Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘United States’


Noting that U.S. college costs have gone up 500% since 1985, the Washington Post recommends seven countries where U.S. students can go to college for free without bothering to learn the language of the natives or anything so primitive.

These are nations with less wealth than the United States has, but which make college free or nearly free, both for citizens and for dangerous illegals visiting their Homelands.

How do they do it?

Three of them have a higher top tax rate than the United States has, but four of them don’t.

What does the United States spend its money on that these other countries do not? What is the largest public program in the United States? What makes up over 50% of federal discretionary spending in the United States?

If you said “war,” it’s possible you were educated in a fine foreign country.

A comprehensive calculation of U.S. military spending puts it at over $1 trillion a year. The International Institute for Strategic Studies puts it at $645.7 billion in 2012. Using that smaller number, let’s compare the seven nations where Americans can find their human right to an education respected:

France $48.1 billion or 7.4% of U.S.
Germany $40.4 billion or 6.3% of U.S.
Brazil $35.3 billion or 5.5% of U.S.
Norway $6.9 billion or 1.1% of U.S.
Sweden $5.8 billion or 0.9% of U.S.
Finland $3.6 billion or 0.6% of U.S.
Slovenia $0.6 billion or 0.1% of U.S.

Oh, but those are smaller countries. Well, let’s compare military spending per capita:

United States $2,057
Norway $1,455 or 71% of U.S.
France $733 or 35% of U.S.
Finland $683 or 33% of U.S.
Sweden $636 or 31% of U.S.
Germany $496 or 24% of U.S.
Slovenia $284 or 14% of U.S.
Brazil $177 or 9% of U.S.

more @ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/11/free-college-another-new-war.html

Read Full Post »


According to a book by George Williston called This Tribe of Mine: A Story of Anglo Saxon Viking Culture in America, the United States wages eternal war because of its cultural roots in the Germanic tribes that invaded, conquered, ethnically cleansed, or — if you prefer — liberated England before moving on to the slaughter of the Native Americans and then the Filipinos and Vietnamese and on down to the Iraqis. War advocate, former senator, and current presidential hopeful Jim Webb himself blames Scots-Irish American culture.

But most of medieval and ancient Europe engaged in war. How did Europe end up less violent than a place made violent by Europe? Williston points out that England spends dramatically less per capita on war than the United States does, yet he blames U.S. warmaking on English roots. And, of course, Scotland and Ireland are even further from U.S. militarism despite being closer to England and presumably to Scots-Irishness.

“We view the world through Viking eyes,” writes Williston, “viewing those cultures that do not hoard wealth in the same fashion or make fine iron weapons as child-like and ripe for exploitation.” Williston describes the passage of this culture down to us through the pilgrims, who came to Massachusetts and began killing — and, quite frequently, beheading — those less violent, acquisitive, or competitive than they.

Germans and French demonstrated greater respect for native peoples, Williston claims. But is that true? Including in Africa? Including in Auschwitz? Williston goes on to describe the United States taking over Spanish colonialism in the Philippines and French colonialism in Vietnam, without worrying too much about how Spain and France got there.

I’m convinced that a culture that favors war is necessary but not sufficient to make a population as warlike as the United States is now. All sorts of circumstances and opportunities are also necessary. And the culture is constantly evolving. Perhaps Williston would agree with me. His book doesn’t make a clear argument and could really have been reduced to an essay if he’d left out the religion, the biology metaphors, the experiments proving telepathy or prayer, the long quotes of others, etc. Regardless, I think it’s important to be clear that we can’t blame our culture in the way that some choose to blame our genes. We have to blame the U.S. government, identify ourselves with humanity rather than a tribe, and work to abolish warmaking.

In this regard, it can only help that people like Williston and Webb are asking what’s wrong with U.S. culture. It can be shocking to an Israeli to learn that their day of independence is referred to by Palestinians as The Catastrophe (Nakba), and to learn why. Similarly, many U.S. school children might be startled to know that some native Americans referred to George Washington as The Destroyer of Villages (Caunotaucarius). It can be difficult to appreciate how peaceful native Americans were, how many tribes did not wage war, and how many waged war in a manner more properly thought of as “war games” considering the minimal level of killing. As Williston points out, there was nothing in the Americas to compare with the Hundred Years War or the Thirty Years War or any of the endless string of wars in Europe — which of course are themselves significantly removed in level of killing from wars of more recent years.

Williston describes various cooperative and peaceful cultures: the Hopi, the Kogi, the Amish, the Ladakh. Indeed, we should be looking for inspiration wherever we can find it. But we shouldn’t imagine that changing our cultural practices in our homes will stop the Pentagon being the Pentagon. Telepathy and prayer are as likely to work out as levitating the Pentagon in protest. What we need is a culture dedicated to the vigorous nonviolent pursuit of the abolition of war.

Original link @ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/10/war-culture.html

Read Full Post »


How can we explain that in the 2lst century we are still training millions of men and women in our armed forces and sending them to war?

There are more choices than war or peace, there are multi-optional choices and a civilian-based non-military diplomatic-political policy has more chance of succeeding in solving a violent conflict.

In war, the cost in civilian lives is incalculable, not to mention the many military personnel whose lives are destroyed.  Then there is the cost to the environment and the cost to human potential as our scientists waste their lives planning and researching even more horrific weapons which increasingly, in modern war, kill more civilians than combatants.

For example, the United States and the United Kingdom committed genocide against the Iraqi people when, between 1990 and 2012, they killed 3.3 million people – including 750,000 children – through sanctions and wars.

We all also watched our television screens in horror in July and August this year as the Israeli military bombarded civilians in Gaza for 50 days.

But, why are we surprised at this cruelty of military when they are doing what they are trained to do – kill, at the behest of their politicians and some people?

It is shocking to listen to politicians and military boast of their military prowess when in lay persons’ terms what it means is killing of human beings.

Every day through our television and local culture, we are subjected to the glorification of militarism and bombarded with war propaganda by governments telling us we need nuclear weapons, arms manufacturers, and war to kill the killers who might kill us.

However, too many people do not have peace or the basics to help them achieve peace.

They live their lives struggling with the roots of violence, some of which are poverty, war, militarism, occupation, racism and fascism. They have seen that they release uncontrollable forces of tribalism and nationalism. These are dangerous and murderous forms of identity which we need to transcend.

To do this, we need to acknowledge that our common humanity and human dignity are more important than our different traditions; to recognize that our lives and the lives of others are sacred and we can solve our problems without killing each other; to accept and celebrate diversity and otherness; to work to heal the ‘old’ divisions and misunderstandings; to give and accept forgiveness, and to choose listening, dialogue and diplomacy; to disarm and demilitarize as the pathway to peace.

In my own country, in Northern Ireland, when faced with a violent and prolonged ethnic/political conflict, the civil community organized to take a stand, rejected all violence and committed itself to working for peace, justice and reconciliation.

Through unconditional, all-inclusive dialogue, we reached peace and continue to work to build up trust and friendship and change in the post-conflict era. The civil community took a leading role in this journey from violence to peace.

I hope this will give an example to other countries such as Ukraine, where it is necessary for an end to the war, and a solution of the problem on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and the Helsinki Accords.

We are also challenged to continue to build structures through which we can cooperate and which reflect our relations of interconnection and interdependence.  The vision of the founders of the European Union to link countries together economically in order to lessen the likelihood of war among nations is a worthy endeavor.

Unfortunately instead of putting more energy into providing help for E.U. citizens and others, we are witnessing the growing militarization of Europe, its role as a driving force for armament and its dangerous path, under the leadership of the United States/NATO, towards a new ‘cold’ war and military aggression.

The European Union and many of its countries, which used to take initiatives in the United Nations for peaceful settlements of conflict, are now one of the most important war assets of the U.S./NATO front.  Many countries have also been drawn into complicity in breaking international law through U.S./U.K./NATO wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and so on.

