Being over 70 years old and having lived through WWII in Europe and lived in Mexico, I have an excellent understanding of what dictatorships are and how they function. The fact that America is rapidly heading into a despotic state is obvious to anyone of my age. Furthermore, every branch of our government is involved. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the charge of 'assistance to terrorism' does not necessitate an overt act; all that is required is providing assistance and/or encouragement to the act. That in effect means anything, for instance, calling the executive a fool, writing a pro-Palestinian article, objecting to Israeli Middle East policies, holocaust denial – anything the bureaucracy disapproves of becomes a violation of this law.
Under the newly enacted – sponsored by McCain (R-AZ) with approval of 93 (STUPID) Senators – National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the president was granted the right to arrest and detain any American citizens any place in the world without a charge, indefinitely, without right to council, without a warrant, and to torture any such American, merely on his say-so or by indictment of a secret court whose members are anonymous. This totally obliterates the habeas corpus provisions of the Constitution. Furthermore, this law eradicates the Posse Comitatus Act [18 U.S.C. 1385] of June 18, 1887 that prevented the government from employing American military against American civilians.
The president already took upon himself the right to assassinate any American citizen any place in the world without charge, trial, judge, jury and evidence of a crime, simply on his say-so, and has already used that authority to murder.
The enacted in 2001 and re-approved in 2011 USA Patriot Act is the most sinister of all, in that it violates the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments of the Bill of Rights. In expansion, it grants the government the right to rifle your mail, tap your telephone and inquire into what you are reading. In a stunning overturn of well-accepted fourth amendment rights a federal court has granted government the right to track your movement with GPS technology, including via cell phones and GPS equipment.
Meanwhile, your local police force is buying everything from spy drones to night vision equipment and are being militarized hand over fist. These weapons and systems that local police are purchasing are not for law enforcement; they are decidedly for issues like crowd control, nighttime secret incursions, combined actions with the National Guard and regular Army, which is now possible due to NDAA. Worse is the fact that numerous airports and facilities around America have had their security services subcontracted to Israeli security firms. While the government contracts training to SPLC for federal agencies and smaller local state agencies follow their lead, SPLC is the most bias-twisted, anti-Christian organization in the land. The federal government has established links with the JDL, Mossad assets, the American Jewish Congress, the ADL and other Israeli operatives; while we cannot prove this we know it to be the case. The story put forth by the Mossad that everyone in government now accepts as gospel is that Israeli and American security issues are one and the same. This, upon examination of issues, is utterly ridiculous.
Lest we forget, police are supposed to serve and protect while military kill and destroy. The two functions are wholly incompatible in a republic. I saw this firsthand in Germany from 1938 onward and in Italy, and in Bulgaria and then in the entire Soviet bloc empire.
In view of the Pollard, Franklin, Rosenberg and scores of Israeli spying operations against us and considering the USS Liberty affair, we would be wise to rely on our own security apparatus and not become entangled with the agencies of a nation which has for decades been most actively spying against us.
We are already underwater with Israeli telephone monitoring and billing operations that have been off-shored by domestic suppliers to Magal Security Systems, an Israeli contractor. Let's be cognizant of the fact that, according to information released last December, there is now operative monitoring of all electronic communications as well as GPS systems. We do not think it rational to allow such information to be subcontracted offshore.
What we are pointing out here is that all the required means for the operation of a top-down police state are either already in place or are being put in place as you read. Even the agencies to administer all this from the federal level, Homeland Security – with over 220,000 employees – is a functioning agency run by one of Obama's dubious associates.
Beginning with 9/11 – a false-flag operation if ever there was one – the nation has lost one liberty after another, and now we have even lost our most basic right to face our accuser, habeas corpus, that has been part of English speaking law since the 12th century. The president, meanwhile, has taken to himself the right to use our own military against its citizens by voiding Posse Comitatus – enacted in 1887 after the war of northern aggression to alleviate the excesses of the Yankees as they had looted, raped and burned their way from Richmond to Atlanta – and the elimination of almost the entire Bill of Rights through the enactment of the USA Patriot Act, which had essentially been written and ready for enactment for over 15 years before 9/11.
What would it take to instill in a mentally challenged population the willingness to have stripped away what little of our freedoms still exist? A little pre-arranged action to be blamed on Iran would make the neocons very happy, the president could be re-elected, the population induced to war against yet another Middle East nation, then the expansion of more freedom crushing laws, the enactment of national hate laws with the government providing the definition of hate, and there you have it – Soviet America Empire of the 21st century.
(Edited on day of publication.)
Posted by Bischoff on 01/12/12 06:08 PM
There is nothing that I write that should stress you.
As to the "arboreal ancestry" remarks, there is very little disagreement in scientific circles with the statement that the ancestors of "Humans" were arboreal beings. It is save to say, it is a proven fact. If you have information to the contrary, I am pleased to learn about it.
With the "arboreal ancestry" remark, I am trying to point out that humans evolved when their "arboreal ancestors" were driven from their natural habitat in the trees, and then miraculously survived on the ground. In the short development from an arboreal being to a human being, nature failed to have time to genetically change the arborial being and its basic instincts. Nature helped the creature in its development by creating for it a large brain and self consciousness which let it survive on the ground. However, the basic instincts which the arborial being acquired over hundred of millions of years, are still the same in humans. These basic instinct are detrimental to peaceful living on the ground, and they must be controlled.
The human brain in connection with the human heart is capable of consciously initiating behavior which allows a peaceful existence amongst humans. The religions find their purpose in promoting the habituation of this behavior to overcome the detrimental basic instincts. Religions instruct people as to behave in a "loving" way that insures peace amongst humans. (I exclude from the term religion that "religion" which advocates the killings of apostates.)
As to Ron Paul, he talks about the provisions in the original Constitution. He provides an education about the intent and meaning of the Constitution which was not available from the public schools, and which is absent in the mass media and popular entertainment. Ron Paul should get high marks for his educational effort which he puts forth by running for U.S. President.
To evaluate Ron Paul as a successful politician, I have to look at his past political achievements over several decades of serving in the U.S. House.
While his voting record is libertarian and very much in line with the original Constitution, he has been unable to built coalitions, or to move his fellow House members to counter a single governmental excess he is vocal to denounce. What makes you think he is going to be more successful politically as U.S. President?
My leaning toward Gingrich rests solely on his past record. He balanced congressional budgets several years in the row. He pushed through welfare reform against considerable opposition from Clinton. Best of all, he turned the power in the U.S. House from Democrat to Republican for the first time in 40 years.
There are three political centers in this country. A left leaning Democrat party which supports the Congress's FED central bank, the Republican Party Establishment (North Eastern big banks and corporations) which supports the Congress's FED central bank, and the Republican Conservatives who disagree with both of the former. Conservatives are against government spending, but they do not understand that without government debt, the FED central bank collapses.
Obama represents the Democrats who are at this point happy to retain the presidency, evenso they would lose the U.S. Senate.
Romney represents the Republican Establishment which would be happy enough to have him as president, but which will do little to help him win the presidency. Once nominated by the Republican party, Romney will be on his own to gain the job. The main price for the Republican Establishment is the control of the U.S. Senate which controls the FED and currency creation in cooperation with the dependent American banking system.
Gingrich is the mortal enemy of both of the Democrats and the Republican Party Establishment. By passing balanced budgets in the 1990s, Gringrich moved the FED central banking system to having to revise their debt monetization practices. This brought him into big conflicts with Democrats, as well as with the Republican Party Establishment. Between the two of them, it did not take long before Gingrich was ousted as Speaker of the U.S. House.
You maybe for Ron Paul, but as a politician, he hasn't shown me much. I will rout for Gingrich as the last, best hope to see a change in the present system.
To the extent that the Republican Party Establishment and its Mass Media, including Fox News, can propagandize the Republican Conservatives to vote for Romney, to that extent, you can evaluate my comments about the electorate being "brain dead".
Posted by Agent Weebley on 01/12/12 05:39 PM
Hi bionic mosquito. Ingo and I chat like this all the time. It's all in good fun. Try doin' it with Plastiki! He's not as elastic as Ingo . . .
Hopefully, after tonight, I can rationalize myself back to my site.
My daughter, Nerfy, posted there recently . . . I'm so proud of her. They get what we give them.
Here it is:
Click to view link
Posted by bionic mosquito on 01/12/12 05:23 PM
"They are merely out for a "food fight"."
Now Ingo, look at the slop you are peddling here, and have peddled in the past. One should not even refer to your slop as "food".
1) No private property in land; all land is state / government owned.
2) Lincoln's vision of keeping the union together under all circumstances must be maintained, ignoring the cost this exacted the first time.
3) The state is necessary for markets to function.
4) Banking cannot properly function without state charter.
5) The original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a good and necessary act, done openly and with good intent.
6) Legal form triumphs economic reality; for example, credit (real bills) is not credit if the legislature says it isn't.
7) Repeal of the 17th amendment is a key to restoring the republic to the original intent of the founders', ignoring the events of 1861 - 1865
8) The states lost their voice with the passage of the 17th amendment, again ignoring that the voice was lost in 1865.
9) Capping property taxes in California through Proposition 13 was a bad idea
10) Free markets = government legislation, government regulation, government charter, government audit, and government enforcement.
11) 'REAL BILLS ARE NOT BACKED BY GOLD. REAL BILLS ARE GOLD, almost.'
12) If the courts decide something is Constitutional, it is Constitutional.
13) 'The "State" came into existence to preserve the family.'
14) 'Would humans and families go extinct without the "State"? Yes, it is very likely that they would.'
15) Congress established Social Security out of benevolence, in order to make up for the inability to save for retirement due to gold confiscation.
16) In 2012 Republican election, believes Newt Gingrich would be better than Ron Paul in re-establishing Constitutional limits on the Federal state.
17) 'John Bolton would make an excellent Secretary of State.'
18) "The greatest nightmare for the central bank crowd is a "President Newt Gingrich"."
19) "The Republican establishment... is hell bent to prevent Newt Gingrich from changing the monetary system to return to "free market" capitalism."
Slop not fit for a pig, I would say.
Posted by bionic mosquito on 01/12/12 05:17 PM
"I'm out patiently here waiting for you to discuss physics with me... ."
Ingo's standard protocol when he is cornered by his own paint:
2) Obfuscate some more
3) Obfuscate further
Nowhere in the sequence is "rationally address the statement."
Posted by Agent Weebley on 01/12/12 05:13 PM
Agent Weebley doesn't like it when Ingo speaks to him in the 3rd person . . . so, what to do, what to do?
I think I'll choose to chisel my response to you, yes you, Ingo . . . on huge boulders and drag them up to Mount Catherine Austin Fitts for display for all to read . . .
Watts that? Dang . . . that'll take the same amount of time and energy as a few keystrokes and a hot link or 2, so I may as well do it this way.
So am I free to reign on your charade, Ingo? . . . to logically unstick myself from the moment I am currently CyberOccupying?
Click to view link
Oh, and taxesbyanyothername, you funny! . . . but it is not up to me: Click to view link
Posted by Bischoff on 01/12/12 04:49 PM
Come on, Abu...
When I give my opinins here, I very rarely use links to support my arguments. I don't need them. I don't need anyone to do my talking for me.
Also, to those who have challenged my opinions in these threads, I've said many time that I don't argue with someone by having him refer me to a link. You either have an opinion of yourself, or you don't. If you do, why don't you state it, instead of refering me to someone else's opinion.
You do it again in this response to my challenge, you offer me a lessons where I can find opinion on the internet that differes with mine, you make a staments which you don't back up, and you revert to name calling.
Is that the intellectual discourse in response to my challenge... ??? If it is, it's pitiful... ...
Posted by Bischoff on 01/12/12 04:30 PM
"Please don't get angry Ingo." Don't ever worry about my feelings.
I don't get angry. In your comments about what I write have always been reasonable. I don't have a problem with your disagreement of them. Also, I am interested in your analysis of George's land value tax.
However, I do have a tough time tolerating guys like the Mosquito and Agent Weebley. They are merely out for a "food fight". Intellectually, they have little to contribute. They get their satisfaction by watching sparks fly. Guys like that are weird, but they are all over the internet. I find it best to ignore them.
As to Ron Paul, stirring up the populus with his message of returning to the original Constitution is a good thing. However, for anybody to think that he would be able to change anything, given his past political achievements, is a pipe dream.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 01/12/12 04:15 PM
Really, Ingo? How about:
LABOUR SAVING DEVICES SAVE NO LABOUR? YOU SAID IT, BUDDY!
I'm out patiently here waiting for you to discuss physics with me . . . and to complicate matters, I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date . . .
. . . over here: Click to view link
Are you ingoring me . . . again?
Posted by Bischoff on 01/12/12 04:13 PM
Any examples... ???
Posted by bionic mosquito on 01/12/12 02:56 PM
"The greatest nightmare for the central bank crowd is a "President Newt Gingrich"."
"The Republican establishment... is hell bent to prevent Newt Gingrich from changing the monetary system to return to "free market" capitalism."
You are loonier than ever Ingo.
"However, many in these threads merely express their feelings about my opinions, and they are utterly astouded that I don't share them."
I would only be astounded if you weren't so loony. But you are loony, so I am not astounded.
Posted by Bischoff on 01/12/12 02:28 PM
In your comparison of Gingrich to Newt, you should keep in mind what really goes on in Washington.
As background, the capitalism envisioned with the U.S. Constitution was seriously damaged with the Banking Act of 1935 and with the abandonment of the gold standard in 1971. Today, the values of all currencies in the world float against each other.
Without a firm standard, corporate financial accounting is unreliable. Capital cannot be properly valued without a standard.
The operation of Baines & Co. by Romney must be understood with that background. He restructured companies not in a "free market" capitalistic system, but in a congressionally managed economy through the FED central banking system.
Due to compound interest, the FED central bank irredeemable currency system, based on monetizing congressional deficits, is finished. Only, because countries the world over have to pay their "oil bills" in USDs, does the USD still maintain value.
Gingrich knows that the central banking system has to be revised. His balanced budgets in the 1990s moved the country in that direction. The result was that all the Democrats and the Republican establishment moved against him, until they ousted him as Speaker of the House.
Now, he is back. The greatest nightmare for the central bank crowd is a "President Newt Gingrich". The Republican establishment is not only against the nomination of a conservative to run against Obama, it is hell bent to prevent Newt Gingrich from changing the monetary system to return to "free market" capitalism.
The clip of Gingrich sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi does give one pause and question his judgement, but I think such things can be excused in the light of his accomplishments. Balanced budgets, welfare reform and capturing the U.S. House from the Democrats are quite a counterweight to some of the crazy comments and PR things Newt has done.
As to Freddie, Newt has been appallingly timid in defending himself. According to the records, Newt headed up a firm, with four different offices fully staffed, which had consulting contracts with a variety of large corporation, among them the GSE Freddie Mac. The firm received $1.6 Million from Frieddie Mac for advise furnished during the period 2002 and 2008. He did no lobbying for Freddie Mac, nor for any other corporation. When asked before a congressional committee about giving financial support to Freddie Mac by the Congress, he advised against it.
Posted by Bischoff on 01/12/12 01:56 PM
Let me help you out. The feedbacker AJ took issue with my contention that the U.S. Congress under the Constitution had the right to set the value of the USD any time they chose. He made a convincing point, based on Edwin Vieira's book "Pieces of Eight", that the applicable provision in the Constitution meant that the Congress, once created with the ratification of the Constitution, had the right and obligation to define and fix the value of the USD only once, and for all.
I told AJ that he had me quite convinced, and that I would follow his suggestion to read "Pieces of Eight" from cover to cover. Though, we traded barbed comments, I was grateful for his challenge of my opinion.
I am happy to change my opinion when the logic of an argument demands it. However, many in these threads merely express their feelings about my opinions, and they are utterly astouded that I don't share them.
If anyone is opposed or disagrees with my ideas opinions, let him make an argument, and let him show me where I am wrong. AJ did it, and I am grateful to him.
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/12/12 12:36 PM
I can't for sure say that he changed his mind, but he did back down. 12/2/11 editorial by James Jaeger: What is Fiat Money? It is a very long thread with 182 responses (so far) many of them long. A feedbacker whom I have rarly seen here A. J. got Ingo to reply something like 'Ok, so now what', to which A. J. suggested that he should read Pieces of Eight. I suspect Dr. Vieira could back down any of us, without even having to wake up to do so.
Tyranny is the way we are headed. Kennedy got shot, maybe that has nothing to do with what he was doing and planning for the country; but I doubt it.
Seeing the way we are heading is not new, nor confined to those as perceptive as Dr. Paul. When Reagan was elected I thought the world was turning around, much to the better. Then as a twenty-two year old high school dropout, as soon as I heard the words save Social Security come out of his mouth I knew that I had been wrong. I was so angry I gave away my television.
Even if elected how will he convince all the people whose current incomes come from government that they should stop receiving those incomes. It is a catch-22, go along as at present and decline slowly, do the right thing and get a shorter, but terrible, depression, and then have to go back to work.
The young are not so hard to convince, they still have relatively open minds, and are not already on the dole. Most older people (I don't mean just those already retired or close to it) are afraid of the "fundamental" (I wish we would go back to saying basic) changes Dr. Paul advocates. The fear brainwashing has been decades long. They don't fear Big Brother as much as they fear everything else. If they did passing the NDAA would already have started a revolution. Practically all of us who understand, are already backing Dr. Paul.
The government is completely ignoring what the people want now. If they want to do something too far from what the people want, they Astroturf it. The world has gone from Goebbles to Madam P. If she can get away with the tripe she spews they can get away with anything. But of course that dependes on what the meaning of the word is, is. They can come up with an active minority, (or even majority if they want to spin it that way) for any thing they want, any time they want.
The DB says the internet is slowing them down, and it is, till they shut it down, or just use it to find everyone they want to indefinitely detain.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 01/12/12 11:42 AM
"I admire Newt's ability to face the media, and phrase a good comeback answer. He thinks quickly, and has a good answer alot of the time"
Click to view link
Posted by bionic mosquito on 01/12/12 10:31 AM
"I have seen Ingo out argued and change his mind on this site... "
I have seen Ingo out argued countless times on this site. However, I have seen Ingo change his mind only once. When I asked him about, he clarified that I misunderstood, and admitted that his writing wasn't as clear as it could have been. So, I guess I have never seen Ingo change his mind.
However, if you have examples where he has in fact gone from a strong position on a topic to a different position, I would welcome hearing of it - especially given how despicable some of his positions are. It would give me great hope to see that even someone as consistently and hard-headedly wrong as Ingo is has actually been able to change his mind.
"Please don't get angry Ingo."
No, please do. It adds to the fun.
"I'm beginning to think that even RP as prez. wouldn't be able to turn us around."
It depends what you mean by "turn us around."
The government will not change until an active minority of the people demand it. For the people to demand it, they must be educated. Dr. Paul is doing this in spades.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 01/12/12 10:13 AM
"I have seen Ingo out argued and change his mind on this site, but the two do not necessarily go together."
Ha, very good!
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/12/12 10:01 AM
Ok maybe I was reading with the wrong attitude. It just seems to me that you usually only argue when it has a better chance to change their thinking. I have seen Ingo out argued and change his mind on this site, but the two do not necessarily go together.
Please don't get angry Ingo. I am still working on an analysis of Henry George for you. Though I have been very busy. You may have noticed my lack of feedback here lately.
Dr. Krieg is of course absolutely right, anyone who can't see this has their head up their --- too far to breath.
I'm beginning to think that even RP as prez. wouldn't be able to turn us around.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 01/12/12 09:28 AM
"Abu, you must have had a bad day to go on and on with Ingo."
AA: Care to elaborate? BTW, I had a wonderful day. Maybe THAT'S the point. (-;
"It is not like you"
AA: Uh? Typo?
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/12/12 09:15 AM
Abu, you must have had a bad day to go on and on with Ingo. It is not like you. Even the most open minded are a little stuck in their own paradigms. If we weren't it would be a world of politicians; wishy-washy all the way through, and that's just plain yucky.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 01/12/12 05:37 AM
"Tell me what I don't know about Iran. Tell me the opposite of the truth that I am trying to peddle. Come on... .show a little guts..!!!"
Ha! Google "iran+site:thedailybelldotcom" for starters. Besides, why would you want me to do YOUR homework, Mr. Bischoff? One who REALLY wants to know about these things - before promoting war preferably - may learn some basics within MINUTES. Even when one relies exclusively on US mainstream media, Wikipedia and publicly accessible US government/intel documents, one can easily debunk most of your your drivel. In fact, YOU might do so yourself, should you decide to play possum no longer.