Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse

Home » Posts tagged 'Constitution'

Tag Archives: Constitution

Here’s What The Richest Man In The World Thinks About Snowden And NSA Surveillance | Zero Hedge

Here’s What The Richest Man In The World Thinks About Snowden And NSA Surveillance | Zero Hedge.

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

So Bill Gates recently gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine. The vast majority of the interview focused on his philanthropic efforts, with a particular focus on poverty and climate change. However, several questions were brought up on illegal NSA surveillance in general, and Edward Snowden in particular.

His answers reveal one of the biggest problems facing America today, which is the fact that the billionaire class as a whole does not question or rock the boat whatsoever. They criticize only when it is convenient or easy to do so, never putting themselves at risk for the sake of civil liberties and the Constitution.

In mosts cases, this is due to the fact that they themselves are the characters pulling the strings of the political class in Washington D.C. So when it comes down to it, their policies ultimately become our policies.

It is also important to note that Microsoft was a particularly eager participant in NSA spying from the very beginning. For example, according to the following PRISM slide provided by Edward Snowden, we see that Gates’ company was the first to become involved. In fact, they were participating a full six months before Yahoo!, while Apple didn’t join until a year after Steve Jobs died.

What a tangled web we have weaved. Now from Rolling Stone:

Question: When people think about the cloud, it’s not only the accessibility of information and their documents that comes to mind, but also their privacy – or lack of it.

Gates: Should there be cameras everywhere in outdoor streets? My personal view is having cameras in inner cities is a very good thing. In the case of London, petty crime has gone down. They catch terrorists because of it. And if something really bad happens, most of the time you can figure out who did it. There’s a general view there that it’s not used to invade privacy in some way. Yet in an American city, in order to take advantage of that in the same way, you have to trust what this information is going to be used for.

Do they really catch terrorists because of it in London? Because in the U.S., the NSA chief already admitted that the entire spy program has stopped essentially zero terrorist attacks. It certainly didn’t stop the Boston bombings. So what are we giving up our privacy for exactly?

Question: Thanks to Edward Snowden, who has leaked tens of thousands of NSA documents, we are. Do you consider him a hero or a traitor?

Gates: I think he broke the law, so I certainly wouldn’t characterize him as a hero. If he wanted to raise the issues and stay in the country and engage in civil disobedience or something of that kind, or if he had been careful in terms of what he had released, then it would fit more of the model of “OK, I’m really trying to improve things.” You won’t find much admiration from me.

Sorry Billy boy, but we have had many whistleblowers in the past who went through the system and they ended up in jail or their lives were ruined. For example, the only person imprisoned for torture in the USA is the guy who exposed the torture program, John Kiriakou.

Question: Even so, do you think it’s better now that we know what we know about government surveillance?

Gates: The government has such ability to do these things. There has to be a debate. But the specific techniques they use become unavailable if they’re discussed in detail. So the debate needs to be about the general notion of under what circumstances should they be allowed to do things.

First of all, without the Snowden revelations, there would be no “debate.” As it stands, the intelligence complex and Obama don’t seem to have much interest in changing a single thing anyway.

Before Snowden proved us right, those who accurately claimed the NSA was doing all of these things were labeled paranoid conspiracy theorists. Moreover, how can anyone seriously defend these “techniques” in light of the recent revelations that show activities so egregious that security experts think they threaten the infrastructure of the entire internet?

Gates goes on to ponder…

Should surveillance be usable for petty crimes like jaywalking or minor drug possession? Or is there a higher threshold for certain information?Those aren’t easy questions.

How are those not easy questions? They are exceedingly easy questions for a civilized society. The answer is no. Unless you want to toss even more citizens in jail for non-violent offenses, because having 25% of the world’s prison population and only 5% of its population is not inhumane enough.

More from Gates…

The U.S. government in general is one of the better governments in the world. It’s the best in many, many respects. Lack of corruption, for instance, and a reasonable justice system.

Seriously, what country is Gates living in? I suppose when you are the richest man in the world it’s pretty easy to live in a bubble. He is so obsessed with the problems of the outside world and the fact that they are more corrupt than we are, that he is completely blind to the very dangerous trends happening in America.

What a joke.

The entire interview can be read here.

Here's What The Richest Man In The World Thinks About Snowden And NSA Surveillance | Zero Hedge

Here’s What The Richest Man In The World Thinks About Snowden And NSA Surveillance | Zero Hedge.

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

So Bill Gates recently gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine. The vast majority of the interview focused on his philanthropic efforts, with a particular focus on poverty and climate change. However, several questions were brought up on illegal NSA surveillance in general, and Edward Snowden in particular.

