LOOK AT ALL THE SMILING FACES, AND LOOK AT THAT BANKING LOBBYIST BEING CONGRATULATED BY MEMBERS OF YOUR CONGRESS, AMERICA!
WHY IS EVERYONE HAPPY?
WHY IS EVERYONE SMILING?
BECAUSE BANK LOBBYISTS JUST "HELPED" CONGRESS DRAFT A NEW FINANCIAL BILL, THAT'S WHY!
"Bank lobbyists are not leaving it to lawmakers to draft legislation that softens financial regulations. Instead, the lobbyists are helping to write it themselves." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/ THE FOXES HAVE ENTERED THE HEN-HOUSE TO 'PROTECT' THE CHICKENS! AND THE CHICKENS SAID, "COME ON IN!" FIRST, A LITTLE BACKGROUND...A CALL TO REMEMBRANCE, PERHAPS.
REMEMBER WHEN OUR CONGRESS DECIDED TO USE YOUR TAX MONEY TO BAIL OUT ALL THOSE BANKERS WHO ALMOST TANKED AMERICA, CITIZENS?
THAT BROKE BACK IN 2007-2008, RIGHT?
WELL, HAS ANYONE BEEN PROSECUTED, EVEN ONE BANK?
NO!
WELL, WHY NOT?
WE JUST CAN'T GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER ON THAT, NO MATTER WHO ASKS!
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, had a straightforward question for "bank regulators" 5 years after all hell broke loose and collapsed America's economy. This from February or so of this year: "When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial?" It was a harder question than it seemed.
"We do not have to bring people to trial," Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, assured Warren, declaring that his agency had secured a large number of "consent orders," or settlements.
"I appreciate that you say you don't have to bring them to trial. My question is, when did you bring them to trial?" she responded.
"We have not had to do it as a practical matter to achieve our supervisory goals," Curry offered. NEVER, THEY NEVER BROUGHT A ONE TO TRIAL! IF JOHN Q. CITIZEN HAD DONE SUCH A THING, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BURIED UNDER A JAIL, BUT NOT WALL STREET, NOT CONGRESS' SWEETHEART BANKERS!
WHEN WARREN GRILLED GEITHNER, WATCH HOW HOT HE GOT!
WOW, TIMMY! YOU DO FIGHT FOR THOSE WHO USE YOU LIKE A CHEAP WHORE, DON'T YOU?
SENATOR Bernie Sanders and Timothy Geithner ...SAME RESPONSE FROM GEITHNER BACK IN 2009...HE GETS REALLY TICKED-OFF.
TSK, TSK, TIMMY...ANGER ISSUES MUCH?
Financial institutions have received more than $2.3 trillion in
taxpayer-backed loans and other financial assistance from the Federal
Reserve. Sanders asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to name the hundreds of
banks that took money. Bernanke refused. Sanders called it mind-blowing
that trillions of dollars have been placed at risk without anyone
outside the secretive Fed knowing who got how much for what. So he asked the Senate to go on record saying the Fed should
publish on its Web site information detailing all of the emergency
financial assistance it has provided.
IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN, BERNIE, NEVER...
The Founders Did Not Intend For America to Be Run By Big Banks and Wall Street!
Congressman
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) took to the House Floor in 2011 to remind fellow
members why we are in debt in the first place: wars and tax cuts for
the rich.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a longtime advocate for reform of
the Federal Reserve, sharply criticizing the Federal Reserve
after a Bloomberg news report that the Federal Reserve secretly
committed nearly $8 trillion in support to American and international
financial institutions during the 2008 bailout.
ICELAND HAD AN IDENTICAL PROBLEM, BUT ICELAND HAD THE STEEL CAJONES TO FIX THEIR PROBLEM AND FACE THE CONSEQUENCES! IMAGINE IF AMERICA COULD FIND A SET AND DO THE SAME!
IT WORKED IN ICELAND! IT ABSOLUTELY WORKED!
A deficit that reached 13.5 percent
of gross domestic product in 2009 fell to 2.3 percent last year...JUST 4 YEARS LATER, ICELAND IS BACK!
The IMF predicts Iceland will have a primary SURPLUS of 1.5 percent this year.
Few countries blew up more
spectacularly than Iceland in the 2008 financial crisis. The
local stock market plunged 90 percent; unemployment rose nine-fold; inflation shot to more than 18 percent; the country’s
biggest banks all failed.
This was no post-Lehman Brothers recession: It was a
depression.
Since then, Iceland has turned in a pretty impressive performance. It has repaid International Monetary Fund rescue loans ahead of schedule. Growth this year will be about 2.5 percent, better than most developed economies. Unemployment has fallen by half. In February, Fitch Ratings restored the country’s investment-grade status, approvingly citing its “unorthodox crisis policy response.”
You can say that again!
Little Iceland’s approach was the polar opposite of the U.S. and Europe, which BOTH rescued their banks and did little to aid indebted homeowners left holding the bag. Although lessons drawn from Iceland, with just 320,000 people and an economy based on fishing, aluminum production and tourism, might not SEEM readily transferable to bigger countries, its rebound suggests otherwise!
Icelanders applaud their government's stance and can look forward to NEVER being run by bankers again!
Nothing distinguishes Iceland as much as its aid to its CITIZENS, TO CONSUMERS. WHILE AMERICA NOT ONLY DID NOT OFFER HELP TO VICTIMS OF WALL STREET, TO THE VICTIMS OF THE BAILED-OUT BANKS, ICELAND DID!
To homeowners with negative equity, the country offered write-offs that would wipe out debt above 110% of the property value. The government also provided means-tested subsidies to reduce mortgage-interest expenses: Those with lower earnings, less home equity and children were granted the most generous support.
In June 2010, the nation’s Supreme Court gave debtors another break: Bank loans that were indexed to FOREIGN currencies were declared illegal. Because the Icelandic krona plunged 80 percent during the crisis, the cost of repaying foreign debt more than doubled. The ruling let consumers repay the banks as if the loans were in krona.
IMAGINE THAT!
These policies helped consumers erase debt equal to 13 percent of Iceland’s $14 billion economy. NOW, consumers have money to spend on other things.
In addition to easing consumer debt, Iceland REDUCED government spending and increased revenue by RAISING taxes and CUTTING deductions that MAINLY BENEFITED THE WELL-OFF, A PATH THAT THE U.S. REFUSES TO EMULATE.
In fact, relief for overburdened U.S. consumers is a cause promoted by former U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair in a new book published this week.
Bair says she would have done more to aid sinking homeowners and done less for banks, but she says her efforts were BLOCKED by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others.
NO, REALLY?
ARE YOU BEGINNING TO SEE A PATTERN, AMERICA? AMERICA COULD RECOVER LIKE ICELAND DID BUT SOMEONE ON THE HILL IS KISSING BIG BANKERS' BEHINDS!
LOOK AT THE PHOTO AT THE TOP OF THIS BLOG AND UNDERSTAND WHY YOU PROBABLY WILL NEVER SEE ANY HOPE NOR HELP FROM CONGRESS ON OUR EVER-SINKING ECONOMY, ON YOUR OWN LOSSES FROM THE BAILOUTS.... BIG BANKS WANT PROFIT$$$$$....CONGRESS WANTS CAMPAIGN MONEY. THAT MEANS YOU LOSE!
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE HOPE FROM ICELAND!
A new government led by Johanna Sigurdardottir embarked on a campaign to hold accountable the so-called 'neo-Viking' bankers at the center of Iceland’s crisis. Instead of picking a prosecutor from law firms in Reykjavik, which had depended on the banks for business, the government drafted an investigator from a remote village. Although a number of bankers fled the country to avoid prosecution, the former chiefs of two of the three biggest banks have been indicted and are standing trial.
Iceland’s central bank on Sept.18 2012, released a report
suggesting the country go slow with plans to enter the European
Union, a process started in 2010 when the euro seemed sounder
than the krona.
HOWEVER, if the issue
were put to a referendum today, Icelanders would probably reject
admission. And why would Iceland want to join now? Euro-member
nations such as Greece and Ireland offer testimony to the risks
of being yoked to a currency along with stronger economies.
THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN HERE, WE WILL NEVER BE UN-YOKED FROM OUR ENSLAVEMENT TO THE BIG BANKERS/WALL STREET UNLESS WE, THE PEOPLE, FIND A WAY TO CUT OFF THE INFLUX OF THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT, STOP LOBBYISTS FROM ENTERING ANY ROOM THAT A CONGRESSMAN IS IN, AND CONVINCE CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE THAT WE, THE PEOPLE ARE BACK IN CHARGE OF THINGS.
BUT HOW DID WE GET IN THIS MESS?
THE ARTICLE FROM THE NY TIMES I QUOTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS BLOG GIVES A CLUE OR TWO.
<<One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of the Treasury Department — was essentially Citigroup’s, according to e-mails reviewed by The New York Times. The bill would exempt broad swathes of trades from new regulation.
In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)
The cordial relations now include a growing number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, whose support the banks need if they want to roll back parts of the 2010 financial overhaul, known as Dodd-Frank.
And as its lobbying campaign steps up, the financial industry has doubled its already considerable giving to political causes. >>
BINGO! THERE'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR! BANKERS PAYING OFF THEIR CONGRESSIONAL WHORES, AS USUAL!
<<The lawmakers who this month supported the bills championed by Wall Street received twice as much in contributions from financial institutions compared with those who opposed them, according to an analysis of campaign finance records performed by MapLight, a nonprofit group.
In recent weeks, Wall Street groups also held fund-raisers for lawmakers who co-sponsored the bills.
At one dinner Wednesday night, corporate executives and lobbyists paid up to $2,500 to dine in a private room of a Greek restaurant just blocks from the Capitol with Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York, a co-sponsor of the bill championed by Citigroup.
The close ties hardly surprise Wall Street critics, who have long warned that the banks — whose small armies of lobbyists include dozens of former Capitol Hill aides — possess outsize influence in Washington.
“The huge machinery of Wall Street information and analysis skews the thinking of Congress,” said Jeff Connaughton, who has been both a lobbyist and Congressional staff member.
The House Financial Services Committee has been a natural target. Not only is it controlled by Republicans, who had opposed Dodd-Frank, but freshmen lawmakers are often appointed to the unusually large committee because it is seen as a helpful base from which they can raise campaign funds.
For Wall Street, the committee is a place to push back against Dodd-Frank. When banks and other corporations, for example, feared that regulators would demand new scrutiny of derivatives trades, they appealed to the committee. At the time, regulators were completing Dodd-Frank’s overhaul of derivatives, contracts that allow companies to either speculate in the markets or protect against risk. Derivatives had pushed the insurance giant American International Group to the brink of collapse in 2008. The question was whether regulators would exempt certain in-house derivatives trades between affiliates of big banks.
Representative Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, was among the few Democrats opposing the change, echoing the concerns of consumer groups.
“The bill restores the public subsidy to exotic Wall Street activities,” said Marcus Stanley, the policy director of Americans for Financial Reform, a nonprofit group.
But most of the Democrats on the committee, along with 31 Republicans, came to the industry’s defense, including the seven freshmen Democrats — most of whom have started to receive donations this year from political action committees of Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and other financial institutions, records show.
Six days after the vote, several freshmen Democrats were in New York to meet with bank executives, a tour organized by Representative Joe Crowley, who helps lead the House Democrats’ fund-raising committee. The trip was planned before the votes, and was not a fund-raiser, but it gave the lawmakers a chance to meet with Wall Street’s elite.>>
DO YOU SEE THE CONNECTION YET, AMERICA? WHY CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT'S GOING ON?
The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111–203, H.R. 4173) was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010 in the Ronald Reagan building.
Passed as a response to the late-2000s recession, it brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression.
