The Fall of Mainstream Media: When Propaganda Fails, Humanity Awakens

 

Dees Illustration

Jeff Berwick
Activist Post
It doesn't happen often, but The New York Times (NYT) has truthfully reported on something recently.
On what did it report? Well, on itself, and how alarmed it is due to its own increasing irrelevance in the face of new sources of information.
NYT is well-aware of the "New Media," as a 96-page internal report, sent to top executives last month, makes clear. Obtained by Buzzfeed, the report "paints a dark picture of a newsroom struggling more dramatically than is immediately visible to adjust to the digital world, a newsroom that is hampered primarily by its own storied culture."
The report ignores its traditional mainstream (MSM) competitors and takes a closer look at new digital companies like First Look Media, Vox, Huffington Post, Business Insider and Buzzfeed.
“They are ahead of us in building impressive support systems for digital journalists, and that gap will grow unless we quickly improve our capabilities,” the report states. “Meanwhile, our journalism advantage is shrinking as more of these upstarts expand their newsrooms.”
“We are not moving with enough urgency,” it says.
A central issue for NYT is “a cadre of editors who remain unfamiliar with the web.”
“Many desks lack editors who even know how to evaluate digital work,” the report continues.
A few suggestions NYT is looking into is a TED talks-style event series and an expanded op-ed platform, including location-based local news and information.
But it is too late...

STATING THE OBVIOUS
At the very least, thank you, NYT, for stating the truth even though it was an internal document not meant for the public. And, even if it was already painfully obvious. Still it took bravery for such a dinosaur to admit its own obsolescence.
The paper's model is obsolete, but even worse than the model has been the paper's lack of interest in the truth. As the US empire has grown more out of control, more dangerous, and more insane, the NYT has functioned as a fourth branch of government, a gatekeeper for a totalitarian world a la 1984 or Brave New World.
But the gig is up. The world knows NYT's complicity in erecting a sick and deranged world, and unless the paper breaks major news stories and outs itself as an undeniable friend of freedom, it will continue to lose revenue. No more can NYT expect to serve the elite and its bottom line at the same time.  In the age of the Internet, what David Rockefeller was once grateful for is no longer possible:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years...It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.

Mainstream media is definitely dying, and this is a VERY good thing. The root of the word government combine as "to control minds."  The root of the word "govern" is control and the root of "ment" is mind.  Without control over minds via the media, the government will lose all control. More young people now get their news from the Internet than television. In mere years most everybody will get their news from the Internet because nobody will trust the mainstream:

This data shows that it is really only those over 65 years old who are still completely brainwashed. Not all, of course.  But many or most. 
Newsweek (which I call Newspeak) has released its last print issue. You'll remember one of Newsweek's last attempts to be relevant again was uncovering the wrong Satoshi Nakamoto as the creator of bitcoin. They found some guy with the right name in the phone book...You know, "quality journalism"...
Clearly the only valuable part of MSM media sites is in the comments section which debunks 90% of the articles published. Popular Science was so overwhelmed by people bringing facts into many of their articles that the site shut off its comments section.
CNN's viewership is at a record-low (the network recently laid off 40 journalists), while CNBC has suffered a viewership collapse as well.

But once Larry King said that CNN would be better off showing re-runs of Spongebob Squarepants 24 hours a day, you knew it was over...
Larry King left CNN because he knew it would collapse. He left CNN for the Russian government propaganda channel, RT, because it is more respected and features more truth about the West. Twenty years ago, this would be have been unheard of for Larry King! A career-ender! Not today...Nope. Today it is a respect-earner. Oh, how things have changed...
THE NEW MEDIA TAKEOVER
The New Media has taken over. Alex Jones is almost a household name and groups like Luke Rudkowski's We Are Change have revolutionized how people get information. (Editor's Note: We Are Change offers "Change Media University" to learn how to become a real investigative journalist that we highly recommend.  Forget traditional school). For years now the most popular MSM personalities, like Glenn Beck, have followed the playbook of new media personalities in a bid to remain relevant. Now, in order to remain relevant people like Glenn Beck need to quote or interview people in the "alternative media".
It was not all that long ago that John Kerry and Zbigniew Brzezinski said that the Internet, simply put, is making it hard for them to govern. Secretary of Statism, John Kerry, before a group of State Department workers told the audience that the world has been "complicated" by "... this little thing called the Internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year."
According to Kerry, the Internet "makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest."
Z-Big echoed his sentiment, saying that public access to information stopped war with Syria.
Bill Clinton, laughingly even suggested the need for a "Ministry of Truth" over the Internet, run by the US federal government, that would censor anything it did not deem to be "truth".
In 5-10 years people will look at you funny if you tell them you watch mainstream media. Why? Because there is no real information nor substance on mainstream media. If you want to know what's happening in your world, and what's important, then stay tuned to The Dollar Vigilante Blog and The Dollar Vigilante Newsletter where we break down The End Of The Monetary System As We Know It (TEOTMSAWKI) in a manner upon which you can act. More than editorials, the TDV team is determined to augment our reader's lives beyond the capacity of the dinosaur mainstream media.
To comment on this article click here.
Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.