His answers reveal one of the biggest problems facing America today, which is the fact that the billionaire class as a whole does not question or rock the boat whatsoever. They criticize only when it is convenient or easy to do so, never putting themselves at risk for the sake of civil liberties and the Constitution.

In mosts cases, this is due to the fact that they themselves are the characters pulling the strings of the political class in Washington D.C. So when it comes down to it, their policies ultimately become our policies.

It is also important to note that Microsoft was a particularly eager participant in NSA spying from the very beginning. For example, according to the following PRISM slide provided by Edward Snowden, we see that Gates’ company was the first to become involved. In fact, they were participating a full six months before Yahoo!, while Apple didn’t join until a year after Steve Jobs died.

What a tangled web we have weaved. Now from Rolling Stone:

Question: When people think about the cloud, it’s not only the accessibility of information and their documents that comes to mind, but also their privacy – or lack of it.

Gates: Should there be cameras everywhere in outdoor streets? My personal view is having cameras in inner cities is a very good thing. In the case of London, petty crime has gone down. They catch terrorists because of it. And if something really bad happens, most of the time you can figure out who did it. There’s a general view there that it’s not used to invade privacy in some way. Yet in an American city, in order to take advantage of that in the same way, you have to trust what this information is going to be used for.

Do they really catch terrorists because of it in London? Because in the U.S., the NSA chief already admitted that the entire spy program has stopped essentially zero terrorist attacks. It certainly didn’t stop the Boston bombings. So what are we giving up our privacy for exactly?

Question: Thanks to Edward Snowden, who has leaked tens of thousands of NSA documents, we are. Do you consider him a hero or a traitor?

Gates: I think he broke the law, so I certainly wouldn’t characterize him as a hero. If he wanted to raise the issues and stay in the country and engage in civil disobedience or something of that kind, or if he had been careful in terms of what he had released, then it would fit more of the model of “OK, I’m really trying to improve things.” You won’t find much admiration from me.

Sorry Billy boy, but we have had many whistleblowers in the past who went through the system and they ended up in jail or their lives were ruined. For example, the only person imprisoned for torture in the USA is the guy who exposed the torture program, John Kiriakou.

Question: Even so, do you think it’s better now that we know what we know about government surveillance?

Gates: The government has such ability to do these things. There has to be a debate. But the specific techniques they use become unavailable if they’re discussed in detail. So the debate needs to be about the general notion of under what circumstances should they be allowed to do things.

First of all, without the Snowden revelations, there would be no “debate.” As it stands, the intelligence complex and Obama don’t seem to have much interest in changing a single thing anyway.

Before Snowden proved us right, those who accurately claimed the NSA was doing all of these things were labeled paranoid conspiracy theorists. Moreover, how can anyone seriously defend these “techniques” in light of the recent revelations that show activities so egregious that security experts think they threaten the infrastructure of the entire internet?

Gates goes on to ponder…

Should surveillance be usable for petty crimes like jaywalking or minor drug possession? Or is there a higher threshold for certain information?Those aren’t easy questions.

How are those not easy questions? They are exceedingly easy questions for a civilized society. The answer is no. Unless you want to toss even more citizens in jail for non-violent offenses, because having 25% of the world’s prison population and only 5% of its population is not inhumane enough.

More from Gates…

The U.S. government in general is one of the better governments in the world. It’s the best in many, many respects. Lack of corruption, for instance, and a reasonable justice system.

Seriously, what country is Gates living in? I suppose when you are the richest man in the world it’s pretty easy to live in a bubble. He is so obsessed with the problems of the outside world and the fact that they are more corrupt than we are, that he is completely blind to the very dangerous trends happening in America.

What a joke.

The entire interview can be read here.

Obama uses the Same Nonsense as Putin | Armstrong Economics

Obama uses the Same Nonsense as Putin | Armstrong Economics.

Obama-Putin

We are still awaiting panic cycles at the end of the month so this is not over until the fat lady sings as they say, albeit we do not expect military action between any major powers before the October/November time period. For Obama to claim that a public vote in Crimea would violate the Constitution of Ukraine and International Law is really just as absurd that the same argument put forth by Putin that nothing in Kiev was legal because it was not signed by Yanukovych. There should be a vote, but it should be monitored independently to ensure it is real. To argue that no state may move to secede from a federal government is ridiculous. Obama said:

“Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine. In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.”

Texas has the ABSOLUTE right to secede from the United States if it so desired and the Washington has no right to invade Texas to prevent that – although they too would in the blink-of-an-eye. There are no “democratic” leaders in Kiev as of yet because this is a grass-roots uprising that distrusts anyone who has EVER been in government before.