It is for this reason that I believe NATO should be abolished and that steps be taken towards disarmament through non-violent action and civil resistance.

The means of resistance are very important. Our message that armed groups, militarism and war do not solve our problems but aggravate them challenges us to use new ways and that is why we need to teach the science of peace at every level of society.

The whole of civilization is now facing a challenge with the growth of what President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) warned the U.S. people against – the military/industrial complex – saying that it would destroy U.S. democracy.

We know now that a small group made up of the military/industrial/media/corporate/academic elite, whose agenda is profit, arms, war and valuable resources, now holds power worldwide and has a stronghold on elected governments.  We see this in the gun and Israeli lobbies, among others, which wield great power over U.S. politics.

We have witnessed this in ongoing wars, invasions, occupations and proxy wars, all allegedly in the name of “humanitarian intervention and democracy”. However, in reality, they are causing great suffering, especially to the poor, through their policies of arms, war, domination and control of other countries and their resources.

Unmaking this agenda of war and demanding the implementation of justice, human rights and international law is the work of the peace movement.

We can turn our current path of destruction around by spelling out a clear vision of what kind of a world we want to live in, demanding an end to the military-industrial complex, and insisting that our governments adopt policies of peace, just economics and cooperation with each other in this multi-polar world.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/15/382324/expansion-of-militaryindustrial-complex/

 

Read Full Post »


American politicians are fond of telling their audiences that the United States is the greatest country in the world.  Is there any evidence for this claim?

Well, yes.  When it comes to violence and preparations for violence, the United States is, indeed, No. 1.  In 2013, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. government accounted for 37 percent of world military expenditures, putting it far ahead of all other nations.  (The two closest competitors, China and Russia, accounted for 11 percent and 5 percent respectively.)  From 2004 to 2013, the United States was also the No. 1 weapons exporter in the world.  Moreover, given the U.S. government’s almost continuous series of wars and acts of military intervention since 1941, it seems likely that it surpasses all rivals when it comes to international violence.

This record is paralleled on the domestic front, where the United States has more guns and gun-related deaths than any other country.  A study released in late 2013 reported that the United States had 88 guns for every 100 people, and 40 gun-related deaths for every 400,000 people―the most of any of the 27 economically developed countries surveyed.  By contrast, in Britain there were 6 guns per 100 people and 1 gun-related death per 400,000 people.

Yet, in a great many other areas, the United States is not No. 1 at all.

Take education.  In late 2013, the Program for International Student Assessment released a report on how 15-year old students from 65 nations performed on its tests.  The report showed that U.S. students ranked 17th in reading and 21st in math.  An international survey a bit earlier that year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that the ranking was slightly worse for American adults.  In 2014, Pearson, a multinational educational services company, placed the United States 20th in the world in “educational attainment”―well behind Poland and the Slovak Republic.

American healthcare and health fare even worse.  In a 2014 study of healthcare (including infant mortality, healthy life expectancy, and mortality from preventable conditions) in 11 advanced industrial countries, the Commonwealth Fund concluded that the United States ranked last among them.  According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. healthcare system ranks 30th in the world.  Other studies reach somewhat different conclusions, but all are very unflattering to the United States, as are studies of American health.  The United States, for example, has one of the world’s worst cancer rates (the seventh highest), and life expectancy is declining compared to other nations.  An article in the Washington Post in late 2013 reported that the United States ranked 26th among nations in life expectancy, and that the average American lifespan had fallen a year behind the international average.

What about the environment?  Specialists at Yale University have developed a highly sophisticated Environmental Performance Index to examine the behavior of nations.  In the area of protection of human health from environmental harm, their 2014 index placed the United States 35th in health impacts, 36th in water and sanitation, and 38th in air quality.  In the other area studied―protection of ecosystems―the United States ranked 32nd in water resources, 49th in climate and energy, 86th in biodiversity and habitat, 96th in fisheries, 107th in forests, and 109th in agriculture.

These and other areas of interest are dealt with by the Social Progress Index, which was developed by Michael Porter, an eminent professor of business (and a Republican) at Harvard.  According to Porter and his team, in 2014 the United States ranked 23rd in access to information and communications, 24th in nutrition and basic medical care, 31st in personal safety, 34th in water and sanitation, 39th in access to basic knowledge, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, and 70th in health and wellness.

The widespread extent of poverty, especially among children, remains a disgrace in one of the world’s wealthiest nations.  A 2013 report by the United Nations Children’s Fund noted that, of the 35 economically advanced countries that had been studied, only Rumania had a higher percentage of children living in poverty than did the United States.

Of course, the United States is not locked into these dismal rankings and the sad situation they reveal about the health, education, and welfare of its citizens.  It could do much better if its vast wealth, resources, and technology were employed differently than they are at present.

Ultimately, it’s a matter of priorities.  When most U.S. government discretionary spending goes for war and preparations for war, it should come as no surprise that the United States emerges No. 1 among nations in its capacity for violence and falls far behind other nations in providing for the well-being of its people.

Americans might want to keep this in mind as their nation embarks upon yet another costly military crusade.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/14/382159/the-us-is-no-1–but-in-what/

 

Read Full Post »


Russia’s Chamber of Commerce Member: United States Leading Force Behind Ukrainian Crisis

29 Sept 2014 The United States is the leading force that organized the crisis in Ukraine, member of Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry committee on energy strategy and development of the fuel-energy complex Rustam Tankaev said Monday. “The Ukrainian crisis is certainly a difficult and complex problem but the driving force that organized it was the United States,” Tankaev said at a round table at Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency while discussing the results of the tripartite gas talks, which took place in Berlin on September 26. “The United States has had two main areas of work. The first was to deliver a blow to Russia’s economy…it is a powerful and complex blow to the economy. The second task was a blow to the economy of the European Union,” he added.

Read Full Post »


World War III

Ft. Benning, Georgia — According to sources, the Military-Industrial Complex will engineer the global conflict of World War III. The Military-Industrial Complex refers to the intricate and often complex policy and monetary relationships existing between legislators, national armed forces and the military industrial base supports them. Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower spoke of the American relationship between greed and might in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961, where he warned:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so security and liberty may prosper together.”

Sources believe Eisenhower referred to a number of historical wars referred the complex. The most notable, the Banana Wars, in which military interventions were most often carried out by the United States Marine Corps to protect the United State’s financial stakes of bananas, tobacco, sugar cane and various other products throughout the Caribbean, Central America and Northern South America. However, many Americans remain unaware of the complex ever since, but ever-present of the United State’s growing presence around the world. Sources believe the reason for war revolves around the dollar.

After World War II, the Bretton Woods system of monetary established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which today is part of the World Bank Group. The compound also established the rules for commercial and financial relations among the world’s major industrial states, making the American dollar the world’s reserve currency. On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold. This brought the Bretton Woods network to an end, the dollar become fiat currency. This action, referred to as the Nixon shock, convulsed a situation in which the United States dollar became a reserve currency used, received by petroleum exporting countries (OPEC) in exchange for oil.

Conspiracy theorists believe American intervention the only weapon against worldwide financial collapse, to keep countries from selling oil in another currency. However, sources believe a global conflict revolving around the region will occur in the upcoming decades.

Read Full Post »


Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq (and Elsewhere) That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United

–’It is obvious to everyone that the Islamic State is a creation of the United States and Israel.’

20 Sept 2014 ‘Conspiracy’ theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking. The demonstration on Saturday was the latest in a series of signals from Shiite leaders or militias…warning the United States not to put its soldiers back on the ground. Mr. Obama has pledged not to send combat troops, but he seems to have convinced few Iraqis. “We don’t trust him,” said Raad Hatem, 40. Haidar al-Assadi, 40, agreed. “The Islamic State is a clear creation of the United States, and the United States is trying to intervene again using the excuse of the Islamic State,” he said.

