WHO "GOVERNED"?
DON'T SAY ENGLAND, BECAUSE ENGLAND HAD "FORCES" HERE MAINLY TO COLLECT MONEY.
ENGLAND WAS NOT HELPING THE COLONISTS PLANT CROPS, HARVEST CROPS, GET CROPS TO MARKET.
WHO WAS HELPING THE COLONISTS?
THEY WERE HELPING THEMSELVES!
THERE WERE NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR FARMERS (AND ALMOST EVERYONE WAS FARMING), NO HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TO MAINTAIN ROADS, NO DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OR EDUCATION OR HEALTH OR...ANYTHING...THERE WERE NO DEPARTMENTS!
THERE WERE NO POLITICAL PARTIES!
THERE WERE NO ELECTIONS!
THERE WAS NO CONGRESS!!!!
LIFE WAS GOOD!
THE KING WAS AN OCEAN AWAY AND THE COLONISTS WERE HANDLING ALMOST EVERYTHING QUITE NICELY ALL BY THEMSELVES, THANKS.
LOOKING BACK NOW, AFTER OVER 200 YEARS, GIVEN WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED HERE IN AMERICA, SEEING THAT THE REPUBLIC TURNED TO A DEMOCRACY THAT HAS NOT, CANNOT BE CALLED A "GOVERNMENT BY, OF, AND FOR THE PEOPLE", BUT INSTEAD A GOVERNMENT OF FOR AND BY A RULING ELITE, A HANDFUL OF RICH, POWERFUL "MICRO-MANAGERS" OF ALL OUR LIVES, WE MAY DO WELL TO HAVE ANOTHER LONG, HARD, HONEST LOOK AT THE POINTS IN HISTORY THAT GOT US HERE, HERE IN "1984" WITH "BIG BROTHER IN CHARGE.
The American Revolution was not a great social revolution like those in France in 1789, in Russia in 1917, or in China in 1949.
We must remember that America, in the days prior to the Revolution, was a farming colony, a colony composed mostly of "common Joes and Janes", a colony of independents, people who could and who did handle everything sans POLITICIANS.
So what was the Revolution about?
It certainly was NOT a "social" revolution!
A true social revolution destroys the institutional foundations of its old order and transfers power from a ruling elite to new social groups.
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE!
Yes, we stopped bowing to a KING, but we BEGAN bowing to those who certainly LOOKED LIKE kings, princes, barons, etc.
Yes, America ridded itself of the English monarchical society, in which the colonists were subjects of the Crown, and THOUGHT it was transforming into a REPUBLIC, in which they were citizens and participants in the political process.
The Revolution was SUPPOSED to give a new political significance to the middling elements of society, ordinary craftsmen, merchants, farmers, her "middle class", basically.
HOWEVER, in the framing process and ensuing debates about her new CONSTITUTION, the "founders" allowed ONLY ONE COMMON FARMER into those rooms-full of rich planters, upper-crust, educated would-be "leaders" of this new nation...ONE COMMONER.
The Revolution was SUPPOSED to make it impossible for elitists to openly disparage the ordinary people, to keep them out of the governing process, but let's remember that those slave-owning elite who forged that Declaration of Independence and Constitution decided amongst themselves, in those very private chambers, that "common man" was INCAPABLE of making sound enough decisions to TRULY ELECT a president, and so we were saddled with an ELECTORAL COLLEGE of men who would DECIDE FOR US, EVEN DECIDE AGAINST THE POPULAR VOTE!
Why does the United States have an Electoral College when it would be so easy to directly elect a president, as we do for all the other political offices?
THE SHORT ANSWER IS BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF DEMOCRACY!
THEIR PERSONAL LETTERS AND JOURNALS ATTEST TO THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
THEY WERE AFRAID OF THE COMMON MAN, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN, AFRAID HE WOULD WIELD TOO MUCH POWER!
James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in something that could either violate the rights of other citizens or "harm the nation as a whole".
This was also referred to as "the tyranny of the majority"!
Alexander Hamilton wrote: The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."
"MEN MOST CAPABLE"???
WHO DECIDED WHO WAS MORE CAPABLE THAN THE NEXT?
THE ELITE MINORITY, THAT'S WHO!
"ELECTORS" OF THE "ELECTORAL COLLEGE" are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare. As the 2000 election reminded us, the Electoral College does make it possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and still not become president
IN OTHER WORDS, SCREW THE POPULAR VOTE, THE FOUNDERS FOUND A WAY AROUND THE "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS" AND YOU LOSE, AMERICAN VOTERS!
During the colonial era, the percentage of white men who participated in politics was low.
There were NO ORGANIZED POLITICAL PARTIES , and adult white men tended to defer to "GENTLEMEN", AS THEY HAD BACK IN EUROPE!
Wealthy merchants, wealthy lawyers, and wealthy large plantation owners held the major political offices.
HOWEVER, in the years leading up to Revolution, those elites watched the "commoners" begin to participate more and more in politics. "Voter turnout" climbed as did the number of CONTESTED elections.
The founders saw the POWER OF THE MASSES and it TERRIFIED THEM!
The SUCCESS of the Revolution led to demands FROM THE COMMON FOLK that the vote be extended to a LARGER proportion of the population and that public offices be elected BY THE PEOPLE.
During and after the Revolution, SMALLER farmers, RURAL artisans, and laborers began increasingly to participate in state legislative elections, and men claiming to represent their interests began to win office and gain power.
HERE IS WHAT MOST AMERICANS HAVE EITHER FORGOTTEN OR NEVER KNEW...THE FIRST 6 PRESIDENTS WERE APPOINTED, NOT ELECTED!
The first presidents were appointed by THE SAME ELITES WHO FRAMED THE NEW NATION, BY ELITES,NOT ELECTED BY THE MASSES!
The first six presidents were members of America's political elite, chosen BY America's political elite.
Not until 1820s, with the rise of Andrew Jackson, did popular
voting have a role in the selection of presidents!
The evolution of the electoral college is only a small
part of the story of the transformation of the fundamental principle of
American government from LIBERTY to democracy. LIBERTY, AFTER ALL, WAS THE INITIAL GOAL, AND A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!
Candidates for the office of president came from a well-established political elite, and, because of widespread selection of electors by state legislatures, candidates needed to win the support of others in the political elite in order to win the office.
Despite the rapid emergence of factions in American government, prior to 1828 NO ONE CAMPAIGNED for presidential candidates, NO POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM WAS FORMED.
But controversy erupted in the "election" (WHICH WAS REALLY A SELECTION) of 1824, when John Quincy Adams was SELECTED by the House of Representatives to be the nation's sixth president.
Four candidates received "electoral voters" for president in 1824.
Andrew Jackson received the highest number of electoral votes, with 99, followed by John Quincy Adams with 84, William H. Crawford with 41, and Henry Clay with 37.
Because no candidate had a majority, following the rules modified by the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives was to choose the president from the top three vote recipients. Rather than choose Jackson, a war hero but a political outsider, the House chose Adams, the son of the nation's second president and a member of the political elite. Adams' election followed "the rules", but Jackson's supporters were outraged by the choice, believing that Adams was chosen only because of a "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Henry Clay in which Clay was appointed Secretary of State in exchange for Clay's support of Adams's candidacy.
So why were Jackson’s supporters so upset?
They were upset because the actual practice of presidential elections had deviated significantly from the Founders’ intent in the decades preceding the 1824 election, and if the actual practice at the time had been followed, rather than the literal rules of the Constitution, Jackson’s supporters believed that he would have been elected president.
HE HAD THE MOST ELECTORAL VOTES, WAS FAVORED BY THE MASSES, YET LOST!!!
All this led to the formation of the Democratic party, which was organized for the specific purpose of electing Andrew Jackson to the presidency.
Jackson's supporters, led by Martin Van Buren, formed the Democratic party after the election of 1824 to ensure that in the next election Jackson would get a majority of the electoral votes, and so could not be denied the presidency by an elitist House of Representatives.
WOE, WOE UNTO AMERICA, THE PARTY SYSTEM BEGAN!
Van Buren was well aware of the American tradition opposing political parties, tracing its origins back through Federalist 10 and supported in word by all six of the first presidents, but Van Buren, a Senator from New York, perceived legitimate political differences among politicians that could be expressed along party lines. More significantly, he viewed the opposition of incumbents to organized parties as support for the continuance of political dominance by America's aristocratic elite. Without organized opposition, the elite could continue to dominate American government indefinitely. Parties served the legitimate interest of organizing political opposition, resisting the concentration of power in an elite group, and providing a broader representation of the political views of most Americans.
Van Buren did not misperceive the role that his new Democratic party would play. Indeed, the Founders tried to insulate the federal government from democratic control for what they believed were good reasons, and had no notion that the president would be chosen by the popular vote of American citizens. Yet the Democratic party had formed to do just that.
The efforts of Van Buren and the Democrats were an unqualified success, and Jackson won the presidency in 1828, defeating the incumbent president by an electoral total of 178 to 83. The modern party system was born, as both the Democrats and their opponents recognized that after Jackson's election, a party organization would be necessary to win the presidency. After Jackson's two terms as president, Van Buren was elected president for one term, and was unseated by his Whig challenger William Henry Harrison in 1840. The American two-party system has evolved since then, but it has NOT fundamentally changed.
What Jacksonians did not anticipate was that by making government officials more accountable to the general public, they would be more inclined to make decisions that pandered to popular opinion rather than sticking to the guidelines of the Constitution.
When one analyzes the changes associated with Andrew Jackson’s presidency in the context of the earlier changes in the electoral college, one can see that the most lasting changes brought by Jackson were a result of the electoral college rather than Jackson himself.
The growth of political parties and interest-group politics, and the promotion of democracy as a fundamental principle of American government, all came as a result of the move to popular voting for president.
Jackson’s ideas for limiting the scope of the federal government were completely undone by the growth of democracy in America.
Indeed, had Jackson not been so successful in promoting democracy, the cause of LIBERTY would have been better served. But even this gives Jackson too much credit, because by the time he was elected, the incentives in presidential politics had changed, making parties and special interest group politics inevitable.
AMERICA CAME UNDONE!
AMERICANS GAVE UP LIBERTY TO ACQUIRE POWER!
<<It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.>>~From the book, Our Enemy, The State, by Albert Jay Nock
Nock praises the Articles of Confederation as the closest model of American freedom. And he blasts the men who hammered out the Constitution as nothing but usurpers engaged in a coup d'etat. Far from heralding the drafters, he exposes them as public creditors, land speculators, money lenders, and industrialists looking for privilege. They tossed out the Articles and used unscrupulous methods to ram the Constitution down the public's throat.
It was in this stage of American history, Nock says, that the state was unleashed. Next came the party system, and the dynamics of statism that causes "every intervention by the State" to enable another so that "the State stands ever ready and eager to make" interventions through deceit and lies.
Nock's argument that the same economic forces which in all times and in all nations drive toward the ascendancy of political power at the expense of social power were in operation here in America made little headway.
That is, the feeling that "it cannot happen here" was too difficult a hurdle for the book to overcome.
Few took note of his warnings, the slide down into servitude to the party system continued, continues today!
<<It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.>> -- Henry L. Mencken, 1926.
ONLY 1/3rd OF THE COLONISTS WANTED A REVOLUTION AND INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND!
John Adams estimated that roughly a third of the American population supported the Revolution, a third remained loyal to the Crown, and a third was uncommitted.
Recent research suggests that perhaps 20 percent of the population consisted of Loyalists. Loyalists were especially strong in New Jersey and South Carolina.
One of the Revolution's consequences was to create not only the United States, but also the modern nation of Canada. After the war, about 80,000 Loyalists--including substantial numbers of former slaves--emigrated from the United States, mainly to Canada.
The Loyalists were disproportionately from the ranks of the influential, the officeholders, and the well-to-do.
Those who stayed in the colonies were removed from positions of prominence.
LET US PAUSE HERE AND REFLECT...TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICA WAS DRAGGED INTO THIS REVOLUTION WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVEN THE IDEA OF IT!
COULDN'T THIS, DIDN'T THIS LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE CIVIL WAR?
BAD FEELINGS OF ONE SIDE AGAINST THE OTHER, THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MASSES QUESTIONING SLAVERY, QUESTIONING "HUMAN RIGHTS", RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN THE NEW NATION, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, SERVITUDE IN GENERAL, ALL THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT CAREFULLY AS WE APPROACH THE NEXT MAJOR EVENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY...HER CIVIL WAR.
THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR...WHY?
Was it, as we have been taught, a noble cause?
NO! NO, IT WAS NOT!Freedom of America's slaves was NOT at the center of it.
Slavery was a practice recognized by the government as a source of CHEAP physical labor justified by its economic outcome...PROFIT for slave owners!
The government condoned this practice!
It was a major part of America's economic system at the time and would have continued right up to TODAY!
So, what WAS the motive?
POWER!
ECONOMIC POWER!
You see, thanks to a lucrative and thriving slave-oriented economy, the SOUTH was considerably wealthier than the NORTH at the time prior to the Civil War.
The NORTH couldn't match the economic superiority of its richer SOUTHERN STATES...UNLESS IT COULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BY TAKING AWAY WHAT GAVE THE SOUTH ITS ECONOMIC EDGE!
LINCOLN'S PLAN ALSO, ONCE AND FOR ALL, SHOWED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOW TO USURP STATES RIGHTS, PUT FEDERAL POWER OVER STATE SOVEREIGNTY, FORCE STATES TO BEND TO THE WILL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND END THE IDEA THAT GOVERNMENT IS "BY, FOR, OF THE PEOPLE".
What the Lincoln White House came up with was NOT a plan to "free the slaves", but a way to bring down the South, to stop its steady climb up the economic ladder, to force it into second place, TO MAKE IT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL WISHES. THE CIVIL WAR WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUGHT IF SLAVERY HAD NEVER BEEN NAMED AS A REASON FOR IT!
THE NORTH WANTED THE REINS, WANTED AN ECONOMIC EDGE, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS, AND ALWAYS WOULD BE, THE FINAL AUTHORITY, THE LAW OF THE LAND, STATES' RIGHTS BE DAMNED!
There is no part of the Constitution that authorizes a president to force a state to remain in the Union.
Rather than upholding his oath, this was the beginning of Lincoln violating his oath to uphold the Constitution; which he did on several other occasions.
<<With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United States in pursuit of a terrible cause. In that conflict more than 630,000 soldiers were killed or wounded in four years of hellish war. To place this in perspective consider that the entire population of the United States at war's end was 35 million, putting war casualties at nearly two percent of the total populace. Equivalent rates of casualties today would result in five million dead or wounded, dwarfing our losses in World War II, or any other war.
Specifically, eleven southern states seceded from the Union in protest against federal legislation that limited the expansion of slavery claiming that such legislation violated the tenth amendment, which they argued trumped the Supremacy Clause. The war was indeed about protecting the institution of slavery, but only as a specific case of a state's right to declare a federal law null and void. Southern states sought to secede because they believed that the federal government had no authority to tell them how to run their affairs. The most obvious and precipitating example was the North's views on slavery. So yes, the South clearly fought to defend slavery as a means of protecting their sordid economic system and way of life, but they did so with slavery serving as the most glaring example of federal usurpation of state powers of self-determination. The war would be fought to prevent those states from seceding, not to destroy the institution of slavery. The war would be fought over different interpretations of our founding document.
President Lincoln did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation until January 1, 1863, more than one and a half years after the war started. His goal was initially to preserve the Union, and he only issued that proclamation when he felt doing so would promote that objective. The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States.>>
The States that left the founders' confederacy did so as individual sovereigns.
They then formed a Confederacy, a league, an alliance, a new union, "The Confederate States of America".
These sovereign States and their Confederacy were no longer part of the United States of America; therefore it was NOT REALLY a Civil War.
It was sovereign independent States joined together in a Confederacy, which were then militarily invaded and occupied by the then, newly established NATIONAL empire that replaced the Founders original Confederacy.
The result of years of internal war and death?
The establishment of a CORPORATELY CONTROLLED NATIONAL EMPIRE, hegemony, perpetual WAR , economic enslavement, loss of liberty, loss of sovereignty of all American citizens and all American States!
One comment from that article stated:
<<One other point: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, to name a few, were able to separate themselves as nations from the USSR and establish themselves as separate political entities. Yet when that same independence was earnestly sought by southerners on valid constitutional grounds due to a usurpation of constitutional principles by a sectional faction of the population, the south was met with war.>>
That may sound crass, but it IS the LEGAL interpretation of what happened! SOME STATES SAW STATES RIGHTS AS WORTH FIGHTING FOR AND DID SO.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECLARED WAR ON ITS OWN TO SHOW THEM THEY WERE WRONG.
Though we often get caught up in the comforting idea that the North fought for moral reasons, it really isn’t the case.
YES, SLAVERY WAS WRONG, BUT SLAVERY WAS HARDLY THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE...POWER WAS!!!WHAT AMERICA CURRENTLY STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL OVER THE GLOBE, IT CONDEMNED WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS!
WHAT IT CONDEMNS NOW IN THE MIDDLE EAST, EUROPE, AFRICA, ETC, IT WAS GUILTY OF IN 1861!
FEDERAL POWER VERSUS STATES' RIGHTS!
THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES VERSUS THE WILL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
WE ALL LOST THAT WAR!Interestingly, a 2011 Pew Research Center poll found that a wide plurality of Americans—48 percent— believe that states’ rights was the main cause of the Civil War. Fewer, 38 percent, attributed the war to slavery, while 9 percent said it was a mixture of both.In 1828 Vice-president John C. Calhoun said:
"If a state felt a federal law extended beyond the Constitutional rights of the government that state had the right to ignore(or "nullify") the law."