Meanwhile, you cannot say the people have no right to decide their own fate because this violates the will of “democratic” leaders. No elected official has the right to trump the wishes of the people and let us call a spade a spade – the EU suppresses the right to vote because they are afraid the people in Europe would vote against the euro. The EU interfered with Italian elections and it threatened Georgios Papandreou of Greece that it was NOT ALLOWED to allow the people to vote on staying in the Euro. Greece back-down and did not allow that to take place – so much for democratic ideals.

Let the people decide and YES we can redraw the borders if the PEOPLE so desire. If splitting Ukraine PREVENTS war – then so be it. The word for “slave” in Latin is “servus”and that is the root of public servant. Politicians should remember they are NOT the dictators of the people, but the servants of the people. There can never be any justification to deny the people the right to be heard. That is the oldest right and those who like to use the Bible, it is called today due process for in Genesis God calls Able and asks where is his brother even though he knows the answer. God extended to him the right to be heard and that is the cornerstone of democracy. So do not use that word in the same breadth with calling it illegal to allow a the public to be heard.

Obama uses the Same Nonsense as Putin | Armstrong Economics

Obama uses the Same Nonsense as Putin | Armstrong Economics.

Obama-Putin

We are still awaiting panic cycles at the end of the month so this is not over until the fat lady sings as they say, albeit we do not expect military action between any major powers before the October/November time period. For Obama to claim that a public vote in Crimea would violate the Constitution of Ukraine and International Law is really just as absurd that the same argument put forth by Putin that nothing in Kiev was legal because it was not signed by Yanukovych. There should be a vote, but it should be monitored independently to ensure it is real. To argue that no state may move to secede from a federal government is ridiculous. Obama said:

“Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine. In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.”

Texas has the ABSOLUTE right to secede from the United States if it so desired and the Washington has no right to invade Texas to prevent that – although they too would in the blink-of-an-eye. There are no “democratic” leaders in Kiev as of yet because this is a grass-roots uprising that distrusts anyone who has EVER been in government before.

Meanwhile, you cannot say the people have no right to decide their own fate because this violates the will of “democratic” leaders. No elected official has the right to trump the wishes of the people and let us call a spade a spade – the EU suppresses the right to vote because they are afraid the people in Europe would vote against the euro. The EU interfered with Italian elections and it threatened Georgios Papandreou of Greece that it was NOT ALLOWED to allow the people to vote on staying in the Euro. Greece back-down and did not allow that to take place – so much for democratic ideals.

Let the people decide and YES we can redraw the borders if the PEOPLE so desire. If splitting Ukraine PREVENTS war – then so be it. The word for “slave” in Latin is “servus”and that is the root of public servant. Politicians should remember they are NOT the dictators of the people, but the servants of the people. There can never be any justification to deny the people the right to be heard. That is the oldest right and those who like to use the Bible, it is called today due process for in Genesis God calls Able and asks where is his brother even though he knows the answer. God extended to him the right to be heard and that is the cornerstone of democracy. So do not use that word in the same breadth with calling it illegal to allow a the public to be heard.

1946 Archive Film Proves Despotism Has Taken over America | Truthstream Media

1946 Archive Film Proves Despotism Has Taken over America | Truthstream Media.

flagburnedd
image_pdfimage_print

(Truthstream Media.com)

The Declaration of Independence boldly states:

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Thomas Jefferson, writing on behalf of the independent-minded colonists in 1776, backed up the Declaration’s conclusion with numerous examples of British tyranny, stating: “To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Compare them to the United States and global system we live under today.

Are we now free? Examine the balance of power between individuals, endowed with natural rights by God, and government, Constitutionally bound to only limited powers, as well as the leading corporations of the private sector.

A 1946 national archive film released by Encyclopedia Britannica titled “Despotism” outlines several yardsticks for measuring the balance of power of a free society and that of an outright a despotism, according to scales of respect, power, economic distribution and information. Concentrated power and wealth, centralized information and monopolistic or oligopolistic control in any one of these areas tends to negatively affect the others, and renders freedom a mere illusion.

“Look beyond fine words and noble phrases,” the analyst in the archive film warns. The rhetoric of freedom in America or anywhere else on planet Earth is irrelevant if the power, wealth and opportunity resides in the hands of just a few, or worse a single entity. By any yardstick, society today is very far gone; the once free United States of America is far down the path of dictatorship, though it keeps wrapped in the stars and stripes of the flag and the lofty words of its founding ideals.

Now what? It is the duty of free people to seek and demand a better society once again.

Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton

Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton created Truthstream Media.com as an outlet to examine the news, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free…

Obama finds brand-new way to spy on you

Obama finds brand-new way to spy on you.