Read Full Post »


Three major thesis are in competition concerning the culprit of the 9/11 attacks:

 

1. Islam Job: the official conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, blaming Muslim terrorists in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular;
2. Inside Job: the dominant thesis within the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, which accuses the American government, or a faction within the American Deep State;
3. Mossad Job: the rising alternative thesis within the community of truth seekers, which claim that the masterminds were a Zionist network close to the Israeli Likud.

There are variations on each thesis and middle grounds between them, but three camps can clearly be distinguished: the first ridicule the second as “conspiracy theorists”, while the second loath the third as anti-Semites. Each thus justifies its refusal to weigh the evidence produced by the other. Acknowledging this reality, by renouncing the bipolar vision of an information warfare between official liars and 9/11 truthers, and paying attention to the debate (or absence of the debate) between Inside-jobbers and Mossad-jobbers, is the first step toward a paradigm shift in “9/11ology”.

JFK 911This article takes the view of the third thesis. The author belongs to those who, after thousands of hours of research, came to the conclusion that the 9/11 false flag operation was planned by a Zionist network, with the aim of dragging the United States into a “war on terror” of their invention, of which the only ultimate beneficiary will be Israel, as Netanyahu well understood from the very day: “It’s very good […], it will generate immediate sympathy […], strengthen the bond between our two peoples.”[1]

I have already listed the evidence against Israel in a previous article and in my book JFK-9/11 (Progressive Press, 2014). The subject of this article is not the truth on 9/11—who did what and how—, but the media war on 9/11: who says what and why. Nevertheless, such an approach requires that we are able to weigh the credibility of each claim, and we will do that on a few key points.

We can notice from the outset that theses 1 and 3 each accuse a foreign power, unlike thesis 2. Before even looking at the evidence, it is obvious that an Outside Job thesis is more credible than the Inside Job thesis. There is something monstrous in the idea that a government can deceive and terrorize its own citizens by killing thousands of them, just for starting a series of wars which are not even in the nation’s interest. By comparison, a foreign power attacking the US under the false flag of a third power almost seems like fair play. This is an important remark, because it makes us wonder how and why the 9/11 Truth movement has been led to endorse massively the outrageous thesis 2 without even considering the more likely thesis 3. This is one of the questions I will tackle here.

The thesis that the masterminds of 9/11 worked for Israel does not mean that the Bush administration is innocent. Thesis 3 admits that thesis 2, unlike thesis 1, is not completely false and rests on hard evidence pointing to US complicity. But it claims that thesis 2 overrates that evidence while ignoring the evidence pointing to Israel. The question is to what extent it does so intentionally, that is, to what extent thesis 2 is a “controlled opposition” intended to cover up the truth of thesis 3.

Asking this type of question does not mean suspecting anyone who defends an erroneous or incomplete theory of being a hypocrite. Most people defending one theory or the other do so sincerely, based on the information they have access to. I have myself been a believer in thesis 1 for 7 years, and in thesis 2 for 2 years, before progressively moving on to thesis 3 from 2010. On the other hand, we can assume that those who lead masses into error on a long term, are not just mistaken but lying —they may also be lying to themselves, i.e., engaged in self-deception. In any case, it is legitimate to investigate the background and the means of opinion makers, and when they are caught lying or distorting the truth, we can ponder about their motivation.

This is what we will do in the first part, so as to demonstrate that liers are not confined to the official storytellers’ camp. It is not enough that someone challenges the official Big Lie for us to believe him blindly; his arguments and allegations should be judged by the same standard. The purpose of the two following examples is, firstly, to show the need for a critical mind when listening to dissenting theses, and, secondly, to show the need for a new paradigm taking into account the several layers of lies stacked on top of the truth. We will outline this new paradigm in a second part, in the form of a working hypothesis. Then, in a third part, we will see if this new paradigm is consistent with certain technical issues currently dividing 9/11 truthers.

more @ http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/08/31/the-911-triple-cross/

Read Full Post »


The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) at their summit in Brazil said they would give the United States until the end of 2014 to reform the world monetary system including the IMF and the World Bank. The Obama administration has since decided to up the ante and pass more toothless sanctions against Russia. The US had fined BNP Paribas $9 billion for daring to trade with Russia and Iran.

The facts left out of the above in most media accounts are that the Rothschilds own BNP Paribas. and that their Parisian bank is technically bankrupt. In American parlance we are at the point where the rubber meets the road. Do the economic experts running the United States actually know what they are doing?

Dr Willie outlined from his sources a chain of events that could unfold over the next few months. It is difficult to put a date certain when the Dollar Dies but we are on an Express Train headed for a Brick Wall. And America has passengers from other nations on board looking for a safe exit because they know the men in charge in Washington and New York are stark raving mad.

The first actual event Jim Willie mentioned will be a disappointing harvest in the Ukraine. A poor harvest in an agricultural country will doom the Kiev regime which is a good thing. Another source of complaint will be the returning veterans sent home after the ceasefire. They are angry. The Kiev coup leaders are so incompetent that they sent their draftees into battle with poor support and inadequate weapons. Their army in some cases was never paid. These are men who could have made money in the fields. There are videos of the returning veterans showing exceptionally high levels of anger. The US stole Ukraine’s gold and has ordered them to allow GMO crops to be planted. The neighboring states of Hungary and Russia have banned GMO as a health risk. The next round of elections should be interesting but of no consequence to us though we should all be grateful to Putin that Washington’s insanity was not contagious.

Lost in the mainstream press is the fact that the resistance to Kiev was swollen with foreign volunteers who hate the EU. These men are seasoned veterans from NATO countries. Brits from the SAS were fighting alongside French, Germans, Danes and others against the IMF-EU installed dictator in Kiev. These men are resistance fighters in the war against the New World Order. That is why the Department of Homeland Security says returning veterans are the number one threat to the government in Washington.

Dr Willie has been reporting for quite awhile on the growing friendship between the Saudis and the other Gulf States and China. The Chinese and the Saudis hold monthly ministerial level meetings. A few hundred wealthy Arabs have been sending their 400 ounce gold bars to Switzerland to have them recast into 99.99% pure kilogram size bars. Those kilogram gold bars are to be part of a gold backed yuan that will trade with other gold and commodity backed currencies.

This is to be a distributed system with letters of credit based on gold to facilitate trade as opposed to the current centrally controlled one where one man in Washington can shut down your economy because you do not think Iran has a program to build a nuclear weapon. So what if the US National Intelligence Estimate which relies on the best data from America’s 16 intelligence agencies says there is no such program. Jewish Lobby campaign contributors have told both political parties there is one and your country must be bankrupted through American sanctions for defying the will of Benyamin Netanyahu.

The Petrodollar is about all that is keeping the US dollar from sinking. Henry Kissinger started the Petrodollar system to replace the dollar gold exchange system which had originated at Bretton Woods in 1944 and ended Monday August 16, 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window. The Bretton Woods agreement essentially took the British pound system which had ruled international trade since the defeat of Napoleon. That British domination of trade hit a serious bump on September 21, 1931 when Britain went off the gold standard.  That depressed liquidity and sent the entire world even deeper into Depression. The US dollar did not formally replace the pound in trade until 1944.

The problem in the West is that we have debt based currencies and fractional reserve banking which sets us up for a fall. Under our system a Banker can charge you interest on money he created out of nothing even if we were on a gold standard. The money he lends you is in a checking account deposit he created out of nothing. Everyone in the country actually should share in the interest received for the loan because the Banker was allowed to inflate their currency which devalued their purchasing power. It was their loss but the Banker gets all of the gain.

The other problem with fractional reserve banking is that all that debt money leads to a Boom which attracts a lot of investments into the wrong part of the economy in the Boom phase. Booms are created when Banks loan out ten times as much as they receive in deposits. Busts are equally hard on the way down. When the Bank forecloses on a $100,000 loan, they have to call in a million dollars in loans. That contracts the Money Supply which really does serious harm. In the Great Depression Americans did die from starvation. The US had a Depression in the 19th century which lasted longer than the Great Depression. It was called the Great Contraction.

