment has taken a slightly different approach but with the same end result.

Heavy taxation on business ventures within the U.S. against entrepreneurs not lucky enough to run in elitists circles has erased incentives for manufacturing experiments within our borders. In the meantime, members of the corporate glee club receive government subsidization while they simultaneously outsource industrial projects to Third World nations. Controlled industry within communist Russia was meant to force the population to depend upon the government for every means of survival. In the United States, dependency on government has been replaced by interdependency on the globalized model in general. Necessities are now compartmentalized, and only select international businesses with cooperation from government have the ability to bring all the pieces together to keep our domestic economy running smoothly. Our society has been so distanced from self-sufficiency that many people now consider the globalist dynamic indispensable.

Bureaucracy And Food Production

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations, based on dubious junk science and often instituted on high without congressional oversight, further erode business possibilities, especially for young companies as well as private agriculture, while giving free reign to elitist entities like Monsanto, an organization the government actually protects through specialized legislation making it nearly immune to civil litigation.

While farms in the United States are not exactly “controlled” by the Federal government in the Soviet sense, many of them are subsidized through welfare on the condition that they grow only particular kinds of crops, raise particular animals or grow nothing at all. This subsidization is an indirect form of price control, creating engineered scarcity or abundance. At the same time, agricultural empires like Monsanto make private farm ownership increasingly difficult by using their government protection to harass and squeeze out independent food producers.

This destabilization of private resource management by common citizens has culminated in the passage of President Barack Obama’s executive order National Defense Resource Preparedness, which allows under a “national emergency” (which the President can declare for any reason) the confiscation of any and all private resources, including farms and businesses, to be redistributed by the government to ensure security conditions. This is the Stalinist model, pure and simple.

Centralized Control Of Investment

We now know that since at least 2008, the U.S. stock market, often presented by the mainstream as a paragon of free market prowess, has actually been propped up and inflated by Federal Reserve fiat. Both former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and current branch head Richard Fisher have openly admitted in separate news interviews that the central bank spends considerable energy in “artificially sustaining” equity markets. This has been done, I suspect, with full knowledge of the U.S. Treasury and the Obama Administration.

The Soviet model for investment was to remove all uncertainties from their domestic markets, often in the name of preventing manipulation by “speculators.” The speculator rationale was generally a distraction away from the attempt to dictate the natural forces of supply and demand. The idea was that if the government could dismiss legitimate demand or lack of demand or hide excess supply or lack of supply, the perception of a balanced economy could be conjured for the population. This led to strict redirection of capital to areas where manipulation was needed to artificially pump up (or deflate) a particular part of the economy. The government became the sole investor of the Soviet system and, thus, the sole determinant of the success or failure of any particular market.

This is exactly what is going on in America today. Federal Reserve fiat is being printed and dumped into every financial mechanism that supposedly maintains our country’s fiscal health, including stocks, Treasuries and municipals, while trade volume remains low and private investment disappears. The Federal government now owes its very existence to the continued support of central bank dollars, and the Dow Jones does as well. If this is not the Soviet ideal, then I don’t know what is.

Labor Oppression, Dismal Living Standards And Government Dependency

Poverty levels within the United States are at record highs. Nearly 50 million Americans are now dependent on government-subsidized food stamps for their survival. Nearly 100 million Americans receive welfare (or Social Security) in one form or another from the establishment. That is almost one-third of our entire population that relies on the system for at least a part of their sustainment. If Obamacare is fully realized, millions more Americans will also be conditioned to become dependent on government-designated healthcare providers. The point is not to pass judgment on those people who get money or services from the government, only to make clear our progression away from freedom and into centralized servitude.

For a Soviet structure to thrive, poverty among common citizens has to be institutionalized. Dependency requires a constant state of desperation. In America, this has been accomplished through a combination of inflated prices and reduced wages in conjunction with the destruction of labor options.

At the height of the communist machine in Russia, employment was ample; but the kind of employment one could apply for was dependent on bureaucratic red tape and availability based on a worker’s record. Only the academic “elite” within the government-run cesspools of Soviet universities and military schools had their choice of employment; even then, they were often pressured into particular specialized fields, depending on the kind of labor the state needed done at that particular time.

In the United States anyone can certainly aspire to do whatever job he hopes to do. But again, options have been removed economically; and the same academic elitism pervasive in Soviet Union labor markets exists in America today. In a recent installment of his weekly radio show, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it was better for “so-so” high school students to pursue a career in plumbing rather than go to college.

Though I rarely agree with Bloomberg on anything, my initial reaction was surprise at his willingness to steer American youth away from university indoctrination centers. However, upon further examination, it became clear that Bloomberg was not trying to save the next generation time and money. Instead, he is promoting a shift in the labor dynamic of the U.S. economy toward a Soviet-style foundation. Bloomberg knows well that the U.S. labor market will never return to its former glory, partly because he is a supporter of the globalist policies that ruined our economy in the first place. Instead of suggesting ways to reverse the trend of progressive poverty and the lack of high-end jobs that engender ingenuity and invention, elitists like Bloomberg are saying “forget your dreams and get used to being a drone.”

In a 70 percent service and retail economy, where job availability is increasingly degraded and independent business is discouraged, Americans will have two choices: Excel in the world of federally funded and propagandized education and sell your soul just for a chance at obtaining a professional career in a field of influence or settle for the leftovers. For some people, being a plumber is a fine thing; but it should not be the only thing. In a true free market, a smart man can make his own way, even if he does not conform to the ideologies of the educational racket. In a Sovietized market, a smart man is prohibited from accomplishing anything unless he conforms to the ideologies of the educational racket.

In the end, the Soviet economy was so utterly fraudulent that the final collapse of the system came as a complete surprise to many in political and economic fields. Centralization is an absolute affront to the natural laws of supply and demand and an oppressive hindrance to the innovation that humanity thrives on. Such systems require constant theft from the populace in the form of reduced jobs, reduced wages, reduced resources, increased taxes, increased price controls and a highly ignorant citizenry in order to function even for a short time. Sadly, the United States is well on its way in all of these areas, lending itself to a global economic tyranny in which all of us work much harder, for much less and all for a government that uses our very labor against us.

–Brandon Smith

Thanks to

Another Great Article About the Truth

BENGHAZI: PROTECTING THE THRONE

 

          As a result of the May 8^th House of Representatives Committee hearing on the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya three chilling conclusions can be drawn. First, the four Americans who were killed were abandoned by the very government they so bravely served. Days prior to the attack Ambassador Chris Stevens and others on his staff pointed out to the State Department that the security situation in Libya was deteriorating. There had already been a car bomb attack on the Consulate in Benghazi and an attempt had been made on the life of the British ambassador. Therefore, Ambassador Stevens wanted an increase in security personnel.

          Yet, despite these reports and the fact that the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 was rapidly approaching these requests were denied and orders were issued actually reducing the number of security personnel already assigned to the Ambassador. Then when the attacks began on September 11^th, there is clear evidence that there were American military assets in the area, including a four man special opts team in Tripoli, that could have been used to break up the assault and save American lives. Instead of immediately deploying these assets, someone in the Obama administration ordered a stand down and no help was provided to the Ambassador and his embattled staff at the Consulate.

          The second conclusion that can be clearly drawn is that the U.S. government knew from the beginning of the assault that this was a coordinated terrorist attack yet tried to hide this fact from the public for days. Instead of acknowledging that we had been struck by Jihadists once again on 9/11 administration officials, including the President and Secretary of State, claimed it was a spontaneous demonstration resulting from an obscure You Tube video critical of the prophet Mohammed that the demonstration somehow evolved into bloodshed. This was claimed despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

          There are still more questions than answers and there will be more hearings, but the final inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this initial hearing is that the Administration, the vast majority of the Democrats in Congress, and most of the mainstream media don’t want the American people to know the truth. Their only interest is in protecting King Obama and his throne, and protecting his possible successor, Hilary Clinton. Instead of asking pertinent The Democrats on the committee spent most of their time attacking the Republicans and the valiant whistleblowers.

Indeed, these elected representatives of “we the people” drew their swords and locked their shields together in order to form a bulwark between the truth and the American people. This is a direct violation of their oath of office where they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers carefully crafted the Constitution to set up a limited Federal government with three separate, but equal branches that would provide checks and balances to keep one branch from becoming too powerful and plunging our nation into tyranny. By refusing to rein in the excesses of the Executive Branch of government these so called “lawmakers” are failing to do what they are tasked to do by the Constitution. This is not only an impeachable offense, but is subject to criminal penalties under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.

As for the members of the national news media, they take no such oath but I contend that they are still bound by the duties imposed on them by the Constitution. The First Amendment provides for freedom of the press and the founding fathers placed it in the Constitution for a specific reason. They wanted a free press to be a watch dog over the Federal government to keep it from becoming tyrannical, lying to the American people, and taking away our God given freedoms. By refusing to dig for the truth about Benghazi and in fact assisting the Administration in the cover up much of the mainstream media has become nothing more than a propaganda forum for the President and his allies. They are no longer the standard bearers for a free press, but the disciples of tyranny.

It is time for us to take back our country and hold the enemies of our Constitution accountable for their actions.

Michael Connelly

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Michael Connelly blog

www.usjf.net

Constitutional Law Alliance

What's Ahead?

Does anyone remember last weeks gathering at the new Bush Library. Five of our presidents, both past and present were in attendance. George W. Bush spoke. What he said stucks with me today and it wasn't so much what he said, but what happened while he spoke.

He said with tears in his eyes, "the best days for America are still ahead".

Now what would make him cry about that, unless he knows that if we continue down the path he and so many others have supported, put our best days behind us.

It doesn't make me wonder because I feel our best days are long gone. We are headed towards a dictatorship run by a One World Government. It's taken several years for the plan to fall into place. Many in our government are not stupid, they know what they are doing or have done. Those tears during the speach came from the disappointment he now feels about what he helped destroy were The Best Days!

AllenD

These People Have Got To Go!

Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the bill read: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. , and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N. Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

People..... These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Another Hole In Your Rights!

Findings & Forecasts 04/24/2013: Technocracy

Tech­noc­racy is Economics

Some people wonder why I write about Tech­noc­racy when the main focus of Find­ings & Fore­casts is the economy. Let me be clear about this: Tech­noc­racy is an eco­nomic system (with polit­ical and social over­tones) that is being increas­ingly imple­mented in the United States and around the world. It demands our atten­tion and scrutiny, espe­cially since there has been no public policy or eco­nomic debate what­so­ever. It cannot be debated if there is no iden­ti­fi­ca­tion or larger recognition.
Tech­noc­racy as an eco­nomic theory was for­mal­ized in the 1930′s by a group known as Tech­noc­racy, Inc. Founded by M. King Hub­bard (the Peak Oil Theory guy in the 1950′s) and Howard Scott (a pseudo-engineer and pro­moter), Tech­noc­racy was care­fully defined in a widely pub­lished work, Tech­noc­racy Study Course. Designed to be admin­is­trated by sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians, Tech­noc­racy insisted that politi­cians were not capable of making good deci­sions about tech­nology they knew nothing about.
When Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt was elected in 1933 on his “New Deal” plat­form, the only other likely plat­form would have been Tech­noc­racy. It was lucky for us that FDR rejected the utopian goals of Tech­noc­racy for a greatly watered down ver­sion in his so-called New Deal.
Henry Porter, author of Roo­sevelt and Tech­noc­racy in 1932, declared “Just as the Ref­or­ma­tion estab­lished Reli­gious Freedom, just as the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence brought about our Polit­ical Freedom, Tech­noc­racy promises Eco­nomic Freedom.” [Fore­ward, iii] Among other things, Porter pro­posed to abolish the gold stan­dard, sus­pend the stock exchanges, and nation­alize public util­i­ties, after which he concluded,

“And then, a national awak­ening which, overnight, may well be expected to herald the news to every corner of the nation of the inau­gu­ra­tion of the ‘new deal’ by FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT – DICTATOR. Drastic as these changes from the present order of things may be, they will serve their pur­pose if only to pave the way for the Eco­nomic Rev­o­lu­tion – and TECHNOCRACY.” [caps in original]

In this writer’s con­sid­ered opinion, Porter’s envi­sioned “Eco­nomic Rev­o­lu­tion” fore­shad­owed the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s self-imposed man­date to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” in 1973. Tri­lat­eral co-founder Brzezinski’s sem­inal work, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era, was little more than a para­phrased ver­sion of 1930′s Technocracy.
If Tech­noc­racy is indeed asserting itself on today’s eco­nomic affairs, then it should become the hottest and most debated topic of the day – but it is not! That’s why this writer con­tinues to present evi­dence that shows it is not only asserting itself, but it is rapidly coming to dom­i­nate the entire glob­al­ized eco­nomic system.

H.R. 624 – Cyber Intel­li­gence Sharing and Pro­tec­tion Act (CISPA)

CISPA passed in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives by a vote of 227 – 192 on April 17, and has now moved on to the Senate. The leg­is­la­tion was co-authored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and “Dutch” Rup­pers­berger (D-MD), and osten­sibly came from almost iden­tical leg­is­la­tion that was rejected in April 2012. There were 37 co-sponsors.
The essence of CISPA is that it gives blanket per­mis­sion to pri­vate com­pa­nies to share cus­tomers’ pri­vate data with the gov­ern­ment. The pri­vate com­pany cannot be legally com­pelled by the gov­ern­ment to pro­vide data if it chooses to not to. The biggest obstacle now removed is “exemp­tion from lia­bility,” where a com­pany can be sued blind for revealing secret and pri­vate data to anyone, including the gov­ern­ment. On page 20, the bill states,

(3) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY

“(A) EXEMPTION. – No civil or crim­inal cause of action shall lie or be main­tained in Fed­eral or State court against a pro­tected entity, self-protected entity, cyber­se­cu­rity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a pro­tected entity, self-protected entity, or cyber­se­cu­rity provider, acting in good faith…”

Given that cyber­se­cu­rity events are hap­pening on a 24×7 basis, once the gov­ern­ment is tapped into a pri­vate data pool, it could main­tain a con­tin­uous and real-time transfer of data to gov­ern­ment super-computers, such as the new NSA data center cur­rently nearing com­ple­tion in Utah. This new com­puter center is report­edly capable of storing 5 zettabytes of data, where one zettabyte is defined as 10 to the 21st power. As of 2012, no com­puter in the world had yet achieved even one zettabyte of storage.
How big is a zettabyte? A tech­nology reporter sug­gested that one zettabyte is the equiv­a­lent of 62 mil­lion stacked iPhone 5′s that would stretch past the moon. Inter­na­tional Data Cor­po­ra­tion esti­mates that all cur­rent global data grew to 2.7 zettabytes in 2012, so the NSA center will lit­er­ally be able to hold all existing dig­ital infor­ma­tion in the world, with years of room to grow.
If this leg­is­la­tion even­tu­ally passes in the Senate, the skids are greased to aggre­gate all data on every person in the United States. In spite of claims por­tending to fight ter­rorism or cyber­crime, CISPA is the largest data grab in the his­tory of the world.
How will data be col­lected? The feeder system is already in place.
Between 2003 – 2007, the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity, in coop­er­a­tion with the FBI and CIA, have already estab­lished a net­work of 53 pri­mary “fusion cen­ters” around the nation. According to the DHS website,

“Pri­mary fusion cen­ters serve as the focal points within the state and local envi­ron­ment for the receipt, analysis, gath­ering, and sharing of threat-related infor­ma­tion and have addi­tional respon­si­bil­i­ties related to the coor­di­na­tion of crit­ical oper­a­tional capa­bil­i­ties across the statewide fusion process with other rec­og­nized fusion cen­ters. Fur­ther­more, pri­mary cen­ters are the highest pri­ority for the allo­ca­tion of avail­able fed­eral resources, including the deploy­ment of per­sonnel and con­nec­tivity with fed­eral data sys­tems.“ [emphasis added]

These fusion cen­ters cul­ti­vate rela­tion­ships with pri­vate enter­prises in order to shovel infor­ma­tion to and between fed­eral, state and local law enforce­ment agen­cies. While some defend the exis­tence of these fusion cen­ters, the Senate Home­land Secu­rity and Gov­ern­mental Affairs per­ma­nent sub­com­mittee on inves­ti­ga­tions released a scathing 141 page report that stated, “In reality, the Sub­com­mittee inves­ti­ga­tion found that the fusion cen­ters often pro­duced irrel­e­vant, use­less or inap­pro­priate intel­li­gence reporting to DHS, and many pro­duced no intel­li­gence reporting whatsoever.”
If fusion cen­ters do nothing useful to combat ter­rorism, then why are they allowed to con­tinue and what are they really doing? Simply put, they are the feeder points for the mas­sive data col­lec­tion effort being pushed by the Fed­eral government.
You may wonder, what does this have to do with Tech­noc­racy? Well, every­thing. Three of the core require­ments that are nec­es­sary to imple­ment Tech­noc­racy are found in that 1932 doc­u­ment, Tech­noc­racy Study Course:

• “Pro­vide a con­tin­uous inven­tory of all pro­duc­tion and consumption
• “Pro­vide a spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and ser­vices, where pro­duced and where used
• “Pro­vide spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the con­sump­tion of each indi­vidual, plus a record and descrip­tion of the indi­vidual.” [Scott, Howard et al, Tech­noc­racy Study Source, p. 232]

These require­ments are about to be met in full for the first time in his­tory: Full, unim­peded flow of all per­sonal data and com­mu­ni­ca­tions to a cen­tral pro­cessing authority.
This is Tech­noc­racy. It is not cap­i­talism, com­mu­nism or fas­cism even though it has some resem­blance to each. It is total­i­tarian. It is not run by elected politi­cians or rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the people of the nation, but rather by sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians who have their own agenda for soci­etal engineering.

BFIA thanks:  The August Review and the Editor  Patick Wood  for allowing us to share this article of importance with our visitors.

http://www.augustforecast.com/2013/04/24/findings-forecasts-04242013/

AllenD

The Sickness Continues

no guns this time, but a sick mind for sure. When will we ever start thinking about the sickness rather than the tools used?

AllenD

The Pinball Machine

Have you ever had the feeling that "we the people" are nothing more than a Pinball Machine? Half of us being the ball,  half being the bumpers and the government working the flippers! That's not exactly what this linked video is all about, but it like so many others things we see, we hear about, we talk about and we feel in our hearts continues to rip apart "the idea".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R8WLXhahw_A#!

If we ever find that special person who is willing to take on the establishment, I do hope that we all will rally together, unite on behalf of "the idea" and "the reason".

Until next time.
AllenD