The Fall of Mainstream Media: When Propaganda Fails, Humanity Awakens
Activist
Sat, 17 May 2014 14:33:00 GMT

If You Are Doing Nothing Wrong You Have PLENTY to Fear – 30 Examples

 

Posted on April 25, 2014by Food for the Thinkers

By Doug Newman – email me
________________________________________________________

Sometimes I just want to pimp slap people.

Last summer, I was at dinner during a sales convention. The conversation didn’t get political until someone mentioned the NSA.

There is one in every crowd. Someone piped up and said, “They can spy on me all they want. I am not doing anything wrong.”

They sang this song in Germany in 1933. And they sang it with unprecedented gusto in the months following 9/11, all in the name of  “security” and “keeping us safe”.

We were at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, the world’s second largest hotel. Nothing in the post-9/11 “national security” apparatus would prevent a terrorist from walking in, setting off a bomb, and killing hundreds or even thousands of people.

The more important questions are: How do you know you are doing nothing that could be construed as wrong by some state functionary? How do you know you are not breaking some law somewhere? And why are you so implicitly trusting that your government would never do anything evil with the information it has collected on you?

This is not purely an academic matter. The practical implications are profound.

I give you several examples.

1. Niakea Williams went to her son’s St. Louis-area elementary school one day to pick up her son, who has Asperger’s. The school was put on lockdown and Mrs. Williams was escorted out in handcuffs.

2. Adrionna Harris was almost expelled from her middle school in Virginia Beach after taking a razor blade away from a fellow student who was trying to harm himself.

3. Read what Houston police did to this man who gave 75 cents to a homeless person.

4. A little known Denver parking ordinance can get you a $25 fine even if you haven’t exceeded the two-hour limit.

5. Police in Iowa City, Iowa, seized $50,000 from this couple without charging them with a crime.

6. Alberto Willmore lost his teaching job in Manhattan over a totally bogus marijuana arrest. Even though he was never convicted of anything, he was unable to get his job back.

7. Norman Gurley was arrested in Lorain County, Ohio, because a compartment in his car could have been used to transport drugs.

8. Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies shot and killed 80-year-old Eugene Mallory in his own bed during a meth raid. No meth, or any other illegal drugs, was discovered.

9. Paul Valin contacted police to report that he found a backpack full of what he believed to be meth-making equipment 15 miles from his home near Des Moines. As a result, the DEA placed his house on its list of meth labs.

Ryan Holle

10. Ryan Holle of Pensacola, Florida, lent his roommate his car on night in 2004. As a result, Holle is currently serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for pre-meditated murder.

11. New York police seized Gerald Bryan’s cash in a nighttime raid in 2012. Even though Bryan was cleared of any wrongdoing, the stolen cash was deposited in the NYPD pension fund.

12. Robert Duncan is currently serving two years in a California prison, even though the business in which he worked was legal in California.

13. Jordan Wiser spent 13 days in jail after Jefferson, Ohio, police found a pocketknife during a warrantless search of his car.

14. During a school lockdown in Clarksville, Tennessee, David Duren-Sanner gave police permission to search his car as he had “nothing to hide”. Police found a fishing knife. Duren-Sanner, who previously had never been to the principal’s office, was suspended for 10 days and then sent to an alternative school for 90 days.

15. Look what happened to these parents in Napa, California, even though the medical marijuana prescriptions they had were completely legal.

Eileen and Brandon Bower

16. Eileen Ann Bower of suburban Pittsburgh had her newborn child taken from her for 75 days because of a false positive drug test.

17. Jerry Hartfield of Bay City, Texas, has spent the majority of his life in prison, even though his conviction was overturned in 1980.

18. Jason Dewing of update New York wasfound guilty of violating a law that did not exist.

19. Don Miller of Waldron, Indiana, had his home raided by FBI agents who seized hundreds of cultural artifacts from around the world. Miller was neither arrested nor charged with anything.

Fedcoats raid Don Miller’s house.

20. This San Diego couple was pepper-sprayed and tasered by police who had erroneously identified their vehicle after being stolen.

21. The good news is that Brian Aitken of Mount Laurel, New Jersey, had his prison sentence commuted. The bad news is that he was originally sentenced to seven years behind bars for possessing two legally purchased guns.