The seeds of the dollar’s destruction were sown in Wall Street’s post war plans. The Bankers did not trust the Americans so they flooded the US with Jewish refugees and then with legal and illegal aliens from everywhere. This population surge and division made resistance for Americans more difficult. But it also required Americans for the first time to begin importing raw materials to meet the needs of the added population.

The Petrodollar was a necessity because currencies depend upon supply and  demand to set their value. The US was increasing the Supply of dollars to pay for wars and for the occupation of foreign lands. And also for unlimited population growth due to legal and illegal immigration forcing the US to become a net importer of many raw materials. This put downward pressure on wages as it pushed prices higher. Instead of correcting these problems politicians printed more dollars. The Petrodollar meant that people overseas could buy oil with the dollars they earned selling raw materials, cars, electronics, clothes and a lot of other things to America. The Gulf States agreed to accept dollars which they used to buy US Treasury bonds. This solved two problems. The Arabs covered America’s budget deficit. And the problem of the US perpetual trade deficit at least appeared to be solved.

In exchange the US promised to keep the Mad Dog of the Mideast, Israel, on a short leash. The US did go after Libya and Iraq because they refused to sell dollars for oil. They wanted euros and gold.  But the US also attacked Iraq in 2003 because Israel had demanded that they go down for their support of the Palestinians. And Syria had to be attacked by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and those fun loving cannibals at the FSA because Israel wanted Obama to take down the main allies of Lebanon. Hezbollah had defeated them in the 2006 Lebanon war. And if Syria were taken down, Israel hopes America could go to war with Iran and maybe their allies in Russia and China. World War III might kill a lot of Americans but who in the Israeli government cares. God made so many Americans.

The United States has failed to keep up its end of the Petrodollar agreement to protect Muslims from the crazies in Israel. Time ran out on that deal. Besides the dollar is about to collapse. A lot of multi-billionaire investors including George Soros are betting on a stock market collapse. There is no reason for the economy in America to be where it is except that Bretton Woods gave the US the right to print the international reserve currency meaning we could export inflation all over the world. Hard working miners in Africa, Poland and Latin America have been tricked into working for free by paying for their labors in I Owe You Nothing Federal Reserve Notes. And retired workers all over the world whose pensions funds were invested in dollars could face starvation unless their fund managers dump dollars very, very soon.

The BRICS nations have allies who are working with them to undo the dollar as the international reserve currency. One of those allies is NATO member Turkey which has observer status with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Russo-Chinese alliance. Iran is a member of the SCO. China elevated Iran’s rank and singled them out as a key ally. That message has not been well received in either Israel or in Washington which is owned by the Jewish Lobby. Turkey has been a traditional lead player in gold backed trading in the region. Their Bankers are on board with the BRICS alliance against the dollar.

The question is: where does Germany go and when? Angela Merkel might even retire rather than go into a coalition after their September 22nd elections. There are quite a few people in Germany angry that the US stole their gold. Germany is currently locked into the European Union and the euro. Germans are a very productive people. Supply and demand would make their Deutschmark very valuable if they had one. A high priced currency does make imports cheap but it also makes exports expensive.

Having Germany, Finland and the Netherlands in the EU is about all that makes their trade cartel worth joining and their currency, the euro, worth anything at all. People want things Germany makes. They can afford to buy them because southern Europe is a basket case supported by the euro. The perpetual deficit regimes in the south lower the value of the euro. This depressed euro enables German businesses to sell more overseas. But the down side is that Germany is called to bail out very ungrateful people. And the Germans have about reached the limit of their ability to bail out everyone on the planet. The Germans owe the Americans nothing after they stole their gold and defrauded the world with their Paper Ponzi schemes.

Dr Willie sees this German issue coming to a head over banking. The banks of Europe are in worse shape than Americans think. And in turn America is in far worse shape than Europeans understand. I saw a German journalist interview an Englishman who used to be the chief correspondent for his paper in America. He is currently his paper’s senior business editor. Neither man had a clue as to how bad things are in the US. Dr Willie said the Germans might let one of their major banks collapse without bailing them out. Deutsche Bank is one of the world’s largest. In recent years they have had Jewish CEOs. Dr Willie said if that bank went under that the French banks would go and that the southern European banks would follow. London and US banks would fall soon afterwards. We are talking about hundreds of trillions of dollars in losses if you count Credit Default Swaps.

So what happens after a major European bank collapses? No more subsidies to the Americans. Too expensive. Tens of millions of Europeans will want food and will refuse to send more of their money to the corrupt regime that destroyed their banking system. It was a J P Morgan employee Blythe Masters who invented Credit Default Swaps and made this mountain of Unpayable Debt possible. Dr Willie sees Germany going for a trade deal with Russia and accepting their gold backed ruble. Germany will probably take Austria and maybe even the Netherlands and Finland with them. Russia seems unlikely to invade Finland as Joe Stalin did many decades ago.

So when does this happen? I think very early in 2015. That is when Obamacare exemptions expire. And it is when Group health insurance plans are subjected to higher premiums and deductibles.  Zero Hedge had a few articles of late that could explain to people overseas and in Washington how bad things are in America. 53 million Americans are temps, independent contractors and part timers. 30.7 million Americans are federal, state and local government workers. 92.3 million Americans of working age are not in the labor market at all. Stay At Home Moms started going out of style in the 1970s when inflation and declining wages first began to take their toll.  As previously mentioned, many billionaire investors like George Soros are betting on a massive drop in the stock market. The Central Banks have been caught buying stock index futures to drive the markets higher and to keep small investors in the market.

That American Express train is headed to a Brick Wall. Russia and China will, along with the other BRICS nations and their allies, be offering the Germans, the Saudis and the rest of the world a safe exit from an otherwise fatal crash. Unfortunately, there is no exit for the US, Great Britain and the other Europeans apart from those who take the Russo-Chinese lifeline. That is unless the US military which has been preparing for martial law for at least two decades were to intervene and to begin arresting Bankers and seizing their assets. At some point, the US military will realize with certainty that Nationwide Food Riots will be breaking out in the very near future unless they lead the revolt against Wall Street.

original post @ http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/jim-willie-saudis-to-kill-petrodollar-germany-to-scuttle-the-eu-and-wall-street/

Read Full Post »


“My administration has been closely monitoring the situation in Egypt, and I know that we will be learning more tomorrow when day breaks.  As the situation continues to unfold, our first concern is preventing injury or loss of life.  So I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors.

 

The people of Egypt have rights that are universal.  That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny.  These are human rights.  And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.”

 

- U.S. President Barack Obama, January 28, 2011

 

The events in Ferguson, Missouri went from what could have been just another all too common and tragic incident in which an unarmed black man is killed by an overly aggressive and unprofessional police force, to what may be a historically significant event in American history. So how did this transformation occur and what does it mean going forward? Those are the two questions I intend to address in this post.

There are two primary factors that have collided to create the current out of control situation in a suburb roughly 15 miles northwest of St. Louis, which before this past weekend, almost no one had ever heard of. The first factor is the underlying tension in American society that I have been writing about for several years now. Nowhere is this tension more apparent than in the minority majority inner cities or their outskirts. Being a privileged person, I have thankfully never experienced the dehumanization and oppression felt by so many in these disenfranchised communities, but I can still understand the fact that these neighborhoods are ground zero in the civil unrest that is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

The second factor is the entirely inappropriate and dangerous militarization of police forces throughout these United States. While extreme tension between impoverished communities and the police has been well documented for decades and expressed through music and movies (I grew up with NWA’s Fuck Tha Police and Colors), the cops were generally speaking merely men and women driving around in patrol cars with guns and batons. Not to dismiss the violence that can and has been inflicted through those means, but the police in recent years have taken things to a whole new frightening level: Total Militarization.