Gov’t takes notes, uses information to prevail in court

Published: 18 hours ago

Plaintiffs in a case challenging the U.S. government’s programs that spy on innocent Americans have submitted a special supplement to the court, pointing out that the Obama administration has been caught spying even on confidential attorney-client communications – and then providing “false representations” to the court.

“After the … pleading was filed on Feb. 12, 2014, further disclosures concerning the government defendants’ abuses of the National Security Agency’s PRISM program … were revealed and disclosed to the public,” attorney Larry Klayman told the U.S. District Court in Washington.

“Specifically, James Rosen, one of the nation’s premier national security reporters and his colleague Laura Poitras, published an article in the New York Times last Saturday, Feb. 15, 2014, entitled ‘Spying BY N.S.A. Ally Entangled U.S. Law Firm.’”

That posting, Klayman told the court, “revealed through documents provided to Risen and Poitras by whistleblower Edward Snowden that, contrary to the false representations of the government defendants in this case and to Congress and other courts, the overseas calls of lawyers such as Plaintiff Klayman are being intercepted and monitored.”

Help Larry Klayman with his class-action suit against Obama’s use of the NSA to violate Americans’ rights

Klayman brought his case to court late last year, challenging the NSA operations that detect and record data from telephone calls by Americans. In December, when Judge Richard Leon ruled the NSA’s mass collection of phone data was probably unconstitutional, he ordered the agency to stop collecting such data on Klayman and Charles Strange, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in action in Afghanistan.

Leon ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, contains no language expressly barring any third-party challenges to FISA court orders. That meant that Klayman’s clients had standing to bring such a lawsuit and dispute the constitutionality of the NSA spying program, something the government disputes. That’s also when Leon also ruled the government had likely violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Klayman’s lawsuit was filed after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed a FISA court order that allowed the government, under a provision of the Patriot Act, to require Verizon to provide data on all calls made on its networks within the U.S. and between the U.S. and a foreign country.

Klayman has also filed class-action claims on behalf of all U.S. citizens who are Verizon subscribers, saying the government has violated their First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

He previously told WND, “This is a further attempt to keep information about the biggest violation of the Constitution in American history from the American people. It’s an outrage.”

In an interview with the Daily Beast, James Clapper, director of national security, said the problems largely could have been avoided.

“I probably shouldn’t say this, but I will. Had we been transparent about this from the outset right after 9/11 – which is the genesis of the 215 program – and said both to the American people and to their elected representatives, we need to cover this gap, we need to make sure this never happens to us again, so here is what we are going to set up, here is how it’s going to work, and why we have to do it, and here are the safeguards … we wouldn’t have had the problem we had.”

Klayman said the Obama administration has the perspective of “heads I win, tails you lose,” and its attitude is “we control all the information and the American people be damned. They don’t have rights.”

“It’s important for the American people to see how the government treats them and views them. We’re nothing more than rabble,” he said.

In the newest motion, Klayman noted the New York Times report documented, “The list of those caught up in the global surveillance net cast by the National Security Agency and its overseas partners, from social media users to foreign heads of state, now includes another entry: American lawyers.”

The report continued, “A top-secret document, obtained by the former NSA contractor Edward J. Snowden, shows that an American law firm was monitored while representing a foreign government in trade disputes with the United States. The disclosure offers a …. specific instance in which Americans were ensnared by the eavesdroppers, and is of particular interest because lawyers in the United States with clients overseas have expressed growing concern that their confidential communications could be compromised by such surveillance.”

Klayman told WND that he has been involved in such business transactions himself over the years.

“Plaintiffs are submitting this supplement to give the government defendants notice of this newly revealed information so they can address it, if they so desire, in any responsive pleading,” Klayman wrote to the court. “It is thus clear that standing exists, as it does with telephonic metadata. In any event, discovery in this case will bear out the accuracy of the disclosures contained in the New York Times, and even without discovery at this stage of the proceeding with regard to the government defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, the allegations of the Second Amendment Complaint – notwithstanding what has now come to light in the New York Times disclosures – must be accepted as true.”

A copy of the Times report was included in the filing, and it explained that the government of Indonesia had retained a law firm for help in trade talks, and “the NSA’s Australian counterpart, the Australian Signals Directorate, notified the agency that is was conducting surveillance of the talks, including communications between Indonesian officials and the American law firm, and offered to share the information.”

The Times reported, “The NSA is prohibited from targeting Americans, including businesses, law firms and other organizations based in the United States, for surveillance without warrants, and intelligence officials have repeatedly said the NSA does not use the spy services of its partners in the so-called Five Eyes alliance – Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand – to skirt the law.”

It continued, “Still, the NSA can intercept the communications of Americans if they are in contact with a foreign intelligence target abroad, such as Indonesian officials.”

The government has been arguing that the case should be thrown out.