22. This special needs student in McDonald, Pennsylvania, was charged with felony wiretapping for recording other students who were bullying him mercilessly.

Abner Schoenwetter

23. Abner Schoenwetter of Miami served over six years in prison for – you can’t make this stuff up – violating Honduran fisheries law.

24. Read what happened to John Filippidis of Hudson, Florida, when he was pulled over by state police while driving unarmed through Maryland.

25. In a case of mistaken identity, Lewis James of Durham, North Carolina, “was handcuffed and later jailed under a $1.425 million bond” after he had contacted the police to notify them of a dead body in the middle of the road. As someone put it on Facebook, “Don’t call the cops. Ever. Even if you find a dead body. Just don’t ever call the cops.”

26. Read what happened to Diane Avera of Meridian, Mississippi, when she went to Alabama to buy Sudafed, even though she did not know that this was illegal.

Andy Johnson and family.

27. Andy Johnson of Uinta County, Wyoming, faces EPA fines of $75,000 per day for building a pond on land that he owns.

28. Douglas Zerby of Long Beach was shot and killed by police while watering his lawn because some idiot neighbor thought the hose nozzle was a gun.

29. Darien Roseen was arrested and had his vehicle searched by sheriff’s deputies in Payette County, Idaho, simply because his Colorado license plates led them to believe that he could have been carrying marijuana.

Brian Banks was a high school All-American linebacker whose career and life were interrupted by a false rape conviction. The Atlanta Falcons gave Banks a tryout in 2013.

30. Brian Banks of Long Beach spent five years in prison and five more years as a registered sex offender as a result of a rape conviction. And then his accuser changed her story.

These are not “isolated incidents.” There are no doubt countless other examples of people who were doing nothing wrong, yet were harshly punished.

Also, consider the following:

• The Internal Revenue Code is 73,955 pages and millions of words long. No one has read it cover-to-cover and no one knows every aspect of it. Yet if anyone violates any of its provisions it can mean fines, prison or even death.

• We are often told that “ignorance of the law is no defense.” To the right is a picture of the Yale Law Library. Do you know every law contained within these tomes?

• Read what various emissaries of the Amerikan police state have done to these veterans who went all over the world to“fight for our freedom.”

• Seventy-two types of Americans are classified as terrorists in various government documents. Senator Harry Reid has now added a seventy-third category.
• Read how police have used asset forfeiture laws to seize millions of dollars from people without charging them with any crimes.

• Read this list of eight ways people commit felonies without even knowing it.

• Read this article and pay special attention to these words from former NSA official William Binney: “The problem is, if they think they’re not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does.”
• Read how the Innocence Project has helped exonerate over 300 wrongfully imprisoned people, many of whom were on death row.
• Attorney Harvey Silverglate argues that the average American commits three felonies a day without even knowing it.
• This Ford executive claims that, thanks to GPS, “we know everyone who breaks the law.”
• Although it has been estimated that there are over 3000 types of federal criminal offenses, no one knows the exact number for sure.

So, do you still feel you have nothing to fear?
__________________________________
Fascinating article from The Chronicle of Higher Education:“Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”.

How the NSA & FBI made Facebook the perfect mass surveillance tool

How the NSA & FBI made Facebook the perfect mass surveillance tool

Image Credit: ansik

May 15, 2014 6:48 AM
Harrison Weber

Update May 15 at 3:11 PM ET: Facebook and Akamai responded to VentureBeat’s report.

The National Security Agency and the FBI teamed up in October 2010 to develop techniques for turning Facebook into a surveillance tool.

Documents released alongside security journalist Glenn Greenwald’s new book, “No Place To Hide,” reveal the NSA and FBI partnership, in which the two agencies developed techniques for exploiting Facebook chats, capturing private photos, collecting IP addresses, and gathering private profile data.

According to the slides below, the agencies’ goal for such collection was to capture “a very rich source of information on targets,” including “personal details, ‘pattern of life,’ connections to associates, [and] media.”

NSA documents make painfully clear how the agencies collected information “by exploiting inherent weaknesses in Facebook’s security model” through its use of the popular Akamaicontent delivery network. The NSA describes its methods as “assumed authentication,” and “security through obscurity.”

The slide below shows how the NSA and U.K. spy agency GCHQ also worked together to “obtain profile and album images.”

Two months ago, following a series of Facebook-related NSA spying leaks, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg stated in a blog post that he’s “confused and frustrated by the repeated reports of the behavior of the U.S. government.”

According to a report by The Intercept, the above slides do not reveal the NSA’s Facebook surveillance program in full. The report states that the NSA also “disguises itself as a fake Facebook server” to perform “man-in-the-middle” and “man-on-the-side” attacks and spread malware [below].

As we wrote at the time, the “NSA’s Facebook targeting is reportedly a response to the declining success of other malware injection techniques. Previous techniques included the use of “spam emails that trick targets into clicking a malicious link.”

Following the report, released in March, Zuckerberg said, “When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we’re protecting you against criminals, not our own government.”

Zuckerberg claimed he disapproved of the NSA’s actions and said that he’s spoken to president Barack Obama by phone to “express [his] frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future.”

VentureBeat has reached out to both Akamai and Facebook for comment on the matter.

Everyone should know just how much the government lied to defend the NSA

A web of deception has finally been untangled: the Justice Department got the US supreme court to dismiss a case that could have curtailed the NSA's dragnet. Why?

 

• 

  • Trevor Timm

  • theguardian.com, Saturday 17 May 2014 07.54 EDT

It turns out neither of two statements that held up in the nation's highest court were true – but it took Snowden's historic whistleblowing to prove it. Photograph: Philippe Lopez / AFP / Getty Images

If you blinked this week, you might have missed the news: two Senatorsaccused the Justice Department of lying about NSA warrantless surveillance to the US supreme court last year, and those falsehoods all but ensured that mass spying on Americans would continue. But hardly anyone seems to care – least of all those who lied and who should have already come forward with the truth.

Here's what happened: just before Edward Snowden became a household name, the ACLU argued before the supreme court that the Fisa Amendments Act – one of the two main laws used by the NSA to conduct mass surveillance – was unconstitutional.

In a sharply divided opinion, the supreme court ruled, 5-4, that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have "standing" – in other words, that the ACLU couldn't prove with near-certainty that their clients, which included journalists and human rights advocates, were targets of surveillance, so they couldn't challenge the law. As the New York Times noted this week, the court relied on two claims by the Justice Department to support their ruling: 1) that the NSA would only get the content of Americans' communications without a warrant when they are targeting a foreigner abroad for surveillance, and 2) that the Justice Department would notify criminal defendants who have been spied on under the Fisa Amendments Act, so there exists some way to challenge the law in court.

It turns out that neither of those statements were true – but it took Snowden's historic whistleblowing to prove it.

One of the most explosive Snowden revelations exposed a then-secret technique known as "about" surveillance. As the New York Times first reported, the NSA "is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans' e-mail and text communications into and out of the country, hunting for people who mention information about foreigners under surveillance." In other words, the NSA doesn't just target a contact overseas – it sweeps up everyone's international communications into a dragnet and searches them for keywords.

The Snowden leaks also pushed the Justice Department to admit – contrary to what it told the court – that the government hadn't been notifying any defendants they were being charged based on NSA surveillance, making it actually impossible for anyone to prove they had standing to challenge the Fisa Amendments Act as unconstitutional.

It's unclear how much Solicitor General Donald Verrilli knew when he told the government's lies – twice – to the justices of the supreme court.Reports suggest that he was livid when he found out that his national security staff at the Justice Department misled him about whether they were notifying defendants in criminal trials of surveillance. And we don't know if he knew about the "about" surveillance that might well have given the ACLU standing in the case. But we do know other Justice Department officials knew about both things, and they have let both lies stand without correcting the record.

Lawyers before the supreme court are under an ethical obligation to correct the record if they make false statements to the Court – even if they are unintentional – yet the Justice Department has so far refused. As ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer explained, the Justice Department has corrected the record in other cases where it was much less clear-cut whether it had misled the court.

The government's response, instead, has been to explain why it doesn't think these statements are lies. In a letter to Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall that only surfaced this week, the government made the incredible argument that the "about" surveillance was classified at the time of the case, so it was under no obligation to tell the supreme court about it. And the Justice Department completely sidestepped the question of whether it lied about notifying defendants, basically by saying that it started to do so after the case, and so this was somehow no longer an issue.

But there's another reason the government wanted any challenge to the Fisa Amendments Act dismissed without being forced to argue that it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment: it has an extremely controversial view about your (lack of) privacy rights, and probably doesn't want anyone to know. As Jaffer wrote here at the Guardian earlier this week, the government has since been forced to defend the Fisa Amendments Act, and it's pretty shocking how they've done it. Here's what the government said in a recent legal brief:

The privacy rights of US persons in international communications are significantly diminished, if not completely eliminated, when those communications have been transmitted to or obtained from non-US persons located outside the United States.

This is an incredibly radical view of the right to privacy. We already know the government does not think you have any right to privacy when it comes who you talk to, or when, or for how long, or where you are while you're talking. Now the government has said, in court, that you don't have any right to the content of private conversations with anyone who is located outside the United States – or to any domestic communication remaining private if it is, at some point, transmitted overseas, which happens often. Jaffer explained the consequences of this view:

If the government is right, nothing in the Constitution bars the NSA from monitoring a phone call between a journalist in New York City and his source in London. For that matter, nothing bars the NSA from monitoring every call and email between Americans in the United States and their non-American friends, relatives, and colleagues overseas.

Intelligence director James Clapper's infamous lie to Congress – in which he claimed just months before Snowden's leaks that the NSA was not collecting data on millions of Americans – will certainly follow him for the rest of his career even if it never leads to his prosecution. But while Clapper almost certainly broke the law, the senate committee members in front of whom he spoke knew the truth regardless.

The Justice Department, on the other hand, convinced the supreme court to dismiss a case that could have dramatically curtailed the NSA's most egregious abuses of power based on false statements. And now all of us are forced to live with the consequences of that.

Veterans scandal risks engulfing Obama

VETERANS SCANDAL RISKS ENGULFING OBAMA

May 16, 2014
Share It | Print This

SOURCE: FINANCIAL TIMES

Amid contrived outrage over Benghazi and the improving fortunes of its healthcare reform, the Obama administration could be facing a genuine scandal about its treatment of military veterans that has the potential to attract broad political condemnation of its competence.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is facing mounting evidence that some of the hospitals it runs have been keeping two sets of books to make it look as if they were reducing waiting times to see a doctor.

More damning, the department is investigating the claims of a whistleblower doctor in Arizona that dozens of patients at one hospital died while they were languishing on a hidden waiting list without ever being given an appointment.

Richard Griffin, the department’s acting inspector general, admitted on Thursday that its review could lead to criminal charges. In the first political casualty of the scandal, Robert Petzel, the department’s undersecretary for heath, resigned on Friday.

Megyn Kelly: Obama is “Out of Control… Impeach Him!” [VIDEO]

 

After the latest revelations in the IRS targeting scandal and the Benghazi terrorist attacks, the demands for impeachment of President Obama are picking up steam again. Until this point, discussion of impeachment has pretty much been a moot point, as Democrats control the Senate and will never go along with an impeachment trial.  But when

Related posts:

1. Megyn Kelly: Why Not Impeach Barack Obama? (Click to Watch)
2. [VIDEO] Megyn Kelly Refuses to Surrender to Angry Muslims
3. Megyn Kelly Destroys Pro-Obamacare Congressman For Attacking Cancer Patient (VIDEO)

Megyn Kelly: Obama is “Out of Control… Impeach Him!” [VIDEO]
Ben Marquis
Sat, 17 May 2014 16:16:05 GMT

These Are The States That Are Rebelling Against Obama

These Are The States That Are Rebelling Against Obama

A growing number of stateshave grown tired of the overreaching federal government and the smothering regulations promulgated daily by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

States are beginning to rebel against the federal government, using their Tenth Amendment protected state’s rights and sovereigntyto nullify federal laws and regulations that they deem to be unconstitutional and incompatible with their state’s laws.

Although there is literally an endless list of federal laws, rules, and regulations made by a variety of federal departments and agencies, the vast majority of which could be deemed an unconstitutional encroachment on the rights of states and people, the current brewing rebellion is mostly occurring in regards to Obamacare and federal gun control laws.

Follow Conservative Tribune

There is also a separate movement growing that is seeking to form a Convention of States for the purpose of adding some amendments to the Constitution designed to rein in the overspending and corrupt federal government.

Obamacare

There are at least nine states that have taken steps to nullify Obamacare.  They are able to do this by following a fairly simple four step process.

(Step 1) Ban state enforcement, participation, and material support.

(Step 2) Reject Medicaid expansion.

(Step 3) Protect residents from mandates.

(Step 4) Challenge the IRS’s illegal Obamacare taxes.

Some of the states that are taking the steps to fight back against Obamacare are Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolinaand Tennessee.

Gun Control

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Unfortunately, the federal government has either forgotten or is ignoring exactly what ‘shall not be infringed’ actually means.  Over the course of history, numerous laws, statutes and regulations have been handed down from on high that do, in fact, infringe upon that basic, fundamental and inherent right of people to arm themselves.

Some states have taken steps to roll back gun control, both on the federal and local level, by overriding local ordinances, expanding gun rights, and passing legislation that nullifies federal laws within their borders, like the Second Amendment Preservation Act.

Basically, the Second Amendment Preservation Act reasserts the right of a state to determine what is best for its own citizens when it comes to gun laws.  The Act declares that any and all federal laws that are viewed as unconstitutional or an infringement of the Second Amendment will be null and void within the state, and no agent or officer of the state may enforce, or cooperate with federal enforcement of, these gun control measures.  Some states have even added criminal penalties to this act.

Some of the states that have passed or are considering legislation similar to the Second Amendment Preservation Act include Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouriand Tennessee, among others.

Convention of States

One final way that states can rebel against Obama and the federal government is through an Article V Convention of the States.

A Convention of States is based upon a provision within Article V of the Constitution, which deals with the amendment process.  If 2/3 of states submit special applications, they can call for a convention that will propose new amendments to the Constitution through state delegates.  If 3/4 of the state legislatures agree on the proposed amendments, they will become part of the Constitution, bypassing both Congress and the President.

A number of states have become involved in the process, and are at various stages of their consideration and application process for the Convention.  As of right now, only a couple of states have actually completed the process, so a convention is not likely to happen anytime soon, but it is in the works.

States, and the people in them, need to stand up for their rights and declare their sovereignty to the federal government.  The founders and framers knew what an overreaching and tyrannical government could be like, and tried to prevent something similar from occurring in America when they wrote the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the federal government has mostly slipped the bounds that were set upon it by the Constitution, and has become unmoored from it’s foundation.  It is time for the states and people to reassert their rights and authority over the federal government, which is supposed to work for us.

US unlawful wars is ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ tragic-comedy: defining ‘clothes,’ ‘wear,’ ‘self-defense’

US unlawful wars is ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ tragic-comedy: defining ‘clothes,’ ‘wear,’ ‘self-defense’

Posted on May 17, 2014 by Carl Herman

The Emperor’s New Clothes is the same story as current US wars: both are “official” stories easily and completely refuted by the evidence. Both are tragic-comedies because even children can see the truth with a few moments of attention.

The Emperor’s New Clothes has government officials, messengers (corporate media), and many in the public claim that political leadership is “covered” by the noblest of appearances, and that those who fail to perceive this are either “unfit for his position” or “hopelessly stupid.”

The game-changing fact is that the emperor is naked, and not even close to wearing clothes.

This fact is easily explained, objectively observed, and proved. Indeed, a child points it out with easy confidence, irrefutable accuracy, and proves the official story has zero credibility for any objective observer.

In the story, upon public initial conversations of the facts, the emperor continues the pretense, along with two “officials.” However, the illusion is shattered within moments as the “whole town” began speaking about what was clear for anyone who cared to look.

If we had to document the facts that refute the official story, we would probably define a few key terms:

• clothes: material for the human body to be worn for adornment and coverage.
• wear: in context of clothing, to have clothes intentionally placed on one’s body. This is opposed to having clothes in one’s closet or dresser not on one’s body.

The story isn’t explicit whether the emperor was naked or with underwear, and the child’s recorded testimony is, “he hasn’t got anything on.” If he wasn’t naked, with a little more work we could prove that people clearly distinguish between underwear and clothing, no matter how new the underwear arguably may be.

Therefore, with just a little work, we refute the “official story,” and use the facts to make ridiculous any argument in support of this official story.

And importantly, if we did have to document our evidence even though clear to a child’s examination within moments, it would take some work to write and read, just as our next argument will take with current US unlawful wars.

US unlawful wars: The US “official story” is that current US wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.”

The game-changer here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and the facts of US armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the meaning of this term.

Among dozens in independent media, I’ve explained and documented (here and here recently) that“self-defense” has a universally agreed meaning in use of a nation’s military for armed attack: you can only used armed attack on another nation if that nation’s government has attacked your nation, or there is provable imminent threat of attack.

Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat of attack. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.

As the above two links document, and you may recall, no nation’s government attacked the US on 9/11, and US officials agreed they had no evidence of any imminent threat. Despite this crystal-clear legal limit, and legal recourse through the UN Security Council for any security concern, the US has used armed attacks on many nations despite not meeting the legal requirement to do so.

In addition, US official reports now confirm all “reasons” the US told for these armed attacks were known to be false as they were told.

The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:

1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit),
2. likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

A child can discern this if paying attention: if he/she saw someone physically attack you as you were simply walking along, the child could safely conclude that you did not attack the person, and did nothing to cause concern for any danger.

The child could also tell that if the person responded to you after you hit him, or that you picked up a bottle and shouted with anger causing the person to respond to that threat, that these cases would justify the person’s self-defense.

Moral of the stories: Certainly, as an adult, you can tell the difference in both categories of personal and national self-defense when you pay attention to the facts. And if you wish to have civil and political freedom, certainly you recognize the game to cause a critical mass of the public to also discern the game-changing facts from whatever bullsh*t our lying sacks of spin “leaders” attempt.

US wars and rhetoric for more wars continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression since theUS invaded Mexico; despite Abraham Lincoln’s powerfully accurate rhetoric of President Polk’s lies to steal half of Mexico. The most decorated US Marine general in his day also warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars for 1% plunder.

Such lie-began and unlawful US wars have killed ~30 million since WW2, arguably more than Hitler’s Nazis. Of 248 armed conflicts since WW2 the US started 201, with 90% of these ~30 million deaths being civilian; innocent children, the elderly, and ordinary working men and women.

The 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action (and here) began on the April 4 anniversary of Martin King’s assassination by the US government (civil court trial verdict), with this operation completing ~July 4 (Martin’ 2-minute plea to you).

Purpose of this operation:

• Expose 1% oligarchs in the US and elsewhere as OBVIOUS criminals centering in war, money, andmedia (also in ~100 other crucial areas).
• Cause their surrender through arrests or Truth & Reconciliation.
• Initiate true freedom for all Earth’s inhabitants to explore ready breakthroughs in economics (links here) and technology, and discover what it is to be human without psychopathic criminals whojoke about killing millions, harming billions, and looting trillions.

Why They Hate Peace - Ron Paul

[Editor’s Note: This is a selection from the last chapter of Ron Paul’s A Foreign Policy of Freedom.]

The most succinct statement about how governments get their people to support war came from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials after World War II:

Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

It is rather frightening that a convicted Nazi war criminal latched onto an eternal truth!

It should be harder to promote war, especially when there are so many regrets in the end. In the last 60 years, the American people have had little say over decisions to wage war. We have allowed a succession of presidents and the United Nations to decide when and if we go to war, without an express congressional declaration as the Constitution mandates.

Since 1945, our country has been involved in over 70 active or covert foreign engagements. On numerous occasions we have provided weapons and funds to both sides in a conflict. It is not unusual for our so-called allies to turn on us and use these weapons against American troops. In recent decades we have been both allies and enemies of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamists in Iran. And where has it gotten us? The endless costs resulting from our foolish policies, in human lives, injuries, tax dollars, inflation, and deficits, will burden generations to come. For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought. Two conditions must be met if we hope to achieve this.

First, all military (and covert paramilitary) personnel worldwide must refuse to initiate offensive wars beyond their borders. This must become a matter of personal honor for every individual. Switzerland is an example of a nation that stands strongly prepared to defend herself, yet refuses to send troops abroad looking for trouble.

Second, the true nature of war must be laid bare, and the glorification must end. Instead of promoting war heroes with parades and medals for wars not fought in the true defense of our country, we should more honestly contemplate the real results of war: death, destruction, horrible wounds, civilian casualties, economic costs, and the loss of liberty at home.

The neoconservative belief that war is inherently patriotic, beneficial, manly, and necessary for human progress must be debunked. These war promoters never send themselves or their own children off to fight.

Some believe economic sanctions and blockades are acceptable alternatives to invasion and occupation. But these too are acts of war, and those on the receiving end rarely capitulate to the pressure. More likely they remain bitter enemies, and resort to terrorism when unable to confront us in a conventional military fashion.

Inflation, sanctions, and military threats all distort international trade and hurt average people in all countries involved, while usually not really hurting the targeted dictators themselves. Our bellicose approach encourages protectionism, authoritarianism, militant nationalism, and go-it-alone isolationism. Our government preaches free trade and commerce, yet condemns those who want any restraints on the use of our military worldwide. We refuse to see how isolated we have become. Our loyal allies are few, and while the UN does our bidding only when we buy the votes we need, our enemies multiply. A billion Muslims around the world now see the US as a pariah.

Our military is more often used to protect private capital overseas, such as oil and natural resources, than it is to protect our own borders. Protecting ourselves from real outside threats is no longer the focus of defense policy, as globalists become more influential inside and outside our government.

The weapons industry never actually advocates killing to enhance its profits, but a policy of endless war and eternal enemies benefits it greatly. Some advocate cold war strategies, like those used against the Soviets, against the unnamed “terrorists.” It’s good for business!

Many neoconservatives are not bashful about this:

Thus, paradoxically, peace increases our peril, by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, and depriving us of some of our best leaders. The great Prussian general Helmuth von Moltke knew whereof he spoke when he wrote a friend, “Everlasting peace is a dream, not even a pleasant one; war is a necessary part of God’s arrangement of the world. ... Without war the world would deteriorate into materialism.” As usual, Machiavelli dots his i’s and crosses the t’s: it’s not just that peace undermines discipline and thereby gives the destructive vices greater sway. If we actually achieved peace, “Indolence would either make (the state) effeminate or shatter her unity; and two things together, or each by itself, would be the cause of her ruin ...” This is Machiavelli’s variation on a theme by Mitterrand: the absence of movement is the beginning of defeat. (Michael Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership)

Those like Ledeen who approvingly believe in “perpetual struggle” generally are globalists, uninterested in national sovereignty and borders. True national defense is of little concern to them. That’s why military bases are closed in the United States regardless of their strategic value, while several new bases are built in the Persian Gulf, even though they provoke our enemies to declare jihad against us. The new Cold War justifies everything.