I consider this trend to be such an existential threat to freedom and civil liberties that I have expended a considerable deal of time and energy over the past several years highlighting it. I have covered the topic too many times to list here (I will provide a compilation at the end of this post), but there is one in particular I want to mention. The post was published two months ago and was titled: The Militarization of Police Continues…Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Silencers and More. In it I quoted the following from a New York Times article:

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

 

The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units. Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.”

I then concluded the post with the following observation:

Of all the bad ideas currently being implemented in these United States, turning the police into soldiers is certainly near the top of the list

More@ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-14/ferguson-bundy-ranch-dancing-night-away-obamas

Read Full Post »


This may be some good reading to some ppl. I think it is a must read.
Hope u all like it. Stop being nice it is a demonic word. Look it up. Don’t let anyone call u nice and you accept it anymore. Grammer and Glamorous mean the same thing. You learn to spell in grammer schooling and to accept other demonic spells as reality. Verbs and all that noun crap is as demonic as hell is hot. Mind control l0l.  English is a bag of trick language and is required to be altered and even removed from societies. Easy come easy go you know. We must let all this BS go once and for all and stand up-right. The truth can not be altered at all ever.  TIP must be listened too or we all suffer the consequences right.
Thanks


by Howard Freeman

The information is this article is not intended in any manner to replace qualified legal advice.

Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King George III’s government forced upon them, in common declared their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers wanted a rigid, written Constitution “set in concrete.” They were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the principle of English common law, that an act done by any official person or lawmaking body beyond his or its legal competence was simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to base their union on substance (gold and silver) — real money. They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were mortgaged to the hilt — lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the people, everything — to certain wealthy men who controlled the banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not loan gold and silver!

The United States of America was made up of a union of what is now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and its laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law. It has become an administrative (bureaucratic) legislative democracy via the obligation of contract being extended by duplicity and deception.

Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This “United States” is a Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its Citizenry, the residents of the District of Colombia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a Citizen by way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized Citizens).

Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both nations. One “United States,” the Republic of fifty States, has the “stars and stripes” as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal United States’ flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations of the States of the Continental United States are, with or without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).

Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the Continental United States provides for legal cases

  1. at Law,
  2. in Equity, and
  3. in Admiralty:

(l) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not compel performance. Today’s so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but just because something is called a “law” does not necessarily make it a law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful." Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]

(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a particular situation. The term “equity” denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.

(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty.

By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned everything — the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from this system.

Our Present Commercial System of “Law” and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection

The present commercial system of “law” has replaced the old and familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law — or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.

Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable Instrument’s Law, which is a branch of the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of the United States (which “United States” has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as distinguished from the “United States,” which is the Union of the fifty States).

In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental United States). The fifty States accepted the “benefits” offered by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between the Federal United States and each of the corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants, was predicated upon equitable paper.

This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and is what has altered our court system from one under the Common Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held to the letter of every statute of government on the federal, state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced to use a so-called “benefit” offered, or available, to them, from government, they may reserve their former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin was in the Union of the Sovereign States.

The same national Congress rules the Continental United States pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it legislates for the Federal United States.

With the above information, we may ask: “How did we, the free Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the Continental United States?” We do not reside, work, or have income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Federal United States. These are questions that have troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the Republic.

The answer follows:

Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States. One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution, termed in this article the Continental United States. The other is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal United States. Very few people, when they see some “law” passed by Congress, ask themselves, “Which nation was Congress working for when it passed this or that so-called law?” Or, few ask, “Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?”

Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for “cunning” political leadership to seek more power and authority over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of “legalese.” Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations. Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.

At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations the “benefit” of limited liability in the discharge of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. The citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no longer needed to pay their debts, that they were now “privileged” to discharge debt with this more “convenient” currency, issued by the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to “go modern,” and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture. The entire news media complex went along with the scam and declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer referring to America as a Republic.

From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of 1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork credit instruments.

Since all contracts since Roosevelt’s time have the colorable consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]

Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent, rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.

All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-called “statutes” of legislative bodies being enforced in these Legislative Tribunals are not “statutes” passed by the legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as “commercial obligations” to the Federal United States for anyone in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States and who has accepted the “benefit,” or “privilege,” of discharging his debts with the limited liability “benefit” offered to him by the Federal United States … EXCEPT those who availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207.

When used in conjunction with one’s signature, a stamp stating “Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207″ is sufficient to indicate to the magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called “courts”) that the signer of the document has reserved his Common Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case in any Common Law contract.

Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law. He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the Republic, while those about him “curse the darkness” of Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.

Editor’s note: the following excerpts are from letters in which Mr. Freeman further clarifies the REMEDY, as given to us in UCC 1-207, and the distinctions between Public Policy and Public Law:

Dear:

“There is an important “right” available to you. The name of the right is “Allocution”. It is presumed to have been waived if it is not requested! The purpose in demanding it is to preserve the “legal issues” brought up in the case, and overruled by the trial court. Otherwise, one’s appeal from a criminal conviction to a higher Court will only be a review of the “Fact Issues” decided in the lower Court, the Law Issues of the case are presumed to have been waived by the accused, unless those issues have been preserved though the right of “allocution.”

There is more that can follow one’s exercise of that right, and I will cover that, but first, let me explain what allocution is.

Once the Court, or a Jury, has found you guilty of disobedience to a commercial statute demanding, or prohibiting, performance in a specified manner, you, the accused, have the right of “Allocution”, which right, consists of having the Court (Judge) ask you on the record of the case (be sure that the Court Reporter is including this in the case transcript) “Is there any reason why this Court should not sentence you at this time?”

Being asked that question by the Court, in the Court Record is all there is to your right of Allocution, but a proper response upon the Court Record by the accused shows that same has not waived dispute upon the legal issues of the case, which were overruled by the trial Court, and now those issues may be brought up on appeal. The proper response of the accused upon being confronted with this question from the Judge, which allocution requires of him, is “Your Honor, the accused, in this criminal case, coming as it does from a colorable jurisdiction over his person and property, does object to being sentenced by this court at this time, because conviction in this case has been base upon The Facts of the case, while the Law Issues are still in dispute – namely – the Courts’ Colorable Jurisdiction in this Criminal charge, which lacks the essence of a substantial claim by a damaged party.”

At this point, your right of Allocution has preserved for you your right to bring Law Issues into your Appeal. Now, I will bring to your attention an additional benefit of exercising your right of Allocution, which I alluded to earlier in this letter: After you have placed the above response to the Judge’s question in the record, I would suggest that you continue on in the following manner: “Your Honor, the accused in this case would like to put this Court ON NOTICE, that if it DOES pronounce sentence at this time, over the OBJECTIONS of the accused, that the accused will formulate his objection, before a higher Court, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF ERROR (see Supervisory Control in Black’s 5th Law Dictionary).”

The reason for the remark above is that the Court will tell you that WRITS OF ERROR have been done away with in modern Courts. In that situation, point out to the Judge that you do NOT intend to file a GENUINE WRIT OF ERROR, which is not recognized in colorable Jurisdictions, but that you stated on the record of the court that your OBJECTION to being sentenced at this time on FACT ISSUES while the LAW ISSUES of the case are still in dispute would be: IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF ERROR which is a Colorable Objection recognized under the name of Supervisory Control in Black’s 5th.

The advantage of an objection in the nature of a writ of error is that the Judge (not you) must bring forth the Transcript, or Record, of the case to the higher panel of Judges, and, the burden of proof is upon that Judge to show that the Jurisdiction that he exercised over your person and property existed AS A FACT OF LAW, and further, he must show the legal basis for EACH RULING ON ISSUES OF LAW that the Transcript shows that an objection thereto was made by the accused.

Now you know the benefit of stating your objection in the nature of a Writ of Error, over making an appeal, wherein the expense of bringing forth the transcript is on you, as well as, the burden of proof on all the law issues in dispute.”