But Leon, in the most recent hearing, refused a request from Department of Justice attorney Marcia Berman.

Leon had already ruled in December that the National Security Agency had probably violated Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure with its PRISM program.

The Justice Department has argued that if the trial proceeded, “Further litigation of this issue could risk or require disclosure of classified national security information, such as whether plaintiffs were the targets of or subject to NSA intelligence-gathering activities, confirmation or denial of the identities of the telecommunications service providers from which NSA has obtained information about individuals’ communications, and other classified information.”

But that’s exactly the point of his lawsuits, Klayman said. They were filed to find out the details of the programs and whether the government, in its alleged pursuit of information about terror activities, has been violating the constitutional assurances of Americans’ privacy.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/more-government-spying-uncovered/#gaTbaDK6eUAtHgMy.99

Ellsberg: “I Am Grateful to Snowden for Having Given Us a Constitutional Crisis … a Crisis Instead of a Silent Coup” Washington’s Blog

Ellsberg: “I Am Grateful to Snowden for Having Given Us a Constitutional Crisis … a Crisis Instead of a Silent Coup” Washington’s Blog.

What Snowden Has Revealed … Is a Broken System of Our Constitution, And He’s Given Us the Opportunity To Get It Back

Daniel Ellsberg told Amy Goodman:

[Snowden] came to believe, as I did, having made those oaths initially and the promises of nondisclosure, which were not oaths, but they are contractual agreements not to do that, which he later violated, as I did—he made those in good faith, by everything known to me, and came to realize, I think, eventually, as he said, that a nondisclosure agreement in this case and the secrecy conflicted with his oath, so help me God, to defend and support the Constitution of the United States, and it was a supervening—a superseding authority there that it was his responsibility really to inform the public, because, as he said, he could see that no one else would do it.

***

Congress knew [that Clapper’s statements that the NSA doesn’t spy on the American people] hey were false, the people he was talking to, the dozen, even the man who had asked the question, Senator Wyden. What we saw, what Snowden saw and what we all saw, was that we couldn’t rely on the so-called Oversight Committee of Congress to reveal, even when they knew that they were being lied to, and that’s because they were bound by secrecy, NSA secrecy and their own rule. The secrecy system here, in other words, has totally corrupted the checks and balances on which our democracy depends.

And I think the—I am grateful to Snowden for having given us a constitutional crisis, a crisis instead of a silent coup, as after 9/11 an executive coup, or a creeping usurpation of authority. He has confronted us. He has revealed documents now that prove that the oversight process, both in the judiciary, in the FISC, the secret court, and the secret committees in Congress who keep their secrets from them, even when two of them, Wyden and Udall, felt that these were outrageous, were shocking, were probably unconstitutional, and yet did not feel that they could inform even their fellow colleagues or their staff of thisWhat Snowden has revealed, in other words, is a broken system of our Constitution, and he’s given us the opportunity to get it back, to retrieve our civil liberties, but more than that, to retrieve the separation of powers here on which our democracy depends.

Non-Participation And Decentralization As Primers For Revolution

Non-Participation And Decentralization As Primers For Revolution.

Wednesday, 12 February 2014 04:16 Brandon Smith

When writing investigative examinations on the corrupt state of American government and American economy, invariably one is met with the same set of ever cycling broken-record questions and assertions. One of the primary responses I have received and I’m sure most Liberty Movement analysts have received is this:

“Okay, now we know what the problem is, but when are YOU going to tell US what the solution is…?”

The question seems “reasonable”, but in reality, everything that is weak minded in our culture today is summed up in its content.

First, the question insinuates that there is no utility in exploring the nature of a crisis without “fixing” the situation right then and there. Often, the most complex problems of our world require years if not decades of thought and action, trial and error, before a single working solution is generated. When the problem involves a criminal government run by corporatist oligarchs bent on total globalization and centralized control of finance, society, and law, you have to expect that there will be some difficulties in finding a remedy. You will never defeat your enemy without knowing your enemy, and our particular fight requires endless analysis.

Second, I wish I could convey the palm-to-forehead agony I feel every time I hear someone begging for myself, or anyone for that matter, to overnight mail them a solution on a silver platter wrapped in perfect little pink bow. Why is it that so many Americans today refuse to offer THEIR OWN solutions to the problems they perceive in the world? Is it laziness, or stupidity, or both? They are so busy waiting for a “white knight” to come and save them they have forgotten to learn how to save themselves. Don’t sit idle expecting analysts to make your life better. Become industrious. Take initiative. Think of something we haven’t thought of yet. Stop being followers and start becoming leaders within your own communities.