It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services industry BECAUSE OF "COMPROMISES" BROUGHT ON BY REPUBLICAN WEEPING, WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH, DODD-FRANK DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH, AS WE CAN SEE FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE. BOTH PARTIES ON CAPITOL HILL ARE STILL WHORING FOR WALL STREET! MONEY, AND ONLY MONEY TALKS ON CAPITOL HILL!
ATTEMPTS TO STOP BANKS FROM GAMBLING WITH DEPOSITORS' MONEY SEEMS NOT TO BE SOMETHING OUR CONGRESS WANTS, AND TO HELL WITH WHAT WE, THEIR BOSSES, TELL THEM! THEY IGNORE PHONE CALLS, EMAILS, LETTERS AND OPINION POLLS AND SIMPLY DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THOSE WHO FINANCE THEIR DAMNABLE CAMPAIGNS!
~ THE USELESS VOLCKER RULE
Carl Levin (D., Mich.), who helped push the rule through Congress, said that as the rule has "languished in regulatory limbo for 2½ years, the big banks' trading activities have continued to grow," putting the economy at risk.
Paul Volcker and the Federal Reserve Board sought legislation overruling the FDIC and OCC actions, they agreed BANK affiliates, NOT REGULATORY COMMITTEES, should have broader securities powers. They supported a bill sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Jake Garn (R-UT) that would have amended Glass–Steagall Section 20 to cover all FDIC insured banks and to permit bank affiliates to underwrite and deal in mutual funds, municipal revenue bonds, commercial paper, and mortgage-backed securities. THE POWER-MAD FEDERAL RESERVE NEVER WANTED THEIR DARLINGS' HANDS SLAPPED IN THE FIRST PLACE! WALL STREET SCRATCHES CONGRESS' BACK AND CONGRESS SPREADS ITS LEGS VERY WIDE TO WALL STREET! THE NEVER-ENDING TRYST!
The delay for the impotent Volcker Rule is coming from drawn-out negotiations between a trio of banking regulators, including the Federal Reserve, and officials from the Securities and Exchange Commission. IT'S LIKE SENDING FOXES TO GUARD THE HEN-HOUSE! WHY WOULD THE FED, A PRIVATE BANKING CARTEL, WANT BANKS REGULATED AT ALL?
The Volcker Rule bans banks from using or owning hedge funds for the banks' own profit. That's because they'd often use their depositors' funds to do so. Banks can use hedge funds for their customers only. Determining which funds are for the banks' profits and which funds are for customers has been difficult. Therefore, Dodd-Frank gave banks seven years to divest the funds. They can keep any funds if less than 3% of revenue. Banks have lobbied hard against the rule, delaying its implementation until at least 2013, and now it looks like 2014 is the new "target date" for banks to begin complying.... DON'T BET ON THAT EVER HAPPENING! THE VOLCKER RULE IS NOT WORKING, BUT WHO BELIEVES IT WAS EVER MEANT TO? WALL STREET IS SIMPLY IGNORING THAT AND CONTINUING THE RAPE OF THEIR CUSTOMERS, AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY...TAKE THAT, CITIZENS! YOU MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO WALL STREET EXCEPT DOLLAR $SIGNS$!
HOW GOLDMAN SACHS BEAT THE VOLCKER RULE...IT IGNORED IT!
January 22, 2013, FORTUNE MAGAZINE
<<The Volcker Rule was intended to prevent banks from taking too many risks with their own money, including in areas like private equity and hedge fund investing. The idea was that banks primarily exist to serve clients rather than to enrich themselves via levels of proprietary and principal account investing that could (theoretically) lead to another Lehman-style collapse.
It was controversial on Wall Street, but so was virtually every single word of Dodd-Frank. Outside the financial lobby's echo chamber, most of the Volcker Rule seemed to be a reasonable safeguard. So it passed through Congress, albeit a bit watered down, in July 2010. Included was a two-year waiting period that would allow politicians and regulators to hammer out the final language.
Many institutions soon began trying to get their houses in order, with efforts to sell or spin out private equity groups. These moves happened at banks in the U.S. and abroad, including Bank of America (BAC), Barclays (BCS), and Lloyds (LYG). Better to comply early than be stranded by unforeseen circumstances, even if that meant divesting at a discount.
The smart money either ignored Volcker on private equity or applied it only to future activities. The most obvious example is Goldman Sachs (GS), which in 2007 raised a $20.3 billion private equity fund called GS Capital Partners VI that included approximately $9 billion in commitments from the bank and bank employees (too high a percentage to comply with Volcker). Goldman has decided not to divest its interest in the fund, believing that it will be able to secure enough extensions to responsibly liquidate once Volcker is finalized. The bank's group also has raised several new funds since Dodd-Frank was signed, including an energy fund, a renminbi-denominated [aka,CHINESE CURRENCY-DOMINATED] fund, and a real estate mezzanine fund. Goldman believes these new vehicles will comply with Volcker, based on language in a draft proposal of the rule. But if not, it can either request extensions or spin them out to a later date.
[THE VOLCKER RULE] was intended to help curb Wall Street recklessness -- a culture in which banks invest first and ask questions later. But instead it just validated those who expertly exploit the sloth of federal officials and encouraged such behavior the next time around. Some reform.>> AND THAT FROM FORTUNE MAGAZINE!
One of the causes of the 2008 financial crisis was that, since hedge funds and other financial advisers weren't regulated, no one knew what "financial institutions" were investing in or how much was at stake. That's why the Fed and other agencies thought the mortgage crisis would be confined to the housing industry. To correct for that, Dodd-Frank says that hedge funds must register with the SEC and provide data about their trades and portfolios so the SEC can assess overall market risk. States are given more power to regulate investment advisers, since Dodd-Frank raises the asset threshold limit from $30 million to $100 million. In January 2013, 65 banks around the world had registered their derivatives business with the CFTC. ONLY 65 BANKS IN ALL THE WORLD! THEY REALLY AREN'T GOING TO COMPLY, ARE THEY? WHO WILL FORCE THEM TO? CERTAINLY NOT OUR CONGRESS! THE MONEY THE BIG BANKING BOYS MAKE, THE ILLEGAL THINGS THEY DO, ALL OF THAT PAYS FOR THE WILLING TRAITORS, THE WALL STREET "BED-BUDDIES" IN CONGRESS, DON'T YOU SEE?
DODD-FRANK MIGHT REFORM THE FED? POSSIBLY, IF WE STRETCH OUR IMAGINATIONS. THE FED WON'T SIT STILL FOR THAT! NO WAY!
The Government Accountability Office(GAO) was "ALLOWED", YES, ALLOWED, to audit the Fed's emergency loans during the financial crisis.The Fed SUPPOSEDLY cannot make an emergency loan to a single entity, like Bear Stearns or AIG, without Treasury Department approval.
The Fed must make public the names of banks that received these loans or TARP funds.
HOW HAS THAT WORKED OUT?
NOT AT ALL!
THE FED HAS MADE SINGLE ENTITY LOANS SINCE THEN AND HAS NOT TOLD TO WHOM, THOUGH MORE THAN ONE CONGRESSMAN HAS GRILLED THEM OVER THAT.
FEW CAN DO IT AS WELL AS GRAYSON:
The only way to stop this nonsense is to reinstate a STRONGER
Glass-Steagall Act.
It sort of worked for 66 years.
This whole Wall
Street screwing America thing happened BEFORE in 1929 before the Great
Depression and will continue to happen as long as "too big to fail
banks" and the FEDERAL RESERVE are left unchecked. Even with the flawed
system we still have for keeping check on the FED and on the FED's pets,
the banks, the Glass-Steagall Act was the best method of protecting our
economy from the predators of Wall Street we've YET had, which is not to
say much. The BLATANT GREED of banks exceeds ANY and ALL need to protect
their investors. Their use of OUR TAX DOLLARS FROM THE BAILOUTS to give
themselves bonuses SHOULD have showed us all that they have total
contempt for the law, and total contempt for those who "invest" with
them. WILL WE NEVER LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES?
President Bill
Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer
appropriate" and from that point on, its days were numbered.
It's true that except for Section 21, Glass–Steagall only covered Federal Reserve member commercial banks.
Yes,
the United States retained a dual banking system in which a fairly
large number of state chartered banks remained outside the Federal
Reserve System.
Although Section 21 of the Glass–Steagall Act was
directed at preventing securities firms (particularly traditional
private partnerships such as J.P. Morgan & Co.) from accepting
deposits, it prevented ANY firm that accepted DEPOSITS from underwriting
or dealing in SECURITIES (other than “bank-eligible securities” after
the 1935 Banking Act’s “clarification”). This meant Section 21, unlike
the rest of Glass–Steagall, applied to savings and loans and other
“thrifts”, state nonmember banks, and any other firm or individual in
the business of taking DEPOSITS. This prevented such “depository
institutions” from being SECURITIES FIRMS. It did NOT prevent securities
firms, such as Merrill Lynch, from owning separate subsidiaries that
were thrifts or state chartered, non-Federal Reserve member banks.
CREATED TO FAIL? LOOPHOLES MUCH? THE BIG BOYS IN FINANCE ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO SKIRT THE LAW!
This
difference, which would INDEED later be termed a “loophole” provided
the justification for the long, drawn-out demise of Glass–Steagall
through 'regulatory actions' that largely negated the practical
significance of Sections 20 and 32 before they were repealed by the
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
CONGRESS CAN "REGULATE" ITS DARLINGS OUT OF
ANYTHING, AND HAVE, AND ARE DEDICATED TO IT. CAMPAIGN MONEY IS MOST
IMPORTANT! THAT COMES FORM WALL STREET!CONGRESS IS SELLING US OUT FOR BIG MONEY IN THEIR 'WAR CHESTS", AMERICANS, AND THE WAR IS ON YOU!
The fact that Sections 16,
20, and 32 only restricted Federal Reserve member banks was another
feature that made the Glass–Steagall Act less than “comprehensive” and,
in the words of a 1987 commentator, provided “opportunities for banking
institutions and their lawyers to explore (or, perhaps more accurately,
to exploit)."
Wolfgang Reinicke argued that Glass–Steagall's “repeal”
gained unexpected Congressional support in 1987 because large banks
successfully argued that Glass–Steagall prevented US banks from
competing internationally.
In 1960 six of the ten largest banks were
US based, by 1980 only two US based banks were in the top ten, and by
1989 none was in the top twenty five. THAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BECAUSE OF REAGAN'S VOODOO ECONOMICS, COULD IT?
No,
Glass Steagall separated commercial banking from investment banking.
HONEST economists, few that there are, agree: "Derivatives should be
completely outlawed except for the commodities that they were originally
designed for. AIG, Goldman Sachs, S&P, and any of the hedge funds
that got TARP should be charged with insurance fraud and jailed, and
Congress along with them!"
NOT ONE has been held accountable! NOT ONE BANK WAS ALLOWED TO FAIL, BUT AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE ALLOWED TO LOSE JOBS, LOSE THEIR HOMES, AND FACE RUIN! CITIZENS ARE BANKRUPT WHILE BANKERS LIVE IT UP! WHY HASN'T THAT SENT YOU DOWN TO BANG ON THE DOORS OF YOUR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTEDS, CITIZENS? WHY HASN'T THERE BEEN A 300 MILLION 'MAN' MARCH OVER THIS? WHY HAVEN'T WE ALL DEMANDED THE BANKS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, AND WHY, IN THE NAME OF SANITY, HAVEN'T WE STOPPED ELECTING THOSE WHO SOLD US OUT? LIKE THE TIMES ARTICLE SAYS...WALL STREET IS BACK IN POWER ON CAPITOL HILL. YOU CAN BLAME YOURSELVES FOR THAT, VOTERS! WHEN NO ONE CRIES "FOUL!', THE GAME PLAYS ON. EAT IT AND SMILE!
WHY HAS AMERICA'S 'CIVIL DEFENSE' BECOME A "HELP YOURSELVES OR DIE" RESPONSE?
WHY DO COMMUNIST NATIONS CARE MORE ABOUT CITIZEN SURVIVABILITY AFTER NUCLEAR ATTACK THAN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT DOES?
Why
have all nuclear bomb fallout shelters been dismantled and
decommissioned in the USA, when many other countries such as
Switzerland, CHINA and RUSSIA are still building them and installing
more?
DO YOU KNOW OF ONE STOCKED, FUNCTIONAL FALLOUT SHELTER WHERE YOU LIVE, OR WITHIN 50 MILES OF WHERE YOU LIVE? Now
that we fear terrorists may detonate radioactive "dirty" bombs, wage
germ warfare or attack our nuclear power plants, with tensions running
high between India and Pakistan, fallout shelters don't seem like such a
bad idea. TOO BAD, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE ANYMORE! For all practical
purposes there are no nuclear bomb shelters in the US. However there
are fallout shelters, thousands of them. But they won't help anyone if a
bomb detonates over their city. They will only help those in untouched
cities survive a few weeks to months until fallout decays to "safe"
levels. However few will know how to find one, most of the signs were
removed long ago and many had their food and water removed. In 1993, the Federal Government policy was to no longer stock fallout shelters with supplies, or to maintain shelters. HOW FEW ARE LEFT? VERY FEW, MAYBE ONLY A FEW HUNDRED, JUDGING FROM SITES LIKE THIS THAT LIST THE KNOWN ONES: http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=bd97bb47-051e-46db-966b-2478092263c1 A FEW HUNDRED PUBLIC SHELTERS FOR ALL OF OUR POPULATION? YES, BUT THOSE FEW AREN'T REALLY FUNCTIONAL SHELTERS ANYMORE. Government
officials acknowledge that over the last several decades they have
quietly been discarding nearly a half-century of old foodstuffs and
other supplies stocked for survivors of a nuclear war. The olive green
canisters of water and food rations stamped with official civil defense
markings have been discarded, donated or sold off. "It wasn't like
one day we just woke up and said it's over," explained one official at
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). "But everything really
is gone." [http://undergroundbombshelter.com/news/when-bomb-shelters-were-the-rage.htm] THAT'S RIGHT, AMERICA...PUBLIC FALLOUT SHELTERS REALLY ARE SIMPLY GONE TODAY! BUT
EVEN AFTER ALL HELL WAS UNLEASHED BY OUR 'INVENTION' OF NUCLEAR BOMBS,
AND AFTER THE MAJOR POWERS OF PLANET EARTH RESPONDED WITH BUILDING THEIR
OWN, OUR GOVERNMENT WAS NOT OF A MIND TO PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS, NOT
EVEN FROM FALLOUT THEY KNEW WOULD COME AFTER A NUCLEAR ATTACK! CIVIL DEFENSE: Bomb Shelters Away TIME MAGAZINE Monday, Sept. 03, 1951 <<Early
this month, Millard F. Caldwell, the U.S. civil-defense boss, went
grimly to Congress with a request for $535 million. Cities .and states
were clamoring for civil-defense funds and guidance, he said, and he
voiced a warning: "In our present state of unawareness and
unpreparedness, a half-dozen bombs on as many cities, with a consequent
million casualties, would so shock and benumb the American public that
the very will to fight and win could be lost." Missouri's Clarence Cannon, House appropriations czar, greeted the request with a hoot. (CAUGHT ON FILM!) IN 1980, CIVIL DEFENSE/FEMA WAS STILL ISSUING BOOKLETS FROM THE 1960s! Civil Defense/FEMA Fallout Shelter Booklets You can download those here: http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/southrad/falloutshelters.html THAT'S ALL YOU GET FROM UNCLE SAM, AMERICA! GOOD LUCK! FEMA WILL NOT DISCLOSE THE LOCATION OF EXISTING FALLOUT SHELTERS!!!!
THIS IS AN ACTUAL EMAIL TO A CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO CONTACTED FEMA TO FIND SHELTER LOCATIONS! <<Thank you for your follow-up e-mail dated January 21, 2010, requesting the list of shelters--nationwide. Information
contained in the National Shelter System (NSS) database is not
available to the public. NSS data is restricted to State, local and
Federal government agencies; and those non-government agencies that play
an active roll in sheltering and disaster response activities. They are
approved for access through their respective States. You may
wish to link to the American Red Cross Web site
http://www.redcross.org/en/, as they currently post the locations of
open shelters in States that allow the locations to be seen publicly. Those States that do not release this information, generally ask
inquirers to call their 211 line or other local information number. FEMA
will be creating a shelter locator site on FEMA.gov in the near future.
Inquirers will be able to enter their zip code and get a list of the
closest, open shelters. However, some States will be opting out of this
program to insure that they can manage the populations seeking shelter
at the facilities. I hope this is helpful and wish you success. Sincerely, Janice Sosebee FEMA Disaster Assistance Directorate>> SEE: http://www.delagostti-industries.com/fallout%20shelter.htm WELL, GUESS WHAT? THE RED CROSS DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUCH LIST AS FEMA REFERRED TO ON THE WEBSITE GIVEN. http://www.redcross.org/prepare/disaster-safety-library THE BEST I CAN FIND, CLOSEST TO AN ACTUAL REFERENCE TO SHELTERS IS "SHELTER IN PLACE" ... SHELTER IN PLACE? REALLY? AND THAT WAS FOUND UNDER "TERRORISM"! WELL, YES, THAT IS 'TERRIFYING' ALRIGHT! WE ARE ON OUR OWN! SHELTER IN PLACE, AMERICA! OH,
AND YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ON SURVIVING NUCLEAR ATTACK HERE: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/er/planning-guidance-for-response-to-nuclear-detonation-2-edition-final.pdf NOT THAT IT WILL BE OF MUCH HELP AT ALL...LITTLE TO NONE, ACTUALLY. BUT, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS, HASN'T IT, REALLY? The
Eisenhower administration expressed little interest in shelters until
1957, when the Gaither Report was released in the U.S. The report was
the culmination of an effort to assess the relative nuclear capability
and civil defense efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union. The
report concluded that the United States would soon be surpassed in all
categories of nuclear weaponry and that civil defense preparations in
the U.S.S.R. were well ahead of American efforts. Public response to
the report was an upsurge in interest about fallout shelters. By the
late 1950s, officials of the Eisenhower administration believed that
they had a realistic idea of how difficult it would be to survive a
nuclear bomb blast, and was actively promoting the construction of
fallout shelters as part of the civil defense program. Plans were drawn
up. From 1958 onward, the Office of Civil Defense not only promoted home
shelters but also published a collection of manuals that showed
Americans how to build home shelters. [CAPTURE THE MAGIC...SHOW US HOW TO BUILD A $5000 SHELTER...HOW MANY HAD THE MONEY FOR THAT IN 1958?] In
the summer of 1961, Kennedy asked Congress for more than $100 million
for public fallout shelters and home-based imminent nuclear danger alarm
systems. $100 MILLION? A LOUSY $100 MILLION? 10 YEARS EARLIER THE HEAD OF CIVIL DEFENSE HAD ASKED FOR FIVE TIMES THAT! WHAT GOOD WOULD A MERE $100 MILLION DO? WELL, IT WASN'T A SERIOUS REQUEST, WAS IT? Besides,
by 1962, most officials realized that evacuation plans were
unrealistic, owing to the large number of people who would have to
evacuate, so why place a greater importance on public shelters anyway,
right? Then, it just started going away, that need to protect Americans from radioactive fallout. American's
uncertainties about the bomb quieted during the mid-1960s. As
arms-control talks and a limited nuclear test ban proceeded, tensions
eased. Plans for building additional public shelters were postponed.
Shelters were converted into wine cellars, mushroom gardens, recreation
rooms, or storage areas. The few remaining public underground shelters
are relics of the Cold War era. Although public fallout shelters
still exist, some are even being used as museums, virtually all fallout
shelters have been decommissioned since the fall of the Soviet Union in
1991. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A NUCLEAR STRIKE THEN? Within
half an hour, most Americans will probably know a nuclear strike has
taken place, and when and where it happened. Fallout charts will pepper
the news and warn people in the predicted area. Those of us who have
built a shelter will have ample time to secure ourselves within the
shelter. Everyone else within the expected fallout zone may frantically
pack bags and hit the road in hopes of escaping the fallout, which WILL
be falling 50 miles away from ground zero an hour OR LESS after the
explosion. The traffic jams will mean that large numbers of people WILL
BE exposed to the radiation within the fallout areas. Those poor souls
will be dead within hours. Some people within the traffic jams will
escape with their lives by heading in a direction perpendicular to the
expected fallout zone. Many baby boomers (people in their late 50s
to late 60s) will race to local fallout shelters once maintained by the
Civil Defense plan, but find NOTHING THERE, or, at best, find those are
no longer stocked with supplies. We "boomers" are the ones who grew up
doing monthly "duck and cover" drills in school and may recall some of
the "tips" for survival, but, No shelter, NO protection from fallout, NO
supplies, NO survival. A decision to use a building basement with
public access will improve chances of receiving less radiation than
most, but many will die later of exposure due to nonworking air
filtration systems. For the most part, everyone caught in the fallout
within the first 48 to 72 hours will die. Those who survive the blast,
which is lethal up to 10 miles from ground zero, will survive the
dangers of fallout if they are in an ADEQUATE, WELL-STOCKED, PROPERLY
FILTERED AND VENTED underground BOMB shelter. HOW LONG WILL YOU HAVE AFTER A NUCLEAR BOMB BLAST? That
mainly depends on your distance from GROUND ZERO, FROM POINT OF IMPACT. Since the blast wave is a top concern for those who are not vaporized
in the initial detonation, those 5 to 10 miles away will have a few
seconds to react. Ducking and covering literally is your best hope, A
LITTLE HOPE. People located at distances beyond that will have to worry about radioactive fallout. If
you are 25 miles away, you have a few minutes, maybe even enough time
to drive a few miles to your home (if you are at work, for example) in
order to escape the DIRECT fallout. If you are 100 or more miles away,
you may have an hour to find shelter...if you hurry. Areas affected
by radioactive fallout could extend up to 500 miles or more beyond
ground zero, where it may take half a day or more to reach, but reach
you it will! And much will depend on the winds, wind speed and direction. Generally, we're told we will need to stay sheltered at least 4 days, but 2 weeks will be better. The
closer you are to the detonation, the higher the levels of radioactive
fallout will be. Also, since the radioactivity begins dropping soon
after detonation, your close proximity means you will have more
radiation OVER TIME when compared to locations down range who may not
start receiving fallout for several hours. In short, you will begin
receiving fallout which is MORE LETHAL than the reduced amount delivered
a hour down range from you. Therefore, you could expect to have to
remain sheltered for SEVERAL WEEKS if you are within a few miles of
ground zero. Regardless of distance, one could survive in a WELL
constructed underground bomb shelter for months assuming enough supplies
and circulating FILTERED air is available. In addition to other
effects, a nuclear weapon detonated in or above the earth’s atmosphere
can create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), a high-density electrical
field. An EMP acts like a stroke of lightning but is stronger, faster,
and shorter. An EMP can seriously damage electronic devices connected to
power sources or antennas. This includes communication systems,
computers, electrical appliances, and automobile or aircraft ignition
systems. The damage could range from a minor interruption to actual
burnout of components. Most electronic equipment within 1,000 miles of a
high-altitude nuclear detonation could be affected. Battery-powered
radios with short antennas generally would not be affected. Although an
EMP is unlikely to harm most people, it could harm those with pacemakers
or other implanted electronic devices. WHERE ARE THE MAJOR TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ATTACKS? YOU MAY BE SURPRISED! In general, potential military targets include, in descending order: ~Strategic missile sites and military bases. ~Centers of government such as Washington, DC, and state capitals. ~Important transportation and communication centers. ~Manufacturing, industrial, technology, and financial centers. ~Petroleum refineries, electrical power plants, and chemical plants. ~Major ports and airfields. ~Places where large numbers of people can be found at a single moment in time like secondary cities, sports arenas, large colleges, etc. THESE WOULD MORE LIKELY BE THE TARGETS OF "SUITCASE BOMBERS". SO, WHAT CAN WE DO, ON OUR OWN? THAT DEPENDS ON HOW SINCERELY YOU WANT TO SURVIVE SUCH AN ATTACK. MANY SAY THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A POST-NUCLEAR WAR WORLD. FEW WOULD SURVIVE A "NUCLEAR WINTER", AND SOCIETY, AS WE KNOW IT, WOULD BE ERASED. IF YOU ARE ONE WHO WOULD WANT TO SURVIVE, HERE ARE A FEW WEBSITES: http://www.ted.com/talks/irwin_redlener_warns_of_nuclear_terrorism.html WHICH CAN ALSO BE VIEWED HERE http://youtu.be/tW7IgKJWtqk AND RIGHT BELOW:
NOW THESE ARE LIVE CAMS, LIVE CAMS FOCUSED ON THESE TERRIBLE ASSAULT WEAPONS FOR WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG, BUT FOR A FEW YEARS. SO FAR, NO KILLINGS. ***UPDATE, 08-25-2013 AT END OF POST WHERE YOU SEE 3 ASTERISKS ***
THAT WEBSITE EXPLAINS HOW THIS CAME INTO BEING.
<<The Coalition To Prevent Assault Weapon Violence was hastily organized in the wake of the 1994 Assault
Weapon
Ban expiration on September 13, 2004. We organized when one of our founding members read a press release by
the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that AK-47s and Uzis were "coming to [our] neighborhood this summer."
We investigated and determined that all scientific research to date shows that these weapons are rarely
used
in crimes. We trust that John Kerry, the Brady Campaign, and independent experts like Tim Robbins would
never mislead us, so we set out to prove what the experts cannot - that assault weapons do cause
crime.
To that end, we obtained the above "Colt AR-15" assault rifle from a local death merchant and configured
a
web-cam and lighting to monitor it 24 hours a day.
Much to our embarrassment, some astute volunteers pointed out that we needed to "load" the rifle with
assault
ammunition. A few days later, thanks to some generous paypal donations from our volunteers, we have the
rifle loaded with a "magazine" and we again wait for spontaneous acts of violence.>> http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/about.html
IF WE WATCH THESE CAMS FOR 10,000 YEARS, DO YOU THINK WE'LL EVER SEE ONE OF THESE "GUNS" KILL ANYONE?
NOT UNLESS A HUMAN BEING PICKS ONE UP AND FIRES IT!
BUT YOU WATCH, AMERICA, YOU WATCH AS LONG AS YOU PLEASE TO SEE IF "GUNS KILL PEOPLE".
BE SURE TO ALERT ME WHEN ONE OF THESE 'GUNS' KILLS ANYONE, OK?
I WON'T BE HOLDING MY BREATH, AND I WON'T EXPECT A SINGLE MESSAGE TO TELL ME ANY OF THESE 'GUNS' HAVE KILLED PEOPLE.
AND IF YOU REALLY THINK THESE 'GUNS' WILL GO OFF WHEN YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AND KILL PEOPLE, ENLIST ALL YOUR FAMILY, ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO WATCH THE CAMERAS MONITOR THEM 24/7/365, EVERY SECOND.
HERE'S HOW YOU CAN DO THAT, FROM THE WEBSITE ITSELF: http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/signatures.html
Spread the Message
You can help us enlist more volunteers by using our banners in your forum signatures when you post on
boards with people as compassionate and dedicated as you are. Select which camera you want in your signature
and whether you need raw HTML or UBB code. UBB code is widely used by forum software, whereas many forum
software packages won't allow raw HTML.
Copy and paste the resulting text from the box into your forum's signature configuration and you're
set!
WATCH! CANCEL EVERYTHING AND WATCH! MEANWHILE....AFTER YOU SEE THAT THESE WEAPONS NEVER KILL ANYONE, AFTER YOU COME TO REALIZE WHAT DOES KILL PEOPLE, I.E., OTHER PEOPLE, WILL THE HOWL CHANGE TO...'BAN HUMANS!" ?????? DIDN'T THINK SO. AFTER ALL, GUNS DON'T KILL THE MOST PEOPLE, DO THEY? http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/4/6/6/9/8/5/Tools4Murder-97618819310.jpeg HMMM, MAYBE WE SHOULD "BAN HANDS AND FEET!"? HOW ABOUT JUST HANDS? NO? KEEP WATCHING...
***UPDATE, AUG. 25, 2013*** <<NO, NO, no guns have gone running off and killed someone, sorry...but keep watching... No, this is an update so all you "no guns" people can start preparing what passes for your "minds" to live in a hell you will soon come to believe in. Thanks to our treasonous Congress and Oval Office, what passes for the United States of America (INCORPORATED) signed that "Arms Treaty" the U.N. has been trying to shove down our throats for decades...and...SURPRISE! SURPRIIIIISE! It most assuredly DOES begin the ban on CITIZENS owning guns. Rejoice, anti-gun sheeple! Now NO ONE can protect you except a militarized police force...How has THAT been working for you this year? So, yeah, read this one and never come crying to me for help when the boots come down in your faces and the grinding you into dust begins. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/19/barr-the-un-comes-after-americas-guns/ Bob Barr, a former member of Congress, reports on what you were NOT told about that UN "Arms Treaty" your own CONGRESS loved enough to accept for you! He ought to know, he was part of that pig herd...
<<Another important but little-known set of documents that reveal the true purposes of the treaty were crafted by the U.N. Coordinating Action on Small Arms. These include the International Small Arms Control Standard, which is developing “modules” on gun control to serve as “model legislation” for countries that sign on to the treaty. The most relevant of these is the one titled, “National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons.”
One need read no further than the introduction to this missive to understand its goal. The operative focus is strict regulation of civilian possession of firearms by the “central” or national government. This is necessary because “some civilians misuse small arms” by using them illegally or “improperly stor[ing]” them. The document bases this notion of government control of firearms and ammunition on “international law” — an inaccurate interpretation of such body of laws, but one that fits conveniently the U.N.’s agenda.>>
REMEMBER THE LIVE VIDEOS OF THE ABOVE WEAPONS...YOU WILL BLOODY WELL MISS THEM WHEN THEY'RE ALL GONE! MAY THAT ECHO IN THE CORRIDORS OF YOUR MINDS FOREVER...OR UNTIL YOU FACE THE FINAL DAY WITHOUT GUN OWNERSHIP. APATHY DID THIS, AND A WHORE CONGRESS AND "COMPANY".
AN UNARMED POPULACE ARE SLAVES TO THE ARMED! AN UNARMED NATION IS RULED BY TYRANTS!
HAD THE OLD ANCESTORS BEEN AS WELL-ARMED AS THOSE WHO CAME TO DESTROY THEIR SECURITY, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CHAT.
WE KNOW BETTER THAN TO USE STONES AGAINST GUNS NOW.
ALL THE "HOMELAND SECURITY" WE NEED IS A WELL-ARMED POPULACE!
ASK SWITZERLAND! SWITZERLAND, A NATION OF ARMED CITIZENS
NATIONAL SECURITY HAPPENS WHEN EVERY CITIZEN IS ARMED.
SWITZERLAND HASN'T BEEN ATTACKED IN 800 YEARS BECAUSE HER CITIZENRY IS HER ARMY!
EACH IS WELL-ARMED, EACH IS TRAINED TO DO BATTLE!
AND
THAT, IN CASE YOU NEVER READ THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS WITHOUT AN '
INTERPRETER', IS HOW THE FOUNDERS WANTED IT TO BE...AN ARMED CITIZENRY. I BELIEVE SOME CALLED THEM "MINUTEMEN".
THE UNITED STATES HAD NO NEED OF A STANDING ARMY WHEN WE WERE NOT AT WAR.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR ONE!
ARMED AMERICANS WERE HER ARMY!
AMERICANS WERE READY IN A "MINUTE".
THE STATES CALLED ARMED CITIZENS THEIR "MILITIA", AND THAT WAS THEIR "SECURITY". WHAT THREATENS NATIONAL SECURITY THE MOST, I BELIEVE, IS THIS....
HONEST MEN WOULD HAVE NO FEAR OF OTHER HONEST MEN, ARMED OR NOT.
THAT CONGRESS AND THE OVAL OFFICE FEAR AN ARMED CITIZENRY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THOSE OF US WHO KNOW WHAT DISARMING CITIZENS BREEDS....
IF THIS IS YOUR GOAL, UNDERSTAND THAT WE RECOGNIZE WHERE THAT GOAL
LEADS, AND WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER OUR ARMS, OUR "NATIONAL SECURITY"!
NEVER!
AMERICAN CITIZENS MUST NEVER OBEY CORRUPT LAWS! AND WE WON'T, I ASSURE YOU!
AFTER ALL, YOU, MR. OBAMA, NOR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, HAS EVER GIVEN UP YOUR RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED, HAVE YOU?
SO, PERHAPS A BETTER ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY IS THIS: REMOVE THE THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY!
YOU SEE, MANY OF US BELIEVE THAT ALL IN CONGRESS ARE GUILTY OF HIGH TREASON. THEY HAVE
NOT KEPT THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE.
THEY KNOW IT AND WE KNOW IT.
MORE SEE
THAT FACT EVERY DAY.
IS THAT WHY THEY'RE ALL IN A HURRY TO DISARM US?
THAT
WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
WE ARE THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, THE REPUBLIC IS OURS AND WE SHALL, BYALLTHEGODS, KEEP IT!
THAT IS SIMPLY A PROMISE SOME OF US HAVE MADE. THERE ARE YET TRUE
PATRIOTS IN AMERICA WHO ARE NOT RULED BY POLITICS, WHO DON'T GIVE A DAMN
ABOUT PARTY, JUST ABOUT FREEDOM! AND WE ARE MORE THAN READY TO SECURE
THE NATION... WE THE PEOPLE ARE AMERICA'S 'NATIONAL SECURITY', AS WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN!
REMEMBER THIS, WASHINGTON, WE OUTNUMBER YOU! WE ARE THE 99% OF AMERICA, AND YOU ARE THE 1%. THOSE ARE HIGH ODDS! YOU'D BE WISE TO REMEMBER THAT!
AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALSO REMEMBER THE UNARMED, THOSE WHO LAID DOWN THEIR ARMS AND THEN DIED.
THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US WHO DO REMEMBER THAT! WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF BECOMING UNARMED DEAD PEOPLE, NOR SLAVES!
EVEN WITHOUT GUNS, PEOPLE DIE!
WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT, AND WE KNOW THAT DISARMING US WOULD ONLY BENEFIT YOU AND OTHER CRIMINALS.
AMERICANS ARE NOT YET AS STUPID AS WASHINGTON WOULD LIKE TO THINK THEY
ARE...SOME SEE THROUGH THE SMOKE AND PAST THE MIRRORS.
MANY ALWAYS WILL
SEE THE TRUTH...AND WASHINGTON IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH...NOT IF MOUTHS
ARE MOVING!
NO, WE KNOW WHAT THE REAL REASON IS THAT WASHINGTON IS PUSHING FOR THAT GUN BAN...AND WE KNOW THAT ONLY TYRANTS FEAR AN ARMED POPULACE.
AN ARMED NATION HAS NO "NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT" UNLESS ITS LEADERS WANT OUR GUNS!
ISN'T THAT WHY THE JAPANESE NEVER ATTACKED ON AMERICAN SOIL?
THAT'S WHAT THEIR LEADER SAID, THAT TOO MANY AMERICANS WERE WELL-ARMED!
AMERICANS HAVE OWNED GUNS FOR OVER 200 YEARS.
GUN CRIMES ALWAYS INCREASED WHEN THERE WAS A GUN BAN!
CRIMINALS LOVE UNARMED CITIZENS!
WHAT DOES THAT MAKE CAPITOL HILL?
I BELIEVE THAT MAKES THEM ALL CRIMINALS!
HERE'S ANOTHER PHOTO OF AMERICA'S NATIONAL 'SECURITY FORCE' AT WORK:
EVERY CITY IN AMERICA HAS SUCH A NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE!
YES, WE CAN STILL TAKE TO THE STREETS BY THE MILLIONS, AND WE CAN STILL CREATE NATIONAL SECURITY ALL BY OURSELVES.
SCARY, ISN'T IT?
SCARY TO THOSE WHO DAILY SEEK TO DENY US THAT, AND SEE THE FUTILITY OF IT, YES?
WE OUTNUMBER YOU, CROOKED POLITICIANS, DEVIANT MILITARY, BANKING CARTELS!
I FEEL INCREDIBLY SECURE, NATIONALLY SECURE, KNOWING THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE STILL ARMED, HOW ABOUT YOU?
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TRIED TO REDEFINE TRUE PATRIOTISM AND MAKE IT INTO SOMETHING IT NEVER WAS AND NEVER SHALL BE!
A TRUE PATRIOT WILL FIGHT AGAINST A CORRUPT, TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT, AND TRUE PATRIOTS WILL GIVE THEIR LIVES TO MAKE SURE THE NATION IS SECURE FROM INTERNAL THREATS.
WE DON'T NEED BIG GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT!
THE PROOF THAT WE DON'T NEED CONGRESS TO HAND US NATIONAL SECURITY IS CRYSTAL CLEAR IN THAT WE HAVE HELD THIS NATION WHILE THEY AND ALL LIKE THEM HAVE SENT OUR BEST AFIELD, AWAY TO FOREIGN LANDS, LEAVING US WITHOUT MILITARY SUPPORT TO COMBAT FEDERAL POWER GRABS AND TREASONS.
WE STILL STAND, THE NATION IS SECURE, AND WE ARE ALL WAKING UP NOW. THOSE WHO WERE ASLEEP ARE AWAKENING! THAT IS WHAT THE REAL FEAR ON CAPITOL HILL IS, ISN'T IT?
WHEN THE CHOICE BECOMES FREEDOM OR SLAVERY, A REPUBLIC OR A POLICE STATE, WASHINGTON KNOWS WHAT MOST AMERICANS WILL CHOOSE, AND IT FRIGHTENS THE HELL OUT OF ALL THOSE IN SEATS OF POWER, DOESN'T IT? GOOD!
AFTER A 100-YEAR ONSLAUGHT BY CORRUPT POLITICIANS AND A DISHONORABLE WHITE HOUSE, WE STAND, MR. OBAMA!
WE YET STAND, AND WE CAN STILL DELIVER! WE CAN DELIVER "NATIONAL SECURITY" ALL DAY LONG!
WE DON'T WANT NOR NEED CONGRESS' AND THE OVAL OFFICE'S BRAND OF NATIONAL SECURITY WITH THE CITIZENS BECOMING UNARMED SLAVES, DRIVEN BY YOUR LIES TO MAKE US AFRAID TO STAND UP TO YOU ALL. WE'VE STOOD UP TO WORSE THAN YOU...WE CAN STAND UP TO WORSE STILL.
NATIONAL SECURITY IS WE, THE PEOPLE, AND IT SHALL REMAIN SO! UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THAT WELL COVERED, AND YOU AND YOUR FELLOW TRAITORS CAN FORGET ABOUT ROBBING US OF ONE MORE FREEDOM! WE'RE MAD AS HELL, AND WE JUST WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! WE...WE...EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD, CAN TAKE UP ARMS! WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE THIS NATIONAL SECURITY THING UNDER CONTROL, AND YOU'D ALL DO WELL ON CAPITOL HILL TO JUST SURRENDER TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, UPHOLD THAT CONSTITUTION YOU SWORE TO UPHOLD, AND STOP PLAYING THE HARLOT TO THOSE WHO BEND YOU OVER AND HAVE THEIR WAY WITH YOU EACH NEW DAY!
NATIONAL SECURITY? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO SECURE THE NATION, MR. OBAMA, CONGRESS, WALL STREET! WATCH US DO JUST THAT!
ON NATIONAL SECURITY, OTHER VOICES ~Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.
Andrew Fletcher(1653-1716)
~A free people ought to be armed. George Washington, Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14th 1790
~The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. Patrick Henry, Virginia Convention - Ratification of Constitution - 1788
~That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. George Orwell
~Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power. Yoshimi Ishikawa
~The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles. Jeff Cooper
~Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin
BARACK OBAMA HAS FOLLOWED ONCE AGAIN IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ALL HIS PREDECESSORS SINCE 1933, AND ON MAY 7, 2013, DECLARED THAT AMERICA IS STILL IN A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY. IN ACTUALITY, WE HAVE BEEN IN THE SAME STATE SINCE 1913, 1917, 1922, ETC. 100 LONG YEARS IN A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY, 80 YEARS IN A ROW! OBAMA CITED THE "SITUATION IN SYRIA" AS THE LATEST REASON TO CONTINUE TO RULE UNDER THE "WAR POWERS ACT", AND SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION YET AGAIN.
THE NEW DECLARATION BY THE CURRENT TRAITOR WAS READ TO THE CONGRESS.... THE CONGRESS WHICH MAKES NOT ONE PROTEST...THE CONGRESS THAT HAS AGREED WITH AMERICA BEING IN A 'STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY' SINCE THAT WORLD-CLASS COMMUNIST, FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, AND THE CONGRESS WHO BOWED TO HIS SUSPENSION OF OUR CONSTITUTION MANDATED THAT OUR CITIZENRY, WE, THE PEOPLE, BECOME 'ENEMIES' OF THE STATE IN 1933.
THE 'STATE OF EMERGENCY' IS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT THIS ACT OF TREASON BY THE NEWEST ELECTED PRESIDENT AND ACCEPTED THE SAME FROM THE PAST 12 PRESIDENTS!
THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IS THAT OUR CONGRESS, OUR PRESIDENT, OUR SUPREME COURT, EVERY BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT HAS ENSLAVED US YET AGAIN BY ANOTHER DECLARATION OF A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY WHEN THERE IS NONE!
I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU, WITH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION FROM OUR CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, HOW THIS WAS BROUGHT ABOUT, AND WHY IT CONTINUES. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT CONGRESS CAN, ALWAYS COULD, NEGATE THIS HEINOUS USURPATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND COULD STOP THIS PRESIDENTIAL POWER MADNESS, BUT NEVER HAS, AND DID NOT THIS TIME!
IF CONGRESS WON'T STOP THE CRIMINALS FROM COMMITTING THE CRIMES, IT IS UP TO US TO DO SO!
~If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.... If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed. -- Thomas Jefferson to Col. Yancey, 1816 ~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.
~In George Orwell's novel 1984, Big Brother's agent O'Brien explains to his victim Winston Smith that "the Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.... One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." Orwell's fiction was a mirror of Soviet reality: Lenin explained that "the scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this: power without limit. resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules." HERE IS THE TEXT OF THIS NEWEST ILLEGITIMATE ABOMINATION SENT TO CONGRESS:
<<TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency, unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.
In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the actions of the Government of Syria declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004 -- as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006, Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008, Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011, Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011,Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011, Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012, and Executive Order 13608 of May 1, 2012 -- is to continue in effect beyond May 11, 2013.
While the Syrian regime has reduced the number of foreign fighters bound for Iraq, the regime's brutal war on the Syrian people, who have been calling for freedom and a representative government, endangers not only the Syrian people themselves, but could yield greater instability throughout the region.
The Syrian regime's actions and policies, including pursuing chemical and biological weapons, supporting terrorist organizations, and obstructing the Lebanese government's ability to function effectively, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.
For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect the national emergency declared with respect to this threat and to maintain in force the sanctions to address this national emergency.
In addition, the United States condemns the Asad regime's use of brutal violence and human rights abuses and calls on the Asad regime to stop its violent war and step aside to allow a political transition in Syria that will forge a credible path to a future of greater freedom, democracy, opportunity, and justice.
The United States will consider changes in the composition, policies, and actions of the Government of Syria in determining whether to continue or terminate this national emergency in the future.
WHAT'S MORE AMAZING THAN THAT IS THAT CONGRESS ALLOWED THIS JACK-BOOTED THUG TO CONTINUE THE VERY THING THAT HAS KEPT US FROM BEING GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR 80 YEARS NOW!
WHY, WHY WOULDN'T CONGRESS SLAP HIS HAND AND SCREAM, "NO, NO!
NO MORE GOVERNING THIS NATION BY THE "WAR POWERS ACT"! WE'RE GOING BACK TO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN, BACK TO A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!
NO MORE CITIZENS ARE ENEMIES OF THE STATE, NO MORE ALL LAND AND ALL PEOPLE ARE COLLATERAL FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT, NO MORE FEDERAL RESERVE PRINTING MONEY, NO MORE CONTROLLING AGRICULTURE, NO MORE! BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION!"
WHY DIDN'T CONGRESS JUST SAY NO, AS IS THEIR RIGHT? STOP...THINK...WHY WOULD HONEST AND HONORABLE MEN AND WOMEN, ELECTED AND UNDER THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE, NOT STOP THIS FRAUDULENT, THIS CRIMINAL DECLARATION OF SOMETHING THAT IS A BALD-FACED LIE, AS WELL AS AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THIS NATION? COULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT THIS WAY? COULD IT BE BECAUSE OF THAT 13TH AMENDMENT THAT FEW IF ANY OF THEM WOULD WANT TO HAVE TO FACE?
MORE ON THE 13TH AMENDMENT LATER...FOR NOW, LET'S GO BACK IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND PULL OUT THE FACTS, THE FACTS, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, AND LET'S TURN TO PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, AND LET'S TURN TO THE LAW, IN ITS OWN WORDS.
THIS WILL BE LENGTHY, BUT AFTERWARDS, FROM THEIR OWN WORDS, YOU WILL SEE WHY CONGRESS ALLOWS THIS AND WHY PRESIDENTS SINCE FDR JUST KEEP RE-DECLARING A 'NATIONAL EMERGENCY'.
DEFINITION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY:
<<A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alerts citizens to change their normal behaviors, or orders government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans.>>
It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural or man made disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international or internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.
That was FDR's plan in 1933, and it has been the plan of every president and Congress since 1933, and it is Barrack Obama's plan now...SUSPEND RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS! Here is how FDR accomplished it, and the underlying reason why... On December 23, 1913, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, placing control of this nation's money into the hands of a private corporation.
In 1920, the 66th Congress passed the Independent Treasury Act.
In 1921, the United States abolished the U.S. Treasury.
From 1913, until 1933, under the authority of the U.S. Congress, a private corporation held control of this nation's GOLD. The U.S. paid interest on the use of their own gold, with more and more of its gold, ultimately ending in bankruptcy. Inevitably, the bankers foreclosed.
On March 9, 1933, the U.S. declared bankruptcy, as expressed in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260.
Roosevelt THEN declared a National Emergency that made it unlawful for any citizen of the United States to own gold.
Our bankrupt nation went into receivership and reorganized in favor of it's creditor and new owners, a private corporation of international bankers. (Since 1933, what is called the "United States Government" is a privately owned corporation of the Federal Reserve/IMF.)
Without a word of truth to the American people, all our good faith and credit was pledged as the surety for the debt by the same Congress who created the mechanism that allowed it to occur. Those exercising the offices of the several States, ALL WITH THE SAME MEASURE OF GUILT AND COMPLICITY, knew such "De Facto Transitions" were unlawful and unauthorized, but sanctioned, implemented, and enforced the complete debauchment and the resulting "governmental, social, industrial economic change" in the "De Jure" States, and in United States of America.
Once the emergency was declared, the common law was abolished, the Constitution was abolished and we fell under the absolute will of Government "public policy".
All the government needed to continue was to have public opinion on their side.
Those in FDR's circle made certain that public opinion was on their side!
Keeping public opinion on their side has been a #1 priority since the birth of this nation.
Psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, "ad-men and more are on government payrolls for a reason...to keep the public opinion "corrected", to keep the public from learning the TRUTH!
If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the government, then any and all statutes, laws and regulations that those in power, and I mean ABSOLUTE POWER, want to grab more power can continue to be passed.
The Constitution has no meaning.
The Constitution is suspended.
It has been for over 80 years.
We're not under Constitutional law.
Law has been abolished, all law except what laws the governing, the "kings and princes of power" want to enact.
The strings of our federal and state and even local governments are being manipulated at far higher levels than the positions most American officials occupy. They are working with little knowledge or authority, trying to control problems far bigger than even they may realize.
IT WAS SET UP THAT WAY IN 1933!
And since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not one President or Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice has been able or willing to return it to its rightful owners. Given the current state of the union, there is no reason to expect this situation to change unless we ourselves cause it to be so.
We're under a system of public policy...IT'S CALLED 'WAR POWERS'.
BUT CONGRESS COULD ACT AGAINST THIS!
Specifically, the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. Sections 1601-1651 (passed in 1976), gives Congress the power to countermand a presidential declaration of national emergency. Indeed, in 1976, Congress rescinded all of the declarations of national emergency made since World War II, as many of them had been on the books for years and were giving the executive unrestricted powers which were undermining the Constitution.
In 1983, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of Congress’ power to countermand a declaration of national emergency. But Congress got around that ruling by amending the National Emergencies Act in 1985 to confirm Congress’ power to countermand – through a joint resolution between the House and Senate – a declaration of emergency by the president (see this).
Moreover, in 2007, the Bush Administration tried to ignore the National Emergencies Act by issuing National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51.
NO, CONGRESS HAS NEVER STOPPED THE MAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE FROM CONTINUING THIS FALSE, THIS SWEEPING "DECLARATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY"!
So when ANY American citizen goes into a courtroom today, with our Constitution and the common law in hand, what will any judge tell you?
That you have "no persona standi in judicio".
You have no personal standing at law.
He will laugh to himself and tell you not to bother bringing the Constitution into his court, into any American court, because it is NOT a Constitutional court, but an EXECUTIVE TRIBUNAL, operating under a totally different jurisdiction.
AND YOU WON'T KNOW HAT THE HELL HE'S TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE YOU ARE LIKELY NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE FOLLOWING!
Senate Report 93-549 was a document issued by the "Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency" of the 93rd Congress (Hence the "93" in the name) (1973 to 1975). Its purpose was to discuss and address the 40 year long state of emergency that had been in effect in the United States since 1933.
During the continued state of emergency, Congress voted to transfer powers from Congress to the President.
The debate to end long-running states of National Emergency was ended in 1976 with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651), which limits any such declared emergencies to two years.
BUT EVERY PRESIDENT HAS RENEWED THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY! THEY FOUND A WAY AROUND THIS!
From SR 93-549 :
"Under this procedure we retain Government by law - special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted, and the persons affected may be informed by the statute of their rights and their duties."
If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they have been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and if you violate the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not with a crime, but with an offense.
Again from 93-549, the words of Mr. Katzenbach:
"My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything."
Senator Church, SAME senate "discussion": "If the President can create crimes by fiat and without congressional approval, our system is not much different from that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence." BINGO, SENATOR, YOU NAILED IT!
We see on this same document, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words, "Enormous Scope of Powers...A "Time Bomb".
Remember, this is Congress' own document, from the year 1973.
Next, to find the truth, we must look at Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933:
"Title III -- Financing - And Exercising Power Conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin Money And To Regulate the Value Thereof."
From Section 43,FDR's Proclamation 2072 - Fixing the Weight of the Gold Dollar :
"Whenever the President finds upon investigation that the foreign commerce of the united States is adversely affected ... and an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currencies of various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion... To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into agreements with the several Federal Reserve banks..."
Remember that in the Constitution it states that CONGRESS has the authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof.
How can it be then that the Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and quoting the Constitution as its authority to do so?
Under Section 1 of the same Act we find the following, with Roosevelt referring to a previous Act:
"To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to cause to be issued in such amount or amounts as he may from time to time order, United States notes, as provided in the Act entitled "An Act to authorize the issue of United States notes and for the redemption of funding thereof and for funding the floating debt of the united States, approved February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof"
What is the Act of February 25, 1862?
It is the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln.
When Abraham Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, he didn't even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he suspended habeas corpus, it was an absolute Constitutional dictatorship. There was not even a Congress in session for six weeks.
When Lincoln's Congress came into session six weeks later, they entered the following statement into the Congressional record: "The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed..." This is the exact language of March 9,1933 and Title 12, USC, Section 95 (b)....etc, until present day. BACK TO FDR's NATIONAL EMERGENCY HAT TRICK. IN HIS OWN WORDS: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House
AGAIN FROM SENATE REPORT 93-549, War and Emergency Powers Acts : <<Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.
With the melting of the cold war--the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.
The Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency was created1 to examine the consequences of terminating the declared states of national emergency that now prevail; to recommend what steps the Congress should take to ensure that the termination can be accomplished without adverse effect upon the necessary tasks of governing; and, also, to recommend ways in which the United States can meet future emergency situations with speed and effectiveness but without relinquishment of congressional oversight and control.
In accordance with this mandate, the Special Committee-in conjunction with the Executive branch, expert constitutional authorities, as well as former high officials of this Government-is now engaged
Note 1: S. Res. 9, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. >>
In 1933, Pennsylvania's Representative James M. Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states,
"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst.
It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution.
This means its death.
It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic.
Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it.
We pay the Constitution lip-service, but the result is the same."
Congressman Beck is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say, "But the Constitution of the united States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers." THINGS GET A LITTLE COMPLEX NOW. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America's involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a Trading with the Enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental borders. That Act also defined the term "enemy" and excluded from that definition citizens of the united States.
In Section 5 (b) of this Act, we see that the President was given unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see that credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly within the united States were excluded from that controlling authority. As transactions wholly domestic in nature were excluded from authority, the government had no extraordinary control over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the united States, because we were certainly not enemies...NOT YET.
Citizens of the united States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions.
But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with "by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.
The people of the united States were now subject to the power of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business transactions, We, the People became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.
It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states:
"during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President..".
So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of "national emergency" as defined by the President of the United States.
When either of these two situations occur, the President may,
"through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What can the President do NOW to 'We, the People', under this Section?
He can do anything he wants to do! It's purely at his discretion, and he can use ANY agency or any license that he desires to control it.
This is called a constitutional dictatorship.
In Senate Document 93-549 , Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, at:
"48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time."
Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973.
Now let's find out about the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court decision , Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:
"The Trading With the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" Const. Art. 1, Sect. 8, cl. 11. P. 241".
Remember your Constitution?
"Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies." ALL RULES.
If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" , remembering that we are now the same as the enemy.
In this memorandum, we read:
"Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse."
Reading from Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in Gold" written in 1933:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called, "ownership" is only by virtue of government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call "yours"? Who has the authority to mortgage property? NOT YOU! WHY DO YOU THINK YOU CAN LOSE YOUR PROPERTY IF YOU DON'T PAY TAXES ON IT? THOSE TAXES AMOUNT TO PAYING RENT, BECAUSE YOU NEVER OWN YOUR OWN PROPERTY...THE GOVERNMENT DOES! THAT IS ONE THING FDR ACCOMPLISHED, THAT "GREAT" PRESIDENT...THAT TRAITOR, THAT TREASONOUS CRIMINAL! AND SINCE HIS POWER PLAY WORKED, ALL THOSE WHO FOLLOWED HIM USED IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE AS WELL. YOU ARE SERFS, AMERICANS, MERELY SERFS. Supreme Court decision, United States v. Russell:
"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation...."
"That is the peacetime clause, isn't it?"
THE DECISION CONTINUES:
"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner...."
This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid illustration of the potential power of the government.
On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:
"Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York.
Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency...." THEY NEVER GOT TO READ THAT BILL, JUST LIKE OUR CONGRESS SELDOM, IF EVER READS BILLS TODAY...INSTEAD THEY GET "SYNOPSES" OR NOTES! In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933 ,we find evidence that our
congressmen didn't even have individual copies of the bill to read, on
which they were about to vote. A copy of the bill was passed around for
approximately 40 minutes. ANOTHER PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE, LOUIS T. MCFADDEN, MADE THIS COMMENT FROM THE HOUSE FLOOR:,
"Mr. Speaker, I regret that the membership of the House has had no opportunity to consider or even read this bill. The first opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when it was read from the clerk's desk. It is an important banking bill. It is a dictatorship over finance in the united States. It is complete control over the banking system in the united States ... It is difficult under the circumstances to discuss this bill. The first section of the bill, as I grasped it, is practically the war powers that were given back in 1917."
[YOU MAY READ MCFADDEN'S SPEECH/COMMENTS HERE, AND THE MAN WAS ONE OF THE FEW WHO SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING: http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html] Congressman McFadden later says,
"I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if this is a plan to change the holding of the security back of the Federal Reserve notes to the Treasury of the united States rather than the Federal Reserve agent."
Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve bank held our gold as security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which we could redeem at any time we wanted. Now, however, Congressman McFadden is asking if this proposed bill is a plan to change who's going to hold the security, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury.
Chairman Steagall's response to Congressman McFadden's question, again from the Congressional Record:
"This provision is for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes; and not for Federal Reserve notes; and the security back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has referred."
We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, don't you see? We were penniless, BELLY-UP BANKRUPT, and from that time until now our money would be "secured", not by gold, but by notes and obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security. THERE IS NO SECURITY IN FIAT MONEY, IN THE "MONOPOLY MONEY' PRINTED AND ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE! THIS IS WHERE YOU AND ALL YOU OWN BECAME MERELY COLLATERAL FOR THE DEBTS OF THE UNITED STATES, CITIZENS! THIS IS WHERE YOU WERE SOLD OUT!
Congressman McFadden then questioned,
"Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that true?
Mr. Steagall replied,
"Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes."
THAT'S A PAT ANSWER, ONE WE CAN READ IN OUR MODERN CONGRESSIONAL RECORD NUMEROUS TIMES.
Next, ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE Frederick Albert Britten, as noted in the Congressional Record:
"From my observations of the bill as it was read to the House, it would appear that the amount of bank notes that might be issued by the Federal Reserve System is not limited. That will depend entirely upon the amount of collateral that is presented from time to time for exchange for bank notes. Is that not correct?"
Who is the collateral? WE ARE! CITIZENS ARE, AND NOW, FROM THIS POINT ON, we are MERELY CHATTEL. We have no rights. Our rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We became chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions and obligations ARE the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes.
John William Wright Patman, Representative from Texas, speaking from the Congressional Record :
"The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation."
YES, WE WERE ALL MORTGAGED TO THE HILT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT DAY, BUT WE WILL NEVER PAY OFF THAT MORTGAGE, NEVER, UNLESS CONGRESS RESCINDS WHAT ROOSEVELT HAS DONE!
It now is no wonder that credit became so available after the Depression OR DURING THE BUSH2 TERMS. It was needed to back our monetary system.
Our debts, our obligations, our homes, our jobs , we ARE now slaves for the system. WE WERE, FROM THEN UNTIL TODAY, IN DEBT OVER OUR HEADS. OUR INDEBTEDNESS KEEPS THIS NATION AFLOAT!
From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record:
"When required to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of the Treasurer of the United States or of the Comptroller of the currency, or both, for the performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the Comptroller may be called upon to perform in carrying out the provisions of this paragraph."
THAT IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The Treasury was taken over by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Holding companies, the Depository Trust Co. and the CEDE Co., hold the assets. We are the collateral - we ourselves and our property.
To summarize: On March 9,1933 the American people in all their domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as the enemy.
The President of the united States, through licenses or any other form, was given the power to regulate and control the actions of enemies. He made We, the People, chattel property; he seized our gold, our property and our rights; and he suspended the Constitution.
And we know that current law, to this day, says that all proclamations issued heretofore or hereafter by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury are AUTOMATICALLY approved and confirmed by Congress. Pretty broad, that sweeping approval to be automatic, isn't it? BROAD ENOUGH TO RENDER THIS A POLICE STATE!
On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio "Fireside Chat" , made the following statement:
"The Secretary of the Treasury will issue licenses to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve system, whether national bank or state, located in each of the 12 Federal Reserve bank cities, to open Monday morning."
It was by this action that the Federal Reserve took over the Treasury and the banking system. Black's Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 in the following words:
"Presidential Proclamations No. 2039, issued March 6, 1933, and No. 2040, issued March 9, 1933, temporarily suspended banking transactions by member banks of the Federal Reserve System. Normal banking functions were resumed on March 13, subject to certain restrictions. The first proclamation, it was held, had no authority in law until the passage on March 9, 1933, of a ratifying act (12 U. S. C. A. Sect. 95b).
Anthony v. Bank of Wiggins, 183 Miss. 883, 184 So. 626. The present law forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking business, except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, during an emergency proclaimed by the President. 12 U.S.C.A. Sect. 95"
Take special note of the last sentence of this definition, especially the phrase, "present law". The fact that banks are under regulation of the Treasury today, is evidence that the state of emergency still exists, by virtue of the definition.
Not that, at this point, we need any more evidence to prove we are still in a declared state of national emergency.
From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12,1933
"To issue licenses permitting processors, associations of producers and others to engage in the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign commerce, of any agricultural commodity or product thereof . . ."
This is the seizure of the agricultural industry by means of licensing authority.
In the first hundred days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar seizures by licensing authority were successfully completed by the government over a plethora of other industries, among them transportation, communications, public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all natural resources. The first hundred days of FDR saw the nationalization of the united States, its people and its assets.
Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933):
"That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the united States measured thereby is declared to be against public policy; and no such policy shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred."
Indeed, our contract with the Federal Reserve was invalidated at the end of Roosevelt's hundred days. We lost our right to require our gold back from the bank in which we had deposited it.
Returning once again to the Roosevelt Papers:
"This conference of fifty farm leaders met on March 10, 1933. They agreed on recommendations for a bill, which were presented to me at the White House on March 11th by a committee of the conference, who requested me to call upon the Congress for the same broad powers to meet the emergency in agriculture as I had requested for solving the bank crisis."
What was the "broad powers"? That was the War Powers, wasn't it? And now we see the farm leaders asking President Roosevelt to use the same War Powers to take control of the agricultural industry. Well, needless to say, he did.
We should wonder about all that took place at this conference, for it to result in the eventual acquiescence of farm leadership to the governmental takeover of their livelihoods.
Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency;:
"That the present acute economic emergency being in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the prices of agriculture and other commodities, which disparity has largely destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial products, has broken down the orderly exchange of commodities, and has seriously impaired the agricultural assets supporting the national credit structure, it is hereby declared that these conditions in the basic industry of agriculture have affected transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest, have burdened and obstructed the normal currents of commerce in such commodities and rendered imperative the immediate enactment of Title 1 of this Act."
Now here we see that he is saying that the agricultural assets support the national credit structure.
Did he take the titles of all the land? Remember Contracts Payable in Gold? President Roosevelt needed the support, and agriculture was critical, because of all the millions of acres of farmland at that time, and the value of that farmland.
The mortgage on that farmland was what supported the emergency credit.
So President Roosevelt had to do something to stabilize the price of land and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create money, didn't he?
So he impressed agriculture into the public interest. The farming industry was nationalized.
We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national emergency itself must be cancelled. Reading from the 1933 Agricultural Act, Section 13:
"This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended."
Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation issued on March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress had already delegated all of that authority, and therefore was in no position to take it back.
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress:
"Furthermore, it would be largely futile task unless we have the President's active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to the President -- in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive -- we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the power without the President's acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President's signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation".
It appears that no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, and, if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not terminated for 80 years.
Now, that's no definite indication that a President from Barack Obama on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 80 years of experience would lead us to doubt that day will ever come... by itself.
But the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that it had been done?
Without the knowledge contained in this SENATE REPORT 93-549, how long do you think our blindness to this situation would have continued?
NOW, ARMED WITH THIS, WE'RE NOT AS 'IN THE DARK' AS WE WERE, BUT WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THIS INFORMATION, THIS REVELATION? WHAT DO WE INTEND TO DO, WHAT ARE WE WILLING TO DO?
In Senate Report 93-549, 1973, we find the following statement from idaho's Senator Frank Church, :
"These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased."
Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement::
"Like a loaded gun laying around the house, the plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every kind of conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than their original intention ... Machiavelli, in his "Discourses of Livy," acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the Executive if the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers in doing so. He cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good men; for men are frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time, he that is absolute may easily corrupt the people."
Now, a quote from an exclusive reply written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States, Richard G. Kleindienst, who resigned a few days later amidst the Nixon Watergate scandal, regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of the termination of the standing national emergency:
"As a consequence, a "national emergency" is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a state of "emergency" has become a permanent condition."
From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935)
"A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be expended for another, as a necessary means in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for regulating agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment Act."
What is being said here is that a tax can all be an exaction for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn't it? ISN'T IT SOCIALISM? SHOULDN'T WE JUST GO AHEAD AND CALL IT WHAT IT IS?
Quoting further from United States v. Butler:
"The regulation of farmer's activities under the statute, though in form subject to his own will, is in fact coercion through economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a farmer's consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no better. At best it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states."
Speaking of contracts, those contracts are ALL coercion contracts.
They are ADHESION contracts made by a SUPERIOR over an INFERIOR, BY THOSE WHO RULE OVER THOSE WHO ARE SUBSERVIENT. They are under the "BELLIGERENT CAPACITY" of government over ENEMIES OF THE STATE. NOT ONE OF THEM IS A VALID CONTRACT!
Again from United States v. Butler:
"If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, this clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the states in the regulation of agriculture and all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the powers of the United States and preserve the powers of the states, could be broken down, the independence of the individual states obliterated, and The Federal United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding all local control over local concerns."
Please, read the above paragraph again. The understanding of its meaning is vital.
The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal, the federal nationalization of everything, UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and they turned it down flat.
The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional.
They said, in effect, "You're turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police state, exercising uncontrolled police power." What did Roosevelt do next? HE STACKED THE SUPREME COURT! And in 1937, United States v. Butler was OVERTURNED!
From the 65th Congress, 1st Session, 1917, Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find:
"The existence of war and the restoration of peace are to be determined by the political department of the government, and such determination is binding and conclusive upon the courts, and deprives the courts of the power of hearing proof and determining as a question of fact either that war exists or has ceased to exist."
The courts will tell you that is a political question, for they (the courts) do not have jurisdiction over the common law.
The courts were deprived of the Constitution.
They were deprived of the common law.
There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we have no persona standi in judicio.
THAT WORD "PRIZE" IS VERY IMPORTANT, SO MORE ON THAT A BIT LATER.
We have no personal standing under the law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find:
"When the sovereign authority shall choose to bring it into operation, the judicial department must give effect to its will. But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation can exist in the court."
Now remember, WE THE PEOPLE are SOVEREIGN, under the Constitution for the united States."
From Senate Report 93-549 :
"Just how effective a limitation on crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the emergency activities of the President and Congress.
It is highly unlikely that the separation of powers and the 10th Amendment will be called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with a serious national emergency."
So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
And from that same Senate Report, in the section entitled, "Emergency Administration",
"Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was Roosevelt's general policy to assign new, emergency functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments."
BUSH2 DID THE VERY SAME THING! REMEMBER? So, NOW, thousands of "temporary" 'emergency' agencies are sitting out there with 'emergency' functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.
IN PARTICULAR, FEMA, CREATED UNDER CARTER, HAS THE UNQUESTIONABLE POWER TO SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS, AND BUSH2 BASICALLY ABOLISHED POSSE COMITATUS.
SEE http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/01/power-to-suspend-constitution-fema.html
WHY THE WORDS "PRIZE" AND "BOOTY" ARE IMPORTANT, AND HOW WE ARE AFFECTED BY DEFINITIONS.
Now, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to provide and maintain a navy, even during peacetime. It also says that Congress shall have the power to raise and support an army, but no appropriations of money for that purpose shall be for greater than two years. Being made aware of this,
NOW we can see that an army is NOT, or was NOT meant to be, a permanent standing body, because, in times of peace, armies were held by the sovereign states as militia. LET THAT SINK IN, PLEASE! "IN TIMES OF PEACE, ARMIES WERE HELD BY THE SOVEREIGN SATES AS MILITIA"!
So the United States STILL had a navy during peacetime, BUT NO STANDING ARMY; we had instead the INDIVIDUAL STATE MILITIAS, both organized and unorganized.
Consequently, the federal government had a standing prize court, due to the fact that it had a standing navy, whether in times of peace or war.
But in times of peace, there could be no federal police power over the continental united States, because there was to be no army, and NO jurisdiction over Sovereign American citizens!
From the report "The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United States", published by order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading entitled "The Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War", comes the following quote:
"4. Should the President desire to utilize the services of the Federal courts of the *united States* in promoting this purpose or military undertaking, since these courts derive their jurisdiction from Congress and do not constitute a part of the military establishment, they must secure from Congress the necessary action to confer such jurisdiction upon said courts."
This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property within the continental 'united States' on the land (booty), it must obtain statutory authority. [THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN "the united states, the United States", and "THE UNITED STATES", but that is for another time, not now]
HOW IS "BOOTY" DIFFERENT FROM "PRIZE"?
Let us look briefly legal definitions. The following definition of the term, "prize" is to be found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
"Goods taken on land from a public enemy are called booty; and the distinction between a prize and booty consists in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land."
The significance of the distinction between these two terms is critical.
Now let's remember that "Congress shall have the power to make rules on all captures on the land and the water." To reiterate, captures on the land are booty, and captures on the water are prize.
In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act:
"That the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act."
Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental united States. And at the time of the original, unamended Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts was appropriate.
But REMEMBER, at th
at time,WE were not yet declared the enemy. We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.
In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common law.
This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was not to come into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal from the Supreme Court to Congress.
To its credit, the Supreme Court refused transmittal and the transmittal did not occur UNTIL Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938 !
IT TOOK ROOSEVELT 4 YEARS TO FIND A WAY TO GET WHAT HE WANTED, BUT FIND A WAY HE DID!
So, on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be the public enemy under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act.
What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under?
We became the BOOTY jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress.
It would no longer be necessary , or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution for the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime BOOTY jurisdiction. Take a look at the American flag in most American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag designates Admiralty jurisdiction. ADMIRALTY, NAVAL, ON LAND!
Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 states:
"Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a), and in view of the continued existence of the national emergencies..."
Later, in the same Executive Order, we find the following:
"...under the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a)..."
Section 5 (b) certainly seems to be an oft-cited support for Presidential authority, doesn't it? Surely the reason for this can be found by referring back to the words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93-549, REMEMBER?: "My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything."
The question here, and it should be a question SHOUTED by every Sovereign American, is what type of acts can "almost anything" cover?
What has been, and is being, done, by our government under the cloak of authority conferred by Section 5 (b)?
By now, I think just maybe you are beginning to know.
NEVER FORGET, YOU ARE SOVEREIGN AMERICANS, NO MATTER WHAT THE
TRAITORS YOU ELECT SAY, NO MATTER WHAT ANY PRESIDENT OR SUPREME COURT
SAYS, THE CONSTITUTION MAKES YOU A SOVEREIGN. Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered?
That's hard to say...
In Public Law 94412, September 14, 1976, three years after they started, we find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the "national emergencies" since 1933 , and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies.
Wonderful, you may say, we can heave a sigh of relief at this BRAVE decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, yes?
IT WOULD HAVE IF CONGRESS HAD CARRIED THROUGH! WE COULD HAVE SEEN AN END TO OUR SERFDOM RIGHT THERE, BUT NO, NO, THAT STILL HASN'T HAPPENED!
We are STILL in that often-repeated national emergency, and that power that FDR seized, once grasped, is obviously too difficult for either Congress or the President to let go of.
It really should come as no surprise when we read, therefore, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 , the following words:
"(a): The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (1 2 U. S. C. 95a; 50 U. S. C. App. 5b)"
SO, NO, THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED AT ALL...NOR ARE THEY LIKELY TO IF WE CONTINUE TO HOPE AGAINST ALL HOPE THAT CONGRESS WILL HAVE THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE OR ANY PRESIDENT THE HONOR TO STOP THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL. IT WILL BE UP TO US, ALL OF US ACTING AS ONE, TO END THIS INSANITY THIS TREASON, THIS LONG LIE!
The alarming situation in which 'We, the People' find ourselves today SHOULD cause us to think back to that time over two hundred years ago when our forefathers were also laboring under the burden of governmental usurpation of individual rights.
Their response, written in 1774, two years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the attempts of Great Britain to retain extraordinary powers it had held during a time of war became known as the " Declaration Of Colonial Rights:
Resolutions Of The First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774", and in that document, you will find these words:
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of the courts ofadmiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county."
Can you see now that we have come full circle to the situation which existed in 1774, but with one critical difference: In 1774, Americans were protesting against a colonial power which sought to bind and control its colony by wartime powers in a time of peace.
In 2013, it is our own government which has sought, quite successfully to date, to bind its OWN people by the same subtle, insidious method?
WE ARE BACK TO 1776, WITH NO CONSTITUTION, AND NO SOVEREIGNTY WHATSOEVER, MERELY CHATTEL, MORTGAGED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO WHATEVER FOREIGN POWER WE MAY OWE MONEY TO, OUR PROPERTY NOT OUR OWN, NOR OUR RIGHT TO THE LIBERTY AFFORDED US BY OUR CONSTITUTION. WE ARE SURROUNDED BY THE ENEMY, AND THE ENEMY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND WE HAVE BEEN DECLARED 'ENEMIES' TO THAT STATE!
Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states:
"Treason against the united States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Is the Act of March 9, 1933, treason? DOESN'T IT APPEAR TO BE HIGH TREASON TO YOU NOW? That would be for the common law courts to decide, you may say.
WE DON'T HAVE COMMON LAW, AND NO CONSTITUTION TO SUPPORT US IN ANY COURT IN THIS LAND! WE ARE UNDER A "NATIONAL EMERGENCY", REMEMBER? THAT SUSPENDS ALL LAW!
NO, Americans, at this point in our nation's history, the point is moot, for common law, and the Constitution itself, simply do not operate or even exist at present.
Governmental acts of THEFT of the nation's real money, its GOLD, THEFT of citizens' property, and THEFT of our American liberty as an ideal and a reality have occurred since 1933, continues today, and IS TREASON against the people of the united States.
What FDR and all since him have done IS TREASON, AND ALL ARE TRAITORS, as the term is defined by the Constitution of the united States itself.
THAT is why the scoundrels have done away with that document!
Can they be HANGED for high treason, for vowing, making oaths to uphold a Constitution they have suspended, rendered impotent by their complicity with the old traitor FDR?
Well, that can't even be determined or argued in the legal sense at this point in time, can it? Not until the Constitution itself is reestablished can we so much as charge our electeds with such a crime, though we see they are GUILTY!
ALL THOSE WHICH PREY ON OTHERS GET BLOOD ON THEMSELVES AT SOME POINT...AS THEY ATTACK, AS THEY FEED, AS THEY REST FROM THEIR KILL. LOOK AT OUR ELECTEDS! WHAT DO YOU SEE?
Every American who is thankful for the opportunity to even call themselves American must also accept the responsibility that comes with that blessing.
We, the People, all of us, have not only a right, but a responsibility to each other today, to those who have gone before us to carve out this Republic, and to those who will follow who can only count on us to PRESERVE this Republic, to WATCH, to QUESTION, to ferret out what our government is doing, and to judge whether their actions are FOR the "public good", if they are NOT acting for our best interests, to SHOUT our disapproval, to let them know when we see them acting like a pack of TRAITORS, like a pack of ravenous wolves devouring our LIBERTY, making us mere SERFS of the POLICE STATE they have formed behind closed doors, WITHOUT OUR CONSENT!
THAT, AND THAT ALONE IS THE DEBT WE MUST HONOR... THE DEBT TO STAND GUARD ON THE WALL, TO PROTECT WHAT WAS GAINED FOR US BY THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR VERY LIVES FOR US! LIKE FRANKLIN SAID, WE HAVE A REPUBLIC ONLY IF WE CAN KEEP IT...ONLY IF WE, THE PEOPLE HAVE THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO DEMAND RESTORATION OF ALL OUR RIGHTS, ALL OUR SOVEREIGNTY, ALL OUR COMMON LAW...EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN RIPPED FROM US WITHOUT OUR CONSENT!
It is crystal clear that the FDR White House kept substantial information concerning its presidential EXECUTIVE ORDERS hidden from Congress.THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE CONGRESS!
About that Thirteenth Amendment i mentioned....do you know what that says?
DO YOU KNOW WHY OUR SOLD-OUT CONGRESS IS AFRAID OF THAT?
The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]
Also known as 'The Titles of Nobility Amendment' (TONA), this article was proposed as an amendment to the United States Constitution in 1810. The amendment would strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country, or accept money/payment/pension from same.
Upon approval of a resolution offered by U.S. Senator Philip Reed of Maryland, during the 2nd Session of the 11th Congress, TONA was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. TONA can still technically be ratified by the states as the Congress did not impose a ratification time limit, but it has not been ratified by three-fourths of the states and thus is not part of the Constitution.
The law is still there, waiting to be publicly recognized and enforced once again to "protect the Sovereignty and Interests" of WE, THE PEOPLE, and to force the elected representatives of the people to adhere strictly to their solemn and binding Oath of Office, i.e.,
"I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." , and to the LIMITATIONS of government imposed by the Constitution."
YES, IT DOES EXIST!
YES, WE CAN HAVE THAT APPLIED, BUT THE CONGRESS WOULD BE CHANGED BY IT FOREVER!
As far as public opinion is concerned, how many Americans are even aware that THIS exists, or that a state of national emergency even exists, OR WHY? For that matter, how many members of Congress know? …
With this latest declaration of a state of national emergency, the Obama administration is essentially arguing that the United States is currently in a state of resisting foreign invasion, or is at war, a DECLARED WAR, A WAR THAT MUST BE DECLARED BY CONGRESS, WHICH FDR, G.H.W. AND G.W. BUSH AND OBAMA HAVE ALL FOUND A WAY AROUND.
THAT IS NOT TRUE! IT WASN'T TRUE WHEN BUSH1 AND BUSH2 SAID IT, AND IT IS NOT TRUE NOW! WE HAVE HAD NO CONGRESS DECLARE WAR SINCE 1941, AND THEY WERE UNAWARE THEN THAT FDR HAD BEEN WARNED, MUCH AS BUSH2 WAS, THAT A FOREIGN NATION WAS ABOUT TO ATTACK THE U.S. THAT HAS ONLY RECENTLY BEEN ADMITTED...IN BOTH CASES!
IF WE WERE TO CAST ABOUT FOR A REASON TO DECLARE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY, IT MIGHT BE THIS: OUR GOVERNMENT IS INFESTED WITH VERMIN, WITH SCURRILOUS TRAITORS, WITH OFFICIALS GIVEN OVER TO GREED, TO POWER-MADNESS, TO DESTRUCTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR LIBERTY, AND OUR NATION'S ECONOMY AND WELL-BEING. THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS INDEED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY!
THERE ARE SEVERAL AMAZING BOOKS I RECOMMEND ON THIS, WARNINGS FROM AS FAR BACK AS 1890, DESPERATE WARNINGS FROM THE EARLY 1900s.
MOST CAN BE FOUND ONLINE, FREE FOR THE READING.
WHEN WE STOPPED READING, WE STOPPED KNOWING...KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
LET ME HASTEN TO REMIND YOU ALL OF THE IMPORTANCE OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY: "Laws
that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse
for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (1764)-- Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment
AND NEVER, EVER FORGET...
<<The
time to organize resistance is not AFTER censorship, but BEFORE it. The
time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being
threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been
upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard
our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow
us to plan and use all materials necessary for resistance. We submit
that only the following meet that criteria:
freedom of speech
and of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble--so that we may
advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and instruct others how to
carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment);
the right to
keep and bear arms -- so that we may have appropriate force in our
hands should we need it, and be trained to use such force as necessary
(2nd Amendment);
the right to be let alone -- so that we may
be free of government intrusion in our lives, liberty, and property (3rd
Amendment));
the right to be secure in our persons,
dwellings, papers, and property from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches
and seizures -- so that our records, ideological materials, and weapons
will remain in our hands (4th Amendment).>>
"I
believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private
banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then
by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the
banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their
children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . .
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the
people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate
Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)
INSCRIPTIONS ON FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES 1913 . . . TO . . . 1934
"Redeemable
in Gold on demand at the United States Treasury or in Lawful money, at
any Federal Reserve Bank." "Will pay to the bearer on demand one
dollar."
1934 . . . TO . . . 1968
"This note is legal
tender for all debts public and private and is redeemable in lawful
money at the United States Treasury, or any Federal Reserve bank." "Will
pay to the bearer on demand one dollar."
1968 . . . TO . . . 1998
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
THERE IS NO PROMISE TO PAY, NOR IS A NOTE A DOLLAR!!
And the New $100 "off center" Franklin bill issued in 1998
and the other "off center" bills issued since are no longer even
against a Federal Reserve Bank, the Seal is that of the Federal Reserve
System ... THE SEAL THAT HAS JUST ABOUT SEALED OUR FATE AS THE
DOMINOES HAVE FALLEN FROM WILSON'S CREATION OF THE FED IN 1913 TO FDR'S
TAKEOVER OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS IN 1933, UNTIL NOW, 2013, AS OBAMA
REAFFIRMS THE DISHONORABLE INTENT OF THE POLICE STATE THAT WE HAVE
ALLOWED TO BECOME REALITY."NATIONAL EMERGENCY"? ONLY IF WE AGREE THAT WE ARE UNDER ATTACK FROM WITHIN!
NATION IN DISTRESS, NATION IN DISTRESS! OUR FLAG FLOWN UPSIDE DOWN SIGNIFIES THAT WE ARE IN DIRE DANGER, THAT SOMETHING MOST TERRIBLE HAS HAPPENED TO OUR AMERICA! DO SOMETHING, PLEASE! HELP HER! SHE'S ALL WE HAVE! CARVE OUT THE CANCER IN WASHINGTON THAT IS KILLING HER!