War, and the threat of war, are big government’s best friend. Liberals support big government social programs, and conservatives support big government war policies, thus satisfying two major special interest groups. And when push comes to shove, the two groups cooperate and support big government across the board — always at the expense of personal liberty. Both sides pay lip service to freedom, but neither stands against the welfare/warfare state and its promises of unlimited entitlements and endless war.

One Major Southern Problem--Public Schools

One Major Southern Problem--Public Schools

Posted by Charleston Voice

Gone. No longer taught, but not forgotten...

May 17, 2014

by Al Benson Jr.

Although I am writing this, frankly, I don't expect very many people will want to pay much attention to it. You see, it will go against the grain of the propaganda they have been fed and ingested for well over the past century or so, and to do something about the problem would involve personal responsibility, and most folks today flee personal responsibility as they would the plague.
The small North Louisiana town I live in thinks the local public schools there are the greatest thing since sliced bread. The possibility that the local public schools there may be brainwashing their children is the last thing they want to hear, and so if you dare to approach the subject they just tune you out. "Don't confuse me with the facts, please." It's so much better to remain ignorant, then I don't have to DO anything. This is the typical attitude in town and cities across the South, and the rest of the country, too.
The public school is sacrosanct. It is the sacred cow.  The only time anyone ever dares question it is if their kid wears a Confederate flag tee shirt to school and gets sent home for that. The black kid next to him may have a Malcolm X tee shirt on, but that's okay. It gets an automatic pass, just like the tee shirt with the "gay pride" stuff all over it. These are okay, by public school standards today, but your kid's Confederate flag tee shirt has to come off, immediately if not sooner. If the parents decide to protest this, the result is usually far from satisfactory.
I've talked with folks whose kids or grandkids come home from public school spouting anti-Confederate propaganda about how the Confederate flag is "racist." I despise the term "racist" because it is of Trotskyite origin and every time we use it we are playing on our opponents' turf. Same thing when we argue with the local public school bureaucrat about our kid's Confederate flag tee shirt--we are playing on their turf and it's a battle we will seldom win. They already know that. We haven't figured it out yet.
Rather than going through an exercise in exasperation, what we should start doing is just taking the kids out of public school. What we need to do when a problem arises is to just go and state our position politely and then inform the local education commissar "my child will not be returning to your school again." Don't fuss, fume, or get ticked off--the educrat likes that and it gives him or her a reason to put their thumb down on you as a "recalcitrant parent." 

So don't fuss, just take the kid out. End of conversation! That will deprive the local school district of, depending on where you live, anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 per year in federal money.  And if there were a big enough flap over Confederate symbols in one particular area and ten people had the guts to remove their kids from the public system, you can see where that would cost the local public brain laundry some serious money.
Most Southern folks seem to have the opinion that the local public school is second cousin to God, motherhood and apple pie--and it just ain't so. It never was. People love to prattle about the "good old days" when they went to public school and how much better it would be if we could just go back to that. Sorry to disillusion you, but those "good old days" never really existed. 

The public school's foundations were bad from day one.  Public schools, as we now have them, were originally started up in New England, Massachusetts to be specific. The major mover and shaker in starting them was a man named Horace Mann. You may even have seen schools named after him, I have. But do you really know diddley-squat about him?
Horace Mann was a Unitarian. Know what that is? Know what Unitarians believe? They are people, calling themselves Christians, who do not recognize the Deity of Jesus Christ, who think Jesus may have been a great moral example and teacher, but definitely not the Son of God. What really bothered Mann was the influence of church schools in his area. In fact, that bothered him so much that he sought to come up with a way to counteract it.
He didn't think kids should be influenced by Christian education, that they would be better off in "secular" (humanist) schools, run by the state and regulated by the state, where Christian ideas and influence could be muted, and eventually done away with.
To be continued.
Reprinted from The Confederate Sentry, Vol. 19, Number 3, 2013

http://thecopperhead.blogspot.com/2014/05/one-major-southern-problem-public.html

Related Posts

• One Major Southern Problem--Public Schools
• Onward Christian Zionists
• The Future of Libertarianism - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
• THE COMMUNIST FIGHT FOR THE NEGRO CAUSE...how it began, Communist publication
• Texas Lawmakers Pronounce That The Establishment of Israel was Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophesy(!)