Third, the worst of all dilemmas when dealing with the above question is that most of the time, it is being asked by people who already have a preconceived answer they want to hear. Many in our movement today want a silver bullet solution. They want magic and fairy dust. They want to end tyranny with a snap of their fingers, the press of the button, within the span of a day, or perhaps a week. They don’t want to have to work beyond their normal capacity, they don’t want to struggle, they don’t want to sacrifice, and they certainly don’t want to risk their property, livelihood, or life.

They want a civil rights style MLK/Ghandi march on Washington D.C., which has already been done over and over again leading to nothing but ever more corruption (you don’t ask tyrants to police themselves, nor do you ask for their permission to change government). They want an armed march on Washington D.C. (perhaps the most tactically moronic strategy ever to be suggested year after year), leading to nothing more than a bloodbath which would only make the Liberty Movement appear weak, or insane, all in a failed attempt to unseat a bunch of politicians who are merely puppets and middle men for the financial elites. They want Generals grandstanding as purveyors of constitutionalism to initiate a military coup to remove the “evil Muslim” from his seat of power (is Obama a Muslim, or an atheist Communist? These methodologies tend to negate each other…), while the truth is, Obama is nothing more that a minor obstacle compared to the greater evil of central banking and internationalism, and a Neo-Con Republican (or provocateur General) could easily continue Obama’s work without missing a beat.

And, most of all, they want something flashy, something new, something technological and glorious to solve all their woes. How many times have you heard the claim, for instance, that digital currencies like Bitcoin would “bring down” the central banks and turn the globalist empire to dust at our feet? Yet, Bitcoin’s very existence relies on the web, a government dominated networking system which they can remove from our hands any time they wish.

These are not solutions, they are distractions, or worse, con-games. They are designed to fool you into thinking that you can lounge behind your computer, or walk blindly down the street with a sign or a gun, and the nation will attain renaissance without a tear or a drop of blood shed. They are pleasant lies that many people want to have whispered to them.

I have no interest in making people feel comfortable, or safe, or at ease in the nature of the task before us. I’m only interested in the truth, and the truth is, REAL solutions have already been offered to the Liberty Movement. For years we’ve been talking about them, implementing them, and attempting to convince others to implement them. These solutions are not easy. They are not pleasant or quick. They will require much sacrifice, and unimaginable suffering. There is no way around these tasks if we are to succeed and dismantle centralized totalitarianism in our lifetimes…

Non-Participation

This is a simple concept that for some reason tends to confound people. If you march to the steps of the White House motivated by a desire to educate others on the hidden dangers of our political situation, then this is all well and good. But, if you march to the steps of the White House with the expectation that this gesture will somehow impress or frighten the military industrial complex into forsaking its criminal ways and step down from power, then you have fallen into a delusional paradigm.

If you are using a government controlled communications medium like the internet to educate others while the system still exists, then this is practical. But, if you really believe that you are going to exploit that same network as an offensive tool to destroy Big Brother, you are living in techno-geek dreamland.

And, if you still think that the diseased political arena has any merit whatsoever and that the system can be inoculated from the within, or that you can rewrite the rules on a whim (constitutional convention) and have those rules followed, at this point I don’t hold much hope for you.

Now, I want you to imagine, just for a moment, that the government does not exist. The internet does not exist. Corporate banking chains and department stores and grocery outlets do not exist. State law enforcement organizations do not exist. State run schools do not exist. How would you go about living day to day without the bureaucracy, the welfare, the infrastructure, the safety nets? This is how ALL Liberty Movement activists are going to have to start thinking if they want to change anything.

The Non-Participation Principle is best summarized like this:

When facing a corrupt system, provide for yourself and your community those necessities that the system cannot or will not. Become independent from establishment-controlled paradigms. If you and your community do this, the system will have one of two choices:

 

1)  Admit that you do not need them anymore and fade into the fog of history, OR…

 

2)  Reveal its tyrannical nature in full and attempt to force you back into dependence.

In either case, you win. You have taken proactive measures to remove yourself as a cog in the machine. The machine can then of course try to demonize you, or attack you, but ultimately, they will attack from a place of social and moral weakness, and you will defend from a position of logistical and moral strength.

Stop waiting for the system to change, or collapse. Change the way YOU live and survive. Build your own localized systems and walk away.

Decentralization

Learn a vital trade skill, grow your own food, purchase resource rich raw land, learn self defense methods beyond what law enforcement personnel are trained in (which is not too difficult), take EMT training courses so that you can provide general and emergency medical care for your family, get your children out of the state run common core indoctrination centers and homeschool them, build neighborhood watch groups, emergency response groups, barter markets and alternative economies.

Decentralization is about dissolving our unbalanced relationship with the state and taking away their power to dictate how we live. If a core necessity is centralized in the hands of a select few, then we start producing it ourselves and remove that option from their deck of cards. You cannot fight a corrupt system if you are dependent on a corrupt system.

The very essence of globalism is centralized oversight of every aspect of our lives. When we allow ourselves to feed from the government or corporate trough because it’s “easier”, we are essentially volunteering to be herded like animals. It is within the power of every single individual, no matter their age or financial circumstances, to find creative ways in becoming more independent. It is up to you. There are no excuses.

Revolution

We should have no illusions that the criminal elements of our government will simply shrug their shoulders and give up. When we decentralize, we show the world how irrelevant they are. Tyrants must remain relevant to the masses, otherwise, they have no means to dominate except pure force. When that force is eventually applied, the ONLY logical response is revolution. Decentralization is not a means to “avoid” such revolution, it is only a means to strengthen our position in preparation for revolution.

There is no ideal revolutionary model because the unique nature of one’s epoch determines the nature of one’s rebellion. However, I can say that any revolution that does not focus on the foundational culprits behind the offending tyranny is doomed to failure. When I see the overt obsession with Barack Obama as some kind of linchpin in the development of socialism in America, I have to remind people that Obama has merely stood on the legislative efforts of George W. Bush, and so many other globalist presidents before him, in order to bring the U.S. to the current point of catastrophe. And who made these men, these so-called “leaders”? Who financed their campaigns? Who taught them the internationalist methodologies they now implement? Who really controls money, and thus economy, and thus politics in this country?

Revolution must be directed at the oligarchs, not just their mascots, and if anyone asks you to rally around a revolution that does not name central banking and international banking entities and the men who run them as direct culprits, they are probably controlled opposition. We don’t need a French or Bolshevik Revolution to replace old puppets with new puppets, we need to go to the very heart of the cancer that has stricken our nation and remove it. If this means we have to physically fight back, then so be it, but we must be smart in how we fight.

In the end, the average citizen is his own defender, his own governor, his own industrialist, his own “king maker”. He may consciously realize this, or he may be oblivious. All of the solutions, all of the tools, are right there, in his hands, waiting to be used. The saddest truth of all is that the only thing holding him back from legitimate freedom is his own fear. Only when we stop avoiding the pain required to procure independence, will we finally have it.

Executive Orders: Carving a Path to Dictatorship? ; NorthWestLibertyNews.com

Executive Orders: Carving a Path to Dictatorship? > NorthWestLibertyNews.com.

Loosely Constitutional, do Executive Orders give too much power to one man?

February 6, 2014               by James White               NorthWest Liberty News

    Executive Orders (EO), issued by the current sitting US President at the time, are nothing new to America.  In fact, our first President, George Washington, issued 8 of them during his presidency.  From my research, it is generally understood that EO’s stem from two areas of the US Constitution; and both references that substantiate EO’s are fairly weak.  As one website explains:

Presidents have been issuing executive orders since 1789 even though the Constitution does not explicitly give them the right to do so. However, vague wording in Article II Section 1 and Article II Section 2 gives the president this privilege. Executive orders also include National Security directives and Homeland Security Presidential Directives.

A well-referenced Wikipedia entry further illustrates the point:

Although there is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of “executive power” given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3,Clause 5. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President’s sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3]

Throughout history, EO’s have been responsible, at times, for drastically altering the lives of the American populace.  Perhaps the most heinous example being EO 9066, issued by Franklin D. Roosevelt, which was ultimately responsible for the internment of more than 60,000 American citizens of Japanese descent, and over 10,000 of German and Italian ancestry. That seems like a lot of power in the hands of one man and his administration.  Unfortunately, it seems that the use of EO’s are set to increase, further eroding the Constitutional principles that this nation was founded upon.

In a recent article published by the Daily Caller, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has promised to give Obama a number of EO’s to sign. In fact, stating that EO’s should be number one on the agenda for her newly formed Full Employment Caucus.  To give you an example of how Obama has used this extraordinary power in the past, one only needs to look here.  In this case Obama exercised Executive Privilege, but it really amounts to a de facto Executive Order.  The abuse of EO’s, by this administration, is particularly alarming when one discovers Obama’s history of deceit.

Are EO’s leading our nation into bondage?  I suppose that is for each one of us to decide.  I do know, however, whenever a president of any nation can rule, by fiat, that their actions are protected by the very office that they serve, that nation is on a slippery slope to dictatorship.  Allow me to leave you with the words of one of our greatest Founding Fathers:

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations), too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson

Privacy Versus Secrecy – International Man

Privacy Versus Secrecy – International Man.

 

By Jeff Thomas

The very idea that the individual has a natural-born right to his privacy and basic freedoms flies in the face of the collectivist ideal.

Government is all about control.

Every government, over time, increases its level of control over its population in every way it can. Given enough time, any government will nibble away at its people’s freedoms until it reaches the point that the people have so little freedom left that the government feels safe in taking the remaining freedoms in ever-larger gulps. Some nations are taking very large gulps indeed.

One of the primary freedoms is privacy. Under the British Constitution,

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

Further,

“The common law allows people to speak and act in their own homes as they please and to carry on their daily business, provided that they do not infringe the rights of others or commit an offence.”

Sounds downright libertarian, does it not? And it should, as the people who originally collected the bits and pieces that make up the British Constitution were those who, having had enough of the vague and often draconian edicts of various governments, sought to define the rights of the British citizen once and for all.

Of course, “once and for all” did not last very long. Subsequent governments have done their best to slowly erode the basic rights of the British people.

This is consistent with the governments of the world in general.

If we look across the pond to the US, we find in their Bill of Rights, the rights to privacy in numerous amendments, particularly the Fourth Amendment, which states,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

There can be little doubt that the political leaders of the UK and the US (and, let’s be fair, most of the world’s governments) have violated the basic right to privacy as often as they have been able.

In this, they generally stick together. Typically, international leaders offer no objection to other leaders (either their immediate political opponents or the leaders of other countries) infringing upon the privacy of their citizenries, no matter how extreme the intrusion. They do, however object quite strongly when they find that they themselves have had their own privacy infringed, such as Angela Merkel and Dilma Rousseff have, recently, after finding that the US was tapping their phones.

So, when the authors of the most central principles upon which the present-day UK and the US were founded, crafted their phrasings, what did they mean when they described such essential privacies as “daily business” and “papers and effects”?

Financial Privacy

Well, top of the list would surely be financial records, as, historically, these are considered to warrant greater privacy than most any other daily business, papers, and effects.

Yet, today, we are seeing ever-greater intrusion into our earnings, our investments, our savings, and the storage of our wealth. Much of the world—particularly under the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (read: International Ministry for Intrusion into Financial Privacy)—is doing all it can to eliminate any and all barriers to its pursuit of personal financial information.

However, the prize for Most Invasive Act of Privacy Destruction must go to the US, whose Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) literally seeks to force financial institutionsin other countries to turn over their records to the US.

And much of the world has caved in to this act. So, how is it that this has even been possible, given the fact that it blatantly opposes the founding principles of the US? Well, in a word: marketing.

(Editor’s Note: Be sure to check out: FATCA Watch: List of Countries That Signed Agreements and Those That Will Not Comply with US Dictates)

Banking Secrecy

The OECD countries have done a bang-up job in recent years in attacking the very concept of financial privacy by referring to it by a similar but more sinister term: “secrecy.”

Secrecy, of course, implies that something rather underhanded is taking place and needs routing out. And the world’s low-tax jurisdictions do commit the unforgiveable sin of maintaining the principle that the depositor is entitled to privacy.

In each of these jurisdictions, it is the norm for the average banker to feel that a client’s account is nobody’s bloody business but his own. Whilst they can be quite vehement in this belief, it is also true that they are labouring under increasing pressure from the OECD (and now, FATCA) to compromise the privacy of their clients.

And, in doing so, the OECD has gained quite a following in the form of the media and the average person, as the very term “banking secrecy” now tends to falsely imply criminal acts. This is interesting, as the average person does still believe in privacy. He believes firmly that it is his right to maintain privacy in his bedroom or a public loo, or to draw the drapes in his living room in the evening. Yet these same people have been programmed to mentally remove financial privacy from other privacies.

Clearly, the OECD is going to continue in its intention to convince the world that the individual (unless he holds political office) has an obligation to relinquish his privacy with regard to his financial dealings. And, along the way, its marketing programme will succeed, through endless repetition, of convincing boobus humanus that this is altogether correct.

This suggests that the reader should simply give up and allow his government to invade his privacy at will. However, as those of us who are firm believers in internationalisation often comment, “There is no perfect jurisdiction; there are only jurisdictions that may be more favourable than the home jurisdiction.”

As Doug Casey outlined in his visionary book, The International Man, in 1978, the concept of internationalising is not simply to pick up stakes and move to another country. Rather, it is the concept of “planting flags.” Investigate possible countries in which to live, to hold citizenship, to invest, in which to gain an income, and plant flags in each. Live in one, become a citizen in another, bank in a third, etc.

Some countries still do believe that it is your right to maintain financial privacy and, whilst they may feel pressure from your home country, they are more likely to do all they can to protect your privacy.

As in other concerns, there is no ideal country, but there are those that are decidedlybetter, where the term privacy still retains its original meaning and individual privacy is still respected.

Editor’s Note: You can find the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive information from Casey Research on internationalization by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: