Nationalism And Populism Propel Trump

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/23/2016 18:55 -0500

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

  As the returns came in from South Carolina Saturday night, showing Donald Trump winning a decisive victory, a note of nervous desperation crept into the commentary.

Political analysts pointed out repeatedly that if all of the votes for Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson were added up, they far exceeded the Trump vote.

Why this sudden interest in arithmetic?

If the field can be winnowed, we were told, if Carson and Kasich can be persuaded to follow Bush and get out, if Cruz can be sidelined, if we can get a one-on-one Rubio-Trump race, Trump can be stopped.

Behind the thought is the wish. Behind the wish is the hope, the prayer that all the non-Trump voters are anti-Trump voters.

But is this true? Or are the media deluding themselves?

Watching these anchors, commentators, consultants and pundits called to mind the Cleveland Governors Conference of 1964.

Sen. Goldwater had just won the winner-take-all California primary, defeating Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, assuring himself of enough delegates to go over the top on the first ballot at the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

But with polls showing Barry losing massively to LBJ, the panicked governors at Cleveland conspired to block his nomination.

Michigan Gov. George Romney and Pennsylvania Gov. Bill Scranton were prodded to enter the race. Scranton would declare his availability in San Francisco with a letter accusing Goldwater of hostility toward civil rights — Barry had voted against the 1964 bill — and of excessive tolerance toward right-wing extremists such as the John Birch Society.

And what became of them all?

Goldwater won his nomination and went down in a historic defeat, but became a beloved figure and the father of modern conservatism.

Of those who turned their backs on Goldwater that fall, none ever won a presidential nomination. Of those who stood by Barry that fall, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, both would win the GOP nomination twice, and the presidency twice.

And the conservative movement would hold veto power over party nominees and become the dominant philosophy of the GOP.

Folks forget. Not only were there “liberal Republicans” and “moderate Republicans” back then, they dominated the landscape. Yet rare is the Republican today who would describe himself in such terms.

Which brings us back to the anti-Trump cabal.

While their immediate goal is to deny him the nomination, do they really think that if the party nominates Rubio, things can be again as they were before Trump? Do they not see that America and the West are undergoing a series of crises that will change our world forever?

Bernie Sanders is not all wrong. There is a revolution going on.

Late in the last century, when Robert Bartley was editorial editor, The Wall Street Journal championed a constitutional amendment of five words — “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley, who told colleague Peter Brimelow, “I think the nation-state is finished,” wanted U.S. borders thrown open to people and goods from all over the world. To Bartley and his acolytes, what made America one nation and one people was simply an ideology.

But what was silly then is suicidal today.

Whatever one may think of Trump’s talk of building a wall, does anyone think the United States is not going to have to build a security fence to defend our bleeding 2,000-mile border?

Given the huge trade deficits with China, Japan, Mexico and the EU, the hemorrhaging of manufacturing, the stagnation of wages and the decline of the middle class, does anyone think that if Trump is turned back, the GOP can continue on being a free-trade party financed by the Beltway agents of transnational corporations?

Absent some major attack on the homeland, do our foreign policy elites believe the American people would support new U.S. interventions to defeat, occupy and tutor Third World nations in liberal democracy?

Trump is winning because, on immigration, amnesty, securing our border and staying out of any new crusades for democracy, he has tapped into the most powerful currents in politics: economic populism and “America First” nationalism.

Look at the crowds Trump draws. Look at the record turnouts in Republican caucuses and primaries.

If Beltway Republicans think they can stop Trump and turn back the movement behind him, and continue on with today’s policies on trade, immigration and intervention, they will be swept into the same dustbin of history as the Rockefeller Republicans.

America is saying, “Goodbye to all that.”

For Trump is not only a candidate. He is a messenger from Middle America. And the message he is delivering to the establishment is: We want an end to your policies and we want an end to you.

If the elites think they can not only deny Trump the nomination, but turn back this revolution and re-establish themselves in the esteem of the people, they delude themselves.

This is hubris of a high Trump, election, POTUS,order.

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-23/nationalism-and-populism-propel-trump

Technorati Tags: Trump,election,POTUS

Trump for America by Brothers N Arms

Hell Yah!! #Trump2016

Technorati Tags: Trump,election,POTUS

Trump: I don't lie, I'm too truthful - it gets me in trouble

Technorati Tags: Trump,election,GOP,POTUS

Technorati Tags: Trump,election,GOP,POTUS

DONALD TRUMP IS A BIGGER FRONTRUNNER TO BE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE THAN YOU THINK

- FEBRUARY 18, 2016 -

Washington Post

Barring some sort of cataclysm, Donald Trump is going to easily win Saturday's Republican presidential primary in South Carolina. It would be his second straight large victory out of three contests so far in the presidential contest. In the other -- the Iowa caucuses -- Trump got the second most votes of any Republican candidate ever, but he finished second behind the guy who got the most votes in the history of the caucuses: Ted Cruz. Three days after the South Carolina vote, the race will move to Nevada where a poll released on Wednesday showed Trump ahead by almost 30 points. Then comes the March 1 "SEC" primary, when voters in 13 states across the country — including six Southern states — vote. Polling puts Trump first in most, if not all, of those states.

Al of which raises a simple but profound question: Why isn't Trump being covered as the overwhelming favorite to be the Republican nominee?

Substitute any other Republican in the race into Trump's current position. There is a 100 percent chance that that person would be touted as the prohibitive favorite or the odds-on nominee. Imagine Marco Rubio -- he of the third-place finish in Iowa and fifth-place finish in New Hampshire -- with the same poll numbers as Trump in South Carolina, Nevada and beyond. The coronation would be on. Hell, Rubio is now seen as a likely third-place finisher in South Carolina -- behind Trump and Cruz -- and laurels are virtually being thrown at his feet.

Why isn't Trump getting the credit and coverage he deserves? Because, at root, there is still a belief within the party establishment and the ranks of the media that he will somehow implode or voters will "wise up" or "get real" or something. The problem with that theory is that, well, Trump has done lots and lots of things that would a) be described as "gaffes" and b) would have ended or severely compromised other campaigns. And yet, none of it has touched him. In fact, his willingness to say anything -- no matter the underlying facts -- seems to affirm to his supporters just how "independent" from the political system he really is.

Trump has been the front-runner -- in South Carolina and nationally -- for a very long time. And nothing seems to move his numbers.

Here's South Carolina.

Now ask yourself: What could Trump possibly do or say that would somehow be considered a large enough mistake to peel away large amounts of support from him? There is some internal polling done for rival candidates in South Carolina that suggests Trump is losing some altitude in the state after his not-good-at-all performance in the debate last Saturday. Okay, maybe. But, losing some altitude in a single state where you are ahead by 20-plus points is not exactly a campaign-ending problem.

The idea that Trump will either derail himself or be derailed given the steadiness of his numbers seems like the most wishful of thinking by establishment Republicans. Ditto the idea -- that I still hear nearly every day in D.C. -- that the establishment will "figure out" a way to stop Trump. Trust me: If they could have stopped Trump, they would have done it a long time ago. They can't.

Wishful thinking is not the same thing as plausible strategy. And, at this point, it appears that wishful thinking is what is keeping Trump from getting the coverage he deserves as the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination. Front-runners can -- and do -- lose on occasion. And it's possible that Trump -- perhaps when/if the race narrows to a one-on-one contest with Rubio -- loses.

But, it is an undeniable fact that Trump has by far the easiest path to the Republican nomination from here on out. Waiting and hoping for him to collapse is, to borrow a Trump-ism, a loser's game.

Next News: Poll: Trump on top, Cruz and Rubio trail

Technorati Tags: 2016,Trump,Election,GOP,POTUS,President of the United State

EXCLUSIVE: JEB BUSH DODGES ANOTHER 9/11 BULLET

Presidential candidate confronted again on redacted 28 pages from 9/11 report

Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 19, 2016

FBI doc: Bin Laden family flight after 9/11 chartered by Osama

The Bush-Saudi Connection

The Unholy Pope VS The Lion

Another Bonafide for Trump-- Another Absence for Rubio!

Scalia murdered? Sealed his fate 4 days before his death?

Feb17by Jon Rappoport

Scalia murdered? Sealed his fate 4 days before his death?

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4.

With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.

With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead.

We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.

And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.

If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.

If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”

Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind.

Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.

“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.

Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.

However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.

The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.

The pending TPP, another Globalist trade treaty, contains a section that allows endless changes and additions in the text as years pass. In other words, the passion for cutting energy production for the US, and the rest of the planet, can easily be expressed and ratified by the member nations.

The TPP also reveals a cynical attitude toward the “humanitarian goal of saving the planet from CO2 death.” Major corporations that burn coal and employ other ways of releasing CO2 can relocate to far-off lands (e.g., Vietnam) and spew CO2 to their hearts’ content, without messy environmental controls.

In other words, the true underlying Globalist scheme, vis-à-vis climate change has nothing to do with messianic rescue: it has to do with lowering energy production.

Drive economies further into despair. Move more jobs out of industrialized countries.

Create further poverty and chaos.

And then bring new order in behind that—one planet, under the tight rein of one worldwide political and economic management system.

That’s the true meaning of the climate-change agenda, notwithstanding solemn promises and heraldic pronouncements about replacing lost energy with new renewable technologies.

“I have an idea. Let’s cut our electricity-use in our home by 30%, while we figure out how to replace it with some new source. That’ll work. I’m sure of it.”

On top of all this, the entire manmade-warming hypothesis is riddled with fraud and guesswork dressed up to look like United Nations science. A hypothesis is supposed to be able to make useful and specific predictions. The warming hypothesis is a dud in this regard. It was never meant to be science—it was always a strategy designed to cut energy production on planet Earth, torpedo economies, heighten human suffering, and usher in an elite Globalist triumph.

This is what Justice Scalia was going up against.

If he was murdered, there was sufficient reason.

The FBI can do two kinds of investigations, depending on the orders of the Attorney General: heavy or lite.

Heavy means leaving no stone unturned. It means taking control of the Scalia’s body now and doing whatever can be done with it, in its embalmed state, to determine cause of death. It means raking wackaloon Judge Guevara over the coals, along with US marshals, to find out exactly how the verdict of “natural causes” was reached. It means extensive interviews with everyone at Poindexter’s ranch. Wall to wall forensic analysis of rooms and spaces at the ranch. And so forth and so on.

Lite means a brush-off, meant to avoid any disruption in the present scenario.

So far, from what I see, the FBI is doing Lite. Scalia’s body should already be on an autopsy table.

There continues to be no uproar inside the Beltway about the absurd, insane, useless declaration of death by “natural causes.”

And there is something else going on. It’s the convenient mind-control program that says, “Mustn’t disturb the dead. Don’t interrupt the expressions of sadness at his passing. Don’t dishonor the man by raising questions about his possible murder. Give the family their privacy during this period of grief.”

It’s the passivity of the obedient mind. Whatever induced mood, fabrication, lie, omission can feed and expand that passivity…is deployed:

“We need to be more accepting. He was an old man in ill-heath. He passed away. Natural causes. The great cycle of life. Be gentle. Nothing to see. Move along, slowly.”

“Possible murder of a US Supreme Court Justice? Please, not at this time. It’s a discordant idea. Unharmonious. Let the man go gently into that good night.”

---

---

Truth be told, this whole country has been subject to a “no-disturb” sign for a long, long time. Don’t think; agree. Don’t investigate; obey.

The “don’t-disturb-the-dead” program is really about the whole population. The implication is: “we’re all dead already; don’t disturb us.”

The lesson? Just because other people are mired in a hypnotic state, you aren’t obliged to pander to them. Their trance is their own.

Whether you’re alive and awake and alert and have power is a choice. Yours.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Was Justice Scalia murdered? Forget “conspiracy theory.” This is real.

Feb15by Jon Rappoport

Was Scalia murdered? Forget “conspiracy theory.” This is real.

by Jon Rappoport

February 15, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Let’s jump right in with quotes from the Washington Post, 2/15, “Conspiracy theories swirl around the death of Antonin Scalia”. The Post published extraordinary statements from the Facebook page of “William O. Ritchie, former head of criminal investigations for D.C. police”:

“As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was ordered for Justice Scalia.”

“You have a Supreme Court Justice who died, not in attendance of a physician. You have a non-homicide trained US Marshal tell the justice of peace that no foul play was observed. You have a justice of the peace pronounce death while not being on the scene and without any medical training opining that the justice died of a heart attack. What medical proof exists of a myocardial Infarction? Why not a cerebral hemorrhage?”

“How can the Marshal say, without a thorough post mortem, that he was not injected with an illegal substance that would simulate a heart attack…”

“Did the US Marshal check for petechial hemorrhage in his eyes or under his lips that would have suggested suffocation? Did the US Marshal smell his breath for any unusual odor that might suggest poisoning? My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas.”

If this isn’t enough, the Post goes on:

“Scalia’s physician, Brian Monahan, is a U.S. Navy rear admiral and the attending physician for the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court. He declined to comment on Scalia’s [prior] health when reached by telephone Monday at his home in Maryland.

“’Patient confidentiality forbids me to make any comment on the subject,’ he said.”

“When asked whether he planned to make public the statement he’s preparing for [Texas Judge] Guevara, Monahan repeated the same statement and hung up on a reporter.”

As long as no law-enforcement investigation of Scalia’s death is launched, the doctor is justified. Confidentiality applies, unless Scalia’s family lifts it. But if such an investigation is opened, all bets are off. Confidentiality no longer applies.

There are reports that, after Scalia’s body was transported from the celebrity ranch in Texas, closely guarded and shielded by a bevy of marshals, it was rapidly embalmed. If so, that would apparently make toxicological tests far more difficult or impossible.

As for a murder motive, try: upsetting the voting balance of the US Supreme Court. Try: a push to appoint a new Justice now, thus ensuring the appointee’s political persuasion, regardless of the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. Try: attempting to shift the Court’s voting balance in upcoming cases on abortion, immigration, and Obamacare.

Dismiss the comfortable notion that “this couldn’t happen.” JFK couldn’t have been murdered, but he was. High political figures don’t carry special immunity.

Dismiss assurances from incompetents in Texas that Scalia died of natural causes, and dismiss the press repeating these assurances—which add up to: nothing.

Dismiss calls for “propriety in a time of grief.”

Dismiss whatever opinions, pro and con, circulate now about Scalia, his points of view, his decisions, his character, his life. They’re irrelevant to the facts of his death. Those facts are as clear as mud.

Dismiss the typical accusations of “conspiracy theory.” It’s no theory when key facts are unknown and incompetents supplied the current “information.”

In addition to what I’ve cited above, count as relevant the fact that Scalia’s federal protection had been removed while he was at the Texas ranch. We’re told Scalia didn’t want that protection. Maybe yes, maybe no. We’re also told Scalia’s family didn’t want an autopsy. Again, maybe yes, maybe no. The family has been silent. Or if not, their statements aren’t being reported.

Consider, as potentially relevant, the report that Scalia was found with a pillow over his head.

Consider, as relevant, that Judge Guevara, deciding without seeing the body that Scalia died from natural causes, ruled against doing an autopsy—and a counter-opinion, offered unofficially by another Texas judge, Juanita Bishop, that she would have wanted an autopsy. (See “Scalia’s death to be ruled a heart attack” and “Urgent calls begin for Scalia autopsy: Rush to ‘natural causes’ conclusion criticized” and “Judge Cinderela Guevara: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know”)

---

---

Concerning Judge Guevara, this may or may not be relevant—heavy.com reports, “Judge Cinderela Guevara: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know”:

“This isn’t the first time Guevara has been the source of controversy. In 2013, Melaney Parker Rayburn was found dead after being hit by a train in Marfa, Texas… Liz Parker, Melaney’s mom, questioned how Guevara handled the investigation of her daughter’s death, The Daily Kos reported [see “Like a dead dog on the tracks: Injustice in small town Texas…”]. Melaney was hit by a Union Pacific Railroad train and, Liz [her mother] wrote, a Union Pacific representative told her that it appeared that her body had been placed on the tracks while she was unconscious. Liz asked the Justice of the Peace and the Sheriff to open the case as a homicide investigation, but they would not. Guevara, who was a Justice of the Peace at the time, did not order a rape kit or an autopsy, Liz wrote, because a doctor at the scene said the cause of death was obvious.

“Liz later wrote a letter to the editor, published on Big Bend Now [see “correspondence, October 14th, 2013”], in which she said that Guevara had asked for God to give her an answer about whether Melaney’s death was suicide. Liz wrote that Guevara told her: ‘Yes, this was a tragedy, but the true tragedy was that she died without accepting Jesus Christ as her savior.’”

Bottom line so far: Any reasonable law-enforcement agency would immediately open an investigation into Scalia’s death. Failing to do so would rate as aiding and abetting a concealment of the truth, whatever that turns out to be.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Here's Why (And How) The Government Will "Borrow" Your Retirement Savings

 

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

According to financial research firm ICI, total retirement assets in the Land of the Free now exceed $23 trillion.

$7.3 trillion of that is held in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).

That’s an appetizing figure, especially for a government that just passed $19 trillion in debt and is in pressing need of new funding sources.

Even when you account for all federal assets (like national parks and aircraft carriers), the government’s “net financial position” according to its own accounting is negative $17.7 trillion.

And that number doesn’t include unfunded Social Security entitlements, which the government estimates is another $42 trillion.

The US national debt has increased by roughly $1 trillion annually over the past several years.

The Federal Reserve has conjured an astonishing amount of money out of thin air in order to buy a big chunk of that debt.

But even the Fed has limitations. According to its own weekly financial statement, the Fed’s solvency is at precariously low levels (with a capital base of just 0.8% of assets).

And on a mark-to-market basis, the Fed is already insolvent. So it’s foolish to think they can continue to print money forever and bail out the government without consequence.

The Chinese (and other foreigners) own a big slice of US debt as well.

But it’s just as foolish to expect them to continue bailing out America, especially when they have such large economic problems at home.

US taxpayers own the largest share of the debt, mostly through various trust funds of Social Security and Medicare.

But again, given the $42 trillion funding gap in these programs, it’s mathematically impossible for Social Security to continue funding the national debt.

This reality puts the US government in rough spot.

It’s not like government spending is going down anytime soon; it already takes nearly 100% of tax revenue just to pay mandatory entitlements like Social Security, and interest on the debt.

Plus the government itself estimates that the national debt will hit $30 trillion within ten years.

Bottom line, they need more money. Lots of it. And there is perhaps no easier pool of cash to ‘borrow’ than Americans’ retirement savings.

$7.3 trillion in US IRA accounts is too large for them to ignore.

And if you think it’s inconceivable for the government to borrow your retirement savings, just consider the following:

1) Borrowing retirement funds is becoming a popular tactic.

Forced loans have been a common tactic of bankrupt governments throughout history.

Plus there’s recent precedent all over the world; Hungary, France, Ireland, and Poland are among many governments that have resorted to ‘borrowing’ public and private pension funds.

2) The US government has already done this with federal pension funds.

During the multiple debt ceiling fiascos since 2011, the Treasury Department resorted to “extraordinary measures” at least twice in order to continue funding the government.

What exactly were these extraordinary measures?

They dipped into federal retirement funds and borrowed what they needed to tide them over.

In fact, the debt ceiling debacles were only resolved because the Treasury Department had fully depleted available retirement funds.

3) They’ve been paving the way to borrow your retirement savings for a long time.

Two years ago the government launched a new initiative to ‘help Americans save for retirement.’

It’s called MyRA. And the idea is for people to invest retirement savings ‘in the safety and security of US government bonds’.

Since then they’ve gone on a marketing offensive involving the President, Treasury Secretary, and other prominent politicians.

(Most recently Nancy Pelosi published an Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle a few days ago promoting the program.)

They’ve also proposed a number of legislative reforms to ‘encourage’ American businesses to sign their employees up for MyRA.

Just last week, Congress introduced the “Making Your Retirement Accessible”, or MyRA Act, which would charge a penalty to employers whose workers don’t have a retirement account.

The proposed penalty is $100. Per worker. Per day.

Imagine a small business with, say, 10 employees who don’t have retirement accounts. The penalty to Uncle Sam would be a whopping $30,000 PER MONTH.

There’s a word for this. It’s called extortion.

Obviously when facing a $30,000 monthly penalty, an employer will pick the easiest option.

Given the absurd amount of government regulation on the rest of the financial industry, MyRA is the fastest choice.

This isn’t about fear or paranoia. It’s about facts.

And the reality is that the government in the Land of the Free is moving in the direction of borrowing more and more of your retirement savings.

If you still remain skeptical, remember that last year the government stole more from its citizens through Civil Asset Forfeiture than thieves in the private sector.

Or that just 45-days ago a new law went into effect authorizing the government to strip you of your passport if they believe in their sole discretion that you owe them too much tax.

No judge. No jury. No trial. They just confiscate your passport.