Sincerely,
Howard Freeman

Dear:

“What has public policy to do with Commercial Law? To grasp that you must understand that the US Constitution being based upon the Common Law and the Common Law being based upon substance (silver & gold) made it impossible for Congress when working for the 3-branch government created by the Union of States to borrow anything but silver or gold for what I will call the Continental United States , but Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gave the same Congress exclusive rule of the District of Columbia and other territories and enclaves mentioned in Clause 17. This entity I will call for our purposes here Federal United States. With that exclusive rule of that legislative democracy, called here Federal United States, Congress was able to borrow non-substance (bank credit) from International Banking Houses in the name of Federal United States which loans began in Civil War times and continues today to the point that the paper debt exceeds 3 Trillion in loans of bank credit. Federal United States was long ago a bankrupt nation so it no longer legislated “public law” pursuant to the interests of the people it served, but since 1938 it legislates “public policy” in the interests of the nation’s creditors. It is not in the interest of the people for Congress to give billions to Russia or Israel so that becomes “public policy” in the interest of the nation’s creditors. Now the Commercial Code comes into play when the Congress of the bankrupt Federal United States, in its duty to pass public policy statutes in the interest of the creditors of Federal United States, failed in its duty to coin gold or silver as a medium of exchange for Continental United States creating a depression therein, through a shortage of real money (genuine dollars). Then Franklin Roosevelt declared gold a barbaric metal, and with emergency powers given to him, brought America “up to date” by making colorable Federal Reserve Notes legal tender throughout Continental United States. Since colorable dollars, based upon the debt obligations of Federal United States, are now employed as a medium of exchange for Continental United States through the neglect of Congress in its duty to Continental United States, and the so called “blessings” of executive orders of FDR under his emergency powers, Continental United States is in a contract relationship with Federal United States and the debts of Federal United States are now equally, the debts of Continental United States and all of the inhabitants thereof UNLESS the inhabitants thereof in doing business in colorable dollars (commercial paper) reserve their Common Law Rights under the REMEDY provided for them in that system of Commercial Law called: The Uniform Commercial Code. I hope this brief summary of events answers your questions.

Most cordially yours,
Howard Freeman.

ADDENDUM

U.C.C. 1-207:4 Sufficiency of reservation.

Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reservation,” or “with reservation of all our rights.”

The Code states an “explicit” reservation must be made. “Explicit” undoubtedly is used in place of “express” to indicate that the reservation must not only be “express” but it must also be “clear” that such a reservation was intended.

The term “explicit” as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means “that which is so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.” ….

U.C.C. 1-207:7 Effect of reservation of rights.
The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ….

U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion at a later date ….

U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.
The Code is “Complementary” to the common law which remains in force except where displaced by the Code ….

A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law…. “The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law action.”

EXAMPLE

Your Honor, my use of “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207″ above my signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the “Remedy” provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at Section 207, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government — national, state and local — that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.

The Three United States!
Back to Political Corrections

Read Full Post »


An armed anti-Kiev protester guards the barricades on a road leading into Slavyansk, eastern Ukraine, May 5, 2014.

An armed anti-Kiev protester guards the barricades on a road leading into Slavyansk, eastern Ukraine, May 5, 2014.
Sat May 10, 2014 1:18AM GM
By William Blum, CounterPunch

So, what do we have here? In Libya, in Syria, and elsewhere the United States has been on the same side as the al-Qaeda types. But not in Ukraine. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that in Ukraine the United States is on the same side as the neo-Nazi types, who – taking time off from parading around with their swastika-like symbols and calling for the death of Jews, Russians and Communists – on May 2 burned down a trade-union building in Odessa, killing scores of people and sending hundreds to hospital; many of the victims were beaten or shot when they tried to flee the flames and smoke; ambulances were blocked from reaching the wounded. Try and find an American mainstream media entity that has made a serious attempt to capture the horror.And how did this latest example of American foreign-policy exceptionalism come to be? One starting point that can be considered is what former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Robert Gates says in his recently published memoir: “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, [Defense Secretary Dick Cheney] wanted to see the dismemberment not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.” That can serve as an early marker for the new cold war while the corpse of the old one was still warm. Soon thereafter, NATO began to surround Russia with military bases, missile sites, and NATO members, while yearning for perhaps the most important part needed to complete the circle – Ukraine.In February of this year, US State Department officials, undiplomatically, joined anti-government protesters in the capital city of Kiev, handing out encouragement and food, from which emanated the infamous leaked audio tape between the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, former US ambassador to NATO and former State Department spokesperson for Hillary Clinton. Their conversation dealt with who should be running the new Ukraine government after the government of Viktor Yanukovich was overthrown; their most favored for this position being one Arseniy Yatsenuk.

My dear, and recently departed, Washington friend, John Judge, liked to say that if you want to call him a “conspiracy theorist” you have to call others “coincidence theorists”. Thus it was by the most remarkable of coincidences that Arseniy Yatsenuk did indeed become the new prime minister. He could very soon be found in private meetings and public press conferences with the president of the United States and the Secretary-General of NATO, as well as meeting with the soon-to-be new owners of Ukraine, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, preparing to impose their standard financial shock therapy. The current protestors in Ukraine don’t need PHDs in economics to know what this portends. They know about the impoverishment of Greece, Spain, et al. They also despise the new regime for its overthrow of their democratically-elected government, whatever its shortcomings. But the American media obscures these motivations by almost always referring to them simply as “pro-Russian”.

An exception, albeit rather unemphasized, was the April 17 Washington Post which reported from Donetsk that many of the eastern Ukrainians whom the author interviewed said the unrest in their region was driven by fear of “economic hardship” and the IMF austerity plan that will make their lives even harder: “At a most dangerous and delicate time, just as it battles Moscow for hearts and minds across the east, the pro-Western government is set to initiate a shock therapy of economic measures to meet the demands of an emergency bailout from the International Monetary Fund.”

Arseniy Yatsenuk, it should be noted, has something called the Arseniy Yatsenuk Foundation. If you go to the foundation’s website you will see the logos of the foundation’s “partners”.  Among these partners we find NATO, the National Endowment for Democracy, the US State Department, Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK), the German Marshall Fund (a think tank founded by the German government in honor of the US Marshall Plan), as well as a couple of international banks. Is any comment needed?

Getting away with supporting al-Qaeda and Nazi types may be giving US officials the idea that they can say or do anything they want in their foreign policy. In a May 2 press conference, President Obama, referring to Ukraine and the NATO Treaty, said: “We’re united in our unwavering Article 5 commitment to the security of our NATO allies”. (Article 5 states: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all.”) Did the president forget that Ukraine is not (yet) a member of NATO? And in the same press conference, the president referred to the “duly elected government in Kyiv (Kiev)”, when in fact it had come to power via a coup and then proceeded to establish a new regime in which the vice-premier, minister of defense, minister of agriculture, and minister of environment, all belonged to far-right neo-Nazi parties.

The pure awfulness of the Ukrainian right-wingers can scarcely be exaggerated. In early March, the leader of Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) called upon his comrades, the infamous Chechnyan terrorists, to carry out further terrorist actions in Russia.

There may be one important difference between the old Cold War and the new one. The American people, as well as the world, cannot be as easily brainwashed as they were during the earlier period.

Over the course of a decade, in doing the research for my first books and articles on US foreign policy, one of the oddities to me of the Cold War was how often the Soviet Union seemed to know what the United States was really up to, even if the American people didn’t. Every once in a while in the 1950s to 70s a careful reader would notice a two- or three-inch story in the New York Times on the bottom of some distant inside page, reporting that Pravda or Izvestia had claimed that a recent coup or political assassination in Africa or Asia or Latin America had been the work of the CIA; the Times might add that a US State Department official had labeled the story as “absurd”. And that was that; no further details were provided; and none were needed, for how many American readers gave it a second thought? It was just more commie propaganda. Who did they think they were fooling? This ignorance/complicity on the part of the mainstream media allowed the United States to get away with all manner of international crimes and mischief.

It was only in the 1980s when I began to do the serious research that resulted in my first book, which later became Killing Hope, that I was able to fill in the details and realize that the United States had indeed masterminded that particular coup or assassination, and many other coups and assassinations, not to mention countless bombings, chemical and biological warfare, perversion of elections, drug dealings, kidnappings, and much more that had not appeared in the American mainstream media or schoolbooks. (And a significant portion of which was apparently unknown to the Soviets as well.)

But there have been countless revelations about US crimes in the past two decades. Many Americans and much of the rest of the planet have become educated. They’re much more skeptical of American proclamations and the fawning media.

President Obama recently declared: “The strong condemnation that it’s received from around the world indicates the degree to which Russia is on the wrong side of history on this.”  Marvelous … coming from the man who partners with jihadists and Nazis and has waged war against seven nations. In the past half century is there any country whose foreign policy has received more bitter condemnation than the United States? If the United States is not on the wrong side of history, it may be only in the history books published by the United States.

Barack Obama, like virtually all Americans, likely believes that the Soviet Union, with perhaps the sole exception of the Second World War, was consistently on the wrong side of history in its foreign policy as well as at home. Yet, in a survey conducted by an independent Russian polling center this past January, and reported in the Washington Post in April, 86 percent of respondents older than 55 expressed regret for the Soviet Union’s collapse; 37 percent of those aged 25 to 39 did so. (Similar poll results have been reported regularly since the demise of the Soviet Union. This is from USA Today in 1999: “When the Berlin Wall crumbled, East Germans imagined a life of freedom where consumer goods were abundant and hardships would fade. Ten years later, a remarkable 51% say they were happier with communism.”)

Or as the new Russian proverb put it: “Everything the Communists said about Communism was a lie, but everything they said about capitalism turned out to be the truth.”

A week before the above Post report in April the newspaper printed an article about happiness around the world, which contains the following charming lines: “Worldwide polls show that life seems better to older people – except in Russia.” … “Essentially, life under President Vladimir Putin is one continuous downward spiral into despair.” … “What’s going on in Russia is deep unhappiness.” … “In Russia, the only thing to look forward to is death’s sweet embrace.”

No, I don’t think it was meant to be any kind of satire. It appears to be a scientific study, complete with graphs, but it reads like something straight out of the 1950s.

The views Americans hold of themselves and other societies are not necessarily more distorted than the views found amongst people elsewhere in the world, but the Americans’ distortion can lead to much more harm. Most Americans and members of Congress have convinced themselves that the US/NATO encirclement of Russia is benign – we are, after all, the Good Guys – and they don’t understand why Russia can’t see this.

The first Cold War, from Washington’s point of view, was often designated as one of “containment”, referring to the US policy of preventing the spread of communism around the world, trying to block the very idea of communism or socialism. There’s still some leftover from that – see Venezuela and Cuba, for example – but the new Cold War can be seen more in terms of a military strategy. Washington thinks in terms of who could pose a barrier to the ever-expanding empire adding to its bases and other military necessities.

Whatever the rationale, it’s imperative that the United States suppress any lingering desire to bring Ukraine (and Georgia) into the NATO alliance. Nothing is more likely to bring large numbers of Russian boots onto the Ukrainian ground than the idea that Washington wants to have NATO troops right on the Russian border and in spitting distance of the country’s historic Black Sea naval base in Crimea.

The myth of Soviet expansionism

One still comes across references in the mainstream media to Russian “expansionism” and “the Soviet empire”, in addition to that old favorite “the evil empire”. These terms stem largely from erstwhile Soviet control of Eastern European states. But was the creation of these satellites following World War II an act of imperialism or expansionism? Or did the decisive impetus lie elsewhere?

Within the space of less than 25 years, Western powers had invaded Russia three times – the two world wars and the “Intervention” of 1918-20 – inflicting some 40 million casualties in the two wars alone. To carry out these invasions, the West had used Eastern Europe as a highway. Should it be any cause for wonder that after World War II the Soviets wanted to close this highway down? In almost any other context, Americans would have no problem in seeing this as an act of self-defense. But in the context of the Cold War such thinking could not find a home in mainstream discourse.

The Baltic states of the Soviet Union – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – were not part of the highway and were frequently in the news because of their demands for more autonomy from Moscow, a story “natural” for the American media. These articles invariably reminded the reader that the “once independent” Baltic states were invaded in 1939 by the Soviet Union, incorporated as republics of the USSR, and had been “occupied” ever since. Another case of brutal Russian imperialism. Period. History etched in stone.

The three countries, it happens, were part of the Russian empire from 1721 up to the Russian Revolution of 1917, in the midst of World War I. When the war ended in November 1918, and the Germans had been defeated, the victorious Allied nations (US, Great Britain, France, et al.) permitted/encouraged the German forces to remain in the Baltics for a full year to crush the spread of Bolshevism there; this, with ample military assistance from the Allied nations. In each of the three republics, the Germans installed collaborators in power who declared their independence from the new Bolshevik state which, by this time, was so devastated by the World War, the revolution, and the civil war prolonged by the Allies’ intervention, that it had no choice but to accept the fait accompli. The rest of the fledgling Soviet Union had to be saved.

To at least win some propaganda points from this unfortunate state of affairs, the Soviets announced that they were relinquishing the Baltic republics “voluntarily” in line with their principles of anti-imperialism and self-determination. But is should not be surprising that the Soviets continued to regard the Baltics as a rightful part of their nation or that they waited until they were powerful enough to reclaim the territory.

Then we had Afghanistan. Surely this was an imperialist grab. But the Soviet Union had lived next door to Afghanistan for more than 60 years without gobbling it up. And when the Russians invaded in 1979, the key motivation was the United States involvement in a movement, largely Islamic, to topple the Afghan government, which was friendly to Moscow. The Soviets could not have been expected to tolerate a pro-US, anti-communist government on its border any more than the United States could have been expected to tolerate a pro-Soviet, communist government in Mexico.

Moreover, if the rebel movement took power it likely would have set up a fundamentalist Islamic government, which would have been in a position to proselytize the numerous Muslims in the Soviet border republics.

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World’s Only Super Power. His latest book is: America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/10/362009/the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/

 

Read Full Post »


With Mass Incarceration, U.S. is Guilty of a Slow Motion Genocide | ATV 004
If this were happening anywhere else in the world, Americans would be justifiably horrified:

1 out of every 100 adults are living behind bars in the United States, with 1 in 31 in some sort of correctional control, including prison, jail, parole, and probation.

The United States, with 5% of the world’s population, has 25% of the worlds prison population.

Private prisons are operating around the country at the local and state level, and a majority of them include “occupancy requirements mandating that local or state government keep those facilities between 80 and 100 percent full. In other words, whether crime is rising or falling, the state must keep those beds full.”

Thousands are serving life sentences for non-violent crimes.

The School to Prison Pipeline is still funneling mostly black and brown children into the juvenile and adult criminal legal systems.

Solitary confinement, defined as torture by the UN, is commonly practiced in both Guantanamo Bay prison and in mainland US prisons.

Police can murder suspects, and then claim they shot themselves in the head and get away with it, even if the suspect is handcuffed behind their back.

You get the picture.

According to Carl Dix, the co-founder (along with Cornel West) of The Stop Mass Incarceration Network, all of this and more are tantamount to genocide. As he tells Dennis Trainor, Jr. in the embedded episode of Acronym TV:

“Genocide is not a final act of putting people in gas chambers (…) Genocide is a process. A process by which groups of people are identified, targeted, demonized, separated, and then as this process goes on, the question of mass killings comes up later. That has been going on in this country. Black people in particular have been historically targeted, demonized, segregated (…) the definition of genocide flowing from the United Nations is when a group of people are put (in whole or in part) in circumstances that make it impossible for them to thrive and survive as a people. That is the situation with Mass Incarceration and all of its consequences in this country.”
Joining Carl on the program is Juanita Young. Ms. Young relates her story as the mother of an unarmed young man who was murdered by the NYPD, and how that fuels her life as an anti-police brutality activist.