IMAGINE THAT! ALMOST A CIVIL WAR IN 1832!
As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833.
The Panic of 1837 and the ensuing depression began to gnaw like a hungry animal on the flesh of the American system. The disparity between northern and southern economies was exacerbated. Before and after the depression the economy of the South prospered. Southern cotton sold abroad totaled 57% of all American exports before the war.
ANOTHER PANIC, THE NORTH BECOMES PARANOID
The Panic of 1857 devastated the North and left the South virtually untouched. The clash of a wealthy, agricultural South and a poorer, industrial North was intensified by abolitionists who were not above using class struggle to further their cause.
With the disintegration of the Whig party in the early 1850's the political turmoil increased.
The South was wrong to assume Lincoln intended to free the slaves. He had never advocated action to abolish slavery nor did he speak out against the Illinois rules prohibiting blacks from testifying against whites. The true abolition candidate, Gerrit Smith of New York drew few votes. In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear he would not interfere with slavery where it existed.
THE WEDGE OF DIVISION WAS DRIVEN DEEPER INTO THE HEART OF AMERICA.
THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM RETURNED TO FURTHER DIVIDE THE NATION.
"RECONSTRUCTION" BECAME A CRUCIFIXION OF SOUTHERN STATES.
THE CIVIL WAR CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.
THE MONEY, WHICH IS POWER, BEHIND AMERICA'S THRONE, THE ONES WHO CONTROL THE GOVERNEMENT BY CONTROLLING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, RECOGNIZED THE AGE-OLD SAYING THAT "A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND", SO IT HAD TO RECREATE AND KEEP ALIVE A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.
THESE OVERLORDS RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO WHIP AMERICANS INTO A POLITICAL PARTY FRENZY SO THEY WOULD BE BLINDED BY THE DRIVE TO INSTIL THEIR "CANDIDATE" IN OFFICE AND NOT SEE THE LOSS OF LIBERTY, THE TAKING AWAY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT SUCH BLIND AND IMPASSIONED LOYALTIES CREATED AND ALLOWED.
ENTER THE CORPORATE PROPAGANDA MACHINE....MAINSTREAM MEDIA!
WITH "PROGRESS" THE TENTACLES OF THE "SHADOW GOVERNMENT", THOSE WHO FUND ALL ELECTIONS, ALL CANDIDATES, REACHED INTO THE HEARTS OF CITIZENS BY NEW MEANS OF SPREADING PROPAGANDA TO KEEP THE FLAME OF DIVISION BURNING.
RADIO, TELEVISION, AND EVENTUALLY, THE INTERNET HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THEIR
"DIVIDE AND DESTROY" MACHINE.
WITH IT THEY CAN WAGE WAR AGAINST LOGIC AND REASON, AGAINST INDEPENDENT RATIONAL THOUGHT, AGAINST INDIVIDUAL AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY, AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, AGAINST ALL WHO SEE THIS AND SPEAK OUT.
WITH A MERE PHONE CALL OR EMAIL TO THEIR PERSONAL SLAVES, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, THE REAL GOVERNMENT, THE ONE IN THE SHADOWS, CAN BEGIN SMEAR CAMPAIGNS, DISCREDIT AND RUIN ANYONE WHO SEES THE LIGHT AND TRIES TO WARN THE REST OF US WHAT IS TAKING PLACE...THE THEFT OF AN ENTIRE NATION, THE DESTRUCTION OF LIBERTY, THE RIGHT TO BE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS IN SOVEREIGN STATES!
WITH THESE MEANS AND WITH UNLIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES, THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, THE LORDS OF WALL STREET, THOSE WHO HOLD THE PURSE STRINGS OF AMERICA BY MEANS OF "CENTRAL BANKS", THE FEDERAL RESERVE, A GLOBAL BANKING CARTEL, ET AL, ARE ABLE TO BEND THE MINDS OF ALL GULLIBLE CITIZENS AND USE THIS "STAFF" TO SHEPHERD AMERICAN SHEEP ALONG TO SLAUGHTER.
POLITICS IN AMERICA?
THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM?
IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER, STUPID SHEEP!
REALIZE THIS AND GET FREE OF IT.
WE LEARN, OR WE PERISH.
PICK ONE!
SOME SOURCES FOR THIS POST:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3222
http://www.mises.org/document/2936/Our-Enemy-The-State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_System
No comments:
Post a Comment