The two discuss plans for a month of nationwide resistance to Mass incarceration, police terror, repression, and the criminalization of a generation.

The call for an October month of resistance put forth by Dix and Cornel West (and is supported by a growing list of endorsing groups and individuals) states:
“The malignancy of mass incarceration did not arise from a sudden epidemic of crime. Nor did it result from people making poor personal choices. Instead it arose from cold political calculations made in response to the massive and heroic struggle for the rights of Black and other minority peoples that took place in the 1960′s and 70′s, and in response to the enormous economic and social changes brought about by globalized production. This cancer of mass incarceration has been, from the beginning, nothing but a new Jim Crow in place of the old one. Like the old Jim Crow, it drew on, fed off and reinforced the deep-seated roots of the racism that grew up with slavery. Like the old Jim Crow, it has been, from the beginning, unjustifiable, utterly immoral and thoroughly illegitimate…

It is not enough to oppose this in the privacy of your own conscience or the company of like-minded people. It is not enough to curse this out, but then tell yourself nothing can be done. If you live your life under this threat, you MUST act. If you understand how wrong this is and how much it devastates the lives of so many millions, you MUST act.”

Read Full Post »


This is an interesting outlook on a possible, or even likely course of events that fits the imagined picture of the New World Order establishing control of America. Before this, it was easy to view the NWO movement as dangerous but more difficult to visualize the actual processes involved. Also very easy to see that America is well on the skids, but where to then? This spells out a possible scenario.

Hopefully wrong, but believable!

An impressive post from ‘The Common Sense Show’, by Dave Hodges.

 

Parts One and Two of this series described how the United Nations is poised to take over the United States. The border crisis with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens is threatening to paralyze several un vehicles 2federal agencies. When this number grows to millions, this country and its resources will be paralyzed in terms of responding the holocaust which is underway. Part Two, in particular, demonstrated how the United Nations is prepositioning resources in anticipation of being able to assume a policing duty with regard to the border crisis, which has totally been manufactured in order that the UN has a pretext to function as a force. Because the UN will be responding to a “humanitarian need” the American military will have a very difficult time objecting and opposing the takeover by the UN. The policing of the US by the UN is merely a move to gain a foothold for control over this country. When one looks at the wholesale movement of UN military vehicles, it is easy to conclude that their mission will not be humanitarian, in its totality, but this is lining up to be a military mission. As bad as the crisis on the border will be, this is just the opening act. What follows will allow the UN to assume complete policing powers in all 50 states and the assumption of jurisdictional control over all state and federal agencies.

What Will Give the UN the Justification to Assume Control Over the Entire US?

The one element that binds together all the local, state and federal agencies is the economy. The border crisis will provide the UN the opportunity to have a presence in the border states. However, there will be 46 states that will not be under UN control. Therefore, how does the UN overcome this challenge in order to assume complete control of the United States?

Food riots are coming

When the American economy collapses, food riots will commence. The average American will have enough food and water for about three days, with the majority of Americans not possessing the means to protect their individual supplies from the hording bands of desperate people. Banks will collapse, business inventories will be looted and police will abandon their posts just like they did during Hurricane Katrina. From a law enforcement perspective, America will lose the ability to respond to the crisis within 3-5 days. Within 10 days, there will absolute and total anarchy. Nobody will be safe. However, the UN “Peacekeepers” will be present and will be willing and able to assume control. And if they assume control, as they did, in Bosnia, Serbia, the West Bank, Lebanon and Rwanda, Americans are in a lot of trouble. northcomMy military sources have told me that this has already been rehearsed, the UN takeover of America, as far back as the 1990′s version of NORTHCOM and in combination with the UN have engaged in urban warfare drills. Again, in Bosnia, urban occupation was coordinated between foreign troops and US soldiers, under UN command in this war torn country. The removal of 260+ American military senior grade military officers should make a lot more sense because our loyal military leaders would not approve of this loss of sovereignty. An economic collapse will be the second leg of the UN takeover of this country following an international response by the UN at the border. And what will that mean? It will mean gun confiscation and seizure of private assets.

I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. WHEN THE UN ASSUMES CONTROL OF THE EMERGING AND PLANNED BORDER CRISIS, THIS WILL MARK THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE UNITED STATES. AND WHEN THE ECONOMY COLLAPSES, THIS WILL MARK THE END OF AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY. THE UN MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A POLICING AUTHORITY ON OUR SOIL FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER!

For those who are indifferent to a planned UN intervention in this country, I would ask you to please tell me when has the United Nations ever intervened in a crisis without having its presence create genocide type conditions? Since class is in session, let me provide for you with the poster child answer to the previous question. Look at what the UN did not do in the Rwanda crisis. These yellow-bellied blue helmets watched as people were pulled from their cars, their wagons and their homes and were subsequently murdered.

Read the source article here.

Read Full Post »


If this were happening anywhere else in the world, Americans would be justifiably horrified:

1 out of every 100 adults are living behind bars in the United States, with 1 in 31 in some sort of correctional control, including prison, jail, parole, and probation.

The United States, with 5% of the world’s population, has 25% of the worlds prison population.

Private prisons are operating around the country at the local and state level, and a majority of them include “occupancy requirements mandating that local or state government keep those facilities between 80 and 100 percent full. In other words, whether crime is rising or falling, the state must keep those beds full.”

Thousands are serving life sentences for non-violent crimes.

The School to Prison Pipeline is still funneling mostly black and brown children into the juvenile and adult criminal legal systems.

Solitary confinement, defined as torture by the UN, is commonly practiced in both Guantanamo Bay prison and in mainland US prisons.

Police can murder suspects, and then claim they shot themselves in the head and get away with it, even if the suspect is handcuffed behind their back.

You get the picture.

According to Carl Dix, the co-founder (along with Cornel West) of The Stop Mass Incarceration Network, all of this and more are tantamount to genocide. As he tells Dennis Trainor, Jr. in the embedded episode of Acronym TV:

“Genocide is not a final act of putting people in gas chambers (…) Genocide is a process. A process by which groups of people are identified, targeted, demonized, separated, and then as this process goes on, the question of mass killings comes up later. That has been going on in this country. Black people in particular have been historically targeted, demonized, segregated (…) the definition of genocide flowing from the United Nations is when a group of people are put (in whole or in part) in circumstances that make it impossible for them to thrive and survive as a people. That is the situation with Mass Incarceration and all of its consequences in this country.”

Joining Carl on the program is Juanita Young. Ms. Young relates her story as the mother of an unarmed young man who was murdered by the NYPD, and how that fuels her life as an anti-police brutality activist.

The two discuss plans for a month of nationwide resistance to Mass incarceration, police terror, repression, and the criminalization of a generation.

The call for an October month of resistance put forth by Dix and Cornel West (and is supported by a growing list of endorsing groups and individuals) states:

“The malignancy of mass incarceration did not arise from a sudden epidemic of crime. Nor did it result from people making poor personal choices. Instead it arose from cold political calculations made in response to the massive and heroic struggle for the rights of Black and other minority peoples that took place in the 1960′s and 70′s, and in response to the enormous economic and social changes brought about by globalized production. This cancer of mass incarceration has been, from the beginning, nothing but a new Jim Crow in place of the old one. Like the old Jim Crow, it drew on, fed off and reinforced the deep-seated roots of the racism that grew up with slavery. Like the old Jim Crow, it has been, from the beginning, unjustifiable, utterly immoral and thoroughly illegitimate…

It is not enough to oppose this in the privacy of your own conscience or the company of like-minded people. It is not enough to curse this out, but then tell yourself nothing can be done. If you live your life under this threat, you MUST act. If you understand how wrong this is and how much it devastates the lives of so many millions, you MUST act.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,245 other followers

%d bloggers like this: