When is a Government not a Government? (Part 2 of 2)

     I pointed out in the first part of this series that government is not an objective reality like a table or a hill.  It's a social reality, like a friendship or any other agreement.  It exists only to the degree that people agree that it exists and only as long as people agree that it exists.

     The United States Constitution hasn't been observed in years.  Bit by bit, since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001, the Bill of Rights has been discarded.  On October 27, 2006, habeas corpus was outlawed after it had been the keystone of Western freedom for 794 years.  The same day, posse comitatus was outlawed after it was the law of the land for 128 years.  More recently, acting President Barack Obama taken upon himself the power to indefinitely detain accused Americans even after a jury has found them not guilty.

     The United States government has been usurped by an illegal regime consisting of Wall Street banksters, war profiteers, and their Judases in Congress.  Regardless of who gets elected, policies remain the same or get worse.  Besides, with touch-screen voting machines with easy-to-rig software, we have "elections" without ballots; thus, even legally mandated recounts are impossible, and fraud is difficult to prove.

     The good news is, the money changers who occupy the temple are not all powerful.  They have only two tools at their disposal: lies and violence.  Lies and violence, which are their only strengths, are also their biggest weaknesses; the more they use them, the weaker they get.  The forces of freedom have two tools of non-violence: truth and ideas, which help us to grow stronger the more we exercise them.

     It starts with a few people, such as US Army PFC Bradley Manning, simply saying, “No, I won’t cooperate with this any longer.” (link)    Then non-commissioned officers such as US Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman refuse to cooperate (link). Then officers, such as RAF Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith (link).  Before long, dozens of others refuse (link).

     Now middle-level officers are refusing to cooperate with illegal wars and other illegalities in the system.  Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a decorated US Army doctor who could have retired in two years has refused service in Afghanistan on the grounds that his alleged Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, was not legally elected President.  In the following video, corporate media Pharisee Anderson Cooper spouts distortion after distortion in his attempt to badger Dr. Lakin into making statements that might tend to incriminate him.  (video)

     Since the Lakin interview, Mr. Obama has released an electronic image purporting to be a long-form birth certificate.  Retired Major General Paul Vallely is calling the alleged long-form certificate the result of felony fraud, and that the fraud is being covered up by the FBI.  (video)

     (The 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen through illegal vote counts, and the 2008 election was stolen through felony fraud.  The United States has not had a legally elected President since January 20, 2001.) (link)

     The collapse of illegitimate regimes has been compared to the melting of an iceberg.  At first, a little melts here and there.  Then the melting accelerates.  Then, suddenly and unexpectedly, the whole thing collapses into slush. 

     The present attempts to steal the 2012 Republican primaries and caucuses could possibly be the event that causes the regime to collapse, driving the money changers from the temple, restoring the Constitution, and returning lawful government to the American people. (link) and (link)

     Every state in the Union legally mandates ballot recounts under certain conditions.  The trouble is, most American polling places no longer use ballots, so nothing can be recounted, and the accuracy of a computer program’s count can’t be verified.  An election without ballots is invalid.

     What recourse have we?  Consider this: What do people consider news?  What do they forward to others?  Answer: Something that’s current, pertains to their interests, and is visually striking.

     Suppose every supporter of Ron Paul in the primaries (and later, for any third party candidate in the election on the sixth of November) wore something strikingly green when he casts his ballot.  Diebold can lie boldly about how people voted, but they can’t lie about what the voters wear.  (I’ve checked in several different places.  At a given time, only four or five people out of a hundred wear an article of clothing that’s mainly green (and fewer still wear conspicuous green), though I suspect that most people have something green enough in their closets.  What if 15% or even 30% of the primary voters wore something strikingly green?  Visually striking evidence of election fraud could force an honest vote count. Otherwise, the resulting backlash could melt the iceberg and force state and local governments to conduct legal elections in America.

     I select the color green because it has several different meanings depending on the person, and it's usually seen as positive.  Take Ireland during the 1790's, for example.  The English outlawed all things that they took to be symbols of Irish nationalism: St. Patrick's Day commemorations, displays of shamrocks, and even wearing green.  As a consequence, the "wearing of the green" has become a symbol of resistance to oppression. (song) 

     The false witnesses in the corporate-controlled media would be loathe to cover a story of voters wearing green to the polls to show their defiance of both the Democrat and Republican parties.  As the story spread by word of mouth and through the Internet, the corporate-owned media’s already shaky credibility would risk complete collapse.
     Larger numbers of Americans will vote in the presidential election on the sixth of November.  We have more time to get out the word for that election.  Voters in the general election can wear something conspicuously green to show that they're voting for someone other than the Republican or Democratic nominee for President.  I say again, Diebold can lie boldly about how you vote but not about what you wear.  People can thus know if the vote is honestly counted.

     Let me further remind you that the power of the criminal elite comes only from lies and violence.  We have truth and ideas.  We don’t have to fight them.  The criminal elite can use violence to destroy our bodies, but they can’t destroy ideas.  The concept of a government exercising its just powers by the consent of the governed is an unstoppable idea.  If we withdraw our consent, uniting with one another in peace and mutual understanding, we can restore our constitutionally guaranteed liberties.  
     I have no illusions that one campaign of this sort will result in total victory on the sixth of November.  It's at best a beginning.  Conversely, I strongly advise those who believe in the myth of "strategic voting" to shed the illusion that electing the "lesser of two evils" can result in anything other than evil.  (See "The Only Strategic Voting that Works")

REMEMBER the sixth of November.

Wear green when you vote for a third-party candidate  for President.

The Republican Presidential Nomination is Being Stolen! (Part 2)

     (This is part two of a two-part article about vote fraud and potential vote fraud in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, and the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Today, we treat the South Carolina primaries, repeating the last two paragraphs of yesterdays's article.)

     We also know that around 90% of New Hampshire’s ballots are cast via a form of gambling called e-voting. Their machines are programmed by a company that has already been found guilty of criminal behavior and convictions. (here)

     In South Carolina it was worse. The usual suspects programmed 100% of the voting machines. (here)  That amounts to 100% faith-based voting.

     The Internet is buzzing with talk that 953 posthumous ballots were cast in the recent South Carolina Republican Party primary. Actually, this news item was based on a letter that S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote to U.S. Attorney two days before the primary. He wrote that, in recent elections, 953 such ballots had been cast in “recent elections.” Additionally, he wrote that 4,965 ballots had been cast by voters who were no longer qualified to vote because they had moved from the state. We’re talking about a total of 5,918 illegal ballots. Wilson was concerned that this may also happen in the 2012 Republican Party primary. (link to PDF) 

     Did it? It’s hard to say just yet, but several anomalies and irregularities have come to light.

     In the video The Ron Paul Fix is In, the narrator points out that Newt Gingrich, who went on to “win” the South Carolina primary, had to cancel a Charleston engagement due to lack of interest. At the same time, Ron Paul attracted over 1,000 supporters in the Holy City (a sobriquet for Charleston).

     That, by itself, would not be enough to convince me that something was rotten in the Palmetto State (another sobriquet). After all, the “lesser of two evils”—the other being Mitt Romney—doesn’t generate the same level of enthusiasm as “the President America needs.”

     Admit it: The only reason I’ve ever heard anyone give for “supporting” Romney or Gingrich is the belief that one or the other has the best chance of beating Obama in the November presidential election. I’ve even heard people say with astonishing shortsightedness that beating Obama was their “ultimate goal.” Actually, it barely qualifies as a short-term goal. A long-term goal should be to elect the kind of President that America needs. A longer-term goal should be to bring about a better future for America. The ultimate goal should be of a religious nature.

     What I found particularly suspicious was the reported behavior of the people who “tallied” the vote. At poll watcher Christopher Lawton reported many suspicious irregularities at many precincts all over the state, as it was with the count in Iowa and New Hampshire, if irregularities were the rule in one precinct, it’s reasonable to wonder about the other precincts. (link)

     No one is saying that the Gingrich campaign had anything to do with the voting irregularities in South Carolina. Voter fraud could have been more strategic than that.

     As long as Ron Paul is in the race, two other candidates must also be in the race for vote fraud to be harder to detect. No one would have believed that a majority of South Carolinians would vote for disaster capitalist Mitt Romney, a nose-in-the-air elitist who amassed a $240 billion fortune by buying up businesses and crashing them—the sort of thing Goldman Sachs does to whole countries such as the U.S. and Greece. (here) 

     Enter Newt Gingrich, whose platform on virtually every issue is the opposite of his actual self—kind of like Zorro in reverse. Zorro feigned weakness to disguise his heroic self. Gingrich feigns a heroic persona to disguise the opposite.

Military adventures overseas? When Gingrich was of draft age during the Vietnam War, he avoided having to take a moral stand for or against the war. In short, his actual self is a selfish coward.

     Family values? Ha! That’s like Jeffrey Dahmer posing as a vegetarian.

     A super patriot? Not the way he genuflects before the Israeli government and vigorously advocates using American servicemen as janissaries for that regime.

     Limited government? Not the way the military-industrial complex borrows and spends our money with his blessings.

     Fiscal responsibility? He was a hired hit man for Fannie Mae. If you liked the 2007-2008 housing and credit collapse, you’ll love Newt Gingrich.

     Honesty? He lies so much that he has to get somebody else to call his dog for him.  Not even Congress, in which so much corruption takes place that it's scarcely noticed, could stomach his conflicts of interest.  They censured him for corruption in 1997, when he was Speaker of the House.

     Because Newt Gingrich talks a good game, even with all his noxious faults, he makes a more convincing designated winner than the patronizing, high-pressure salesman Mitt Romney. Romney comes across as so stuck up that he runs the risk of drowning when it rains.

     At this writing, the Florida primary has just ended, and—if "news" reports are to be believed—the silver spoon cruncher trounced the Grinch 46.4% to 31.9%, with Sanitarium and St. Paul trailing behind with 13.4% and 7.0% of the vote, respectively.
     Since no more than 5% of the delegates have been gathered, we can be sure that Romney and either Gingrich or Santorum will remain in the race, if only to maintain the illusion that Ron Paul isn't getting enough votes to be taken seriously.  After all, if it were a two-man race between  Romney and Paul, the vote fraudsters would have only two alternatives—either of which would wreck their well-cultivated myth that Ron Paul is just a fringe candidate.  Either they could award Romney more than 90% of the votes, which even the most gullible citizens would question; or they could make it a 70%-30% split, which would place Paul too close to the mainstream to be ignored at the national convention during the final week of August.
     For this reason, we can be sure that either Santorum or Gingrich will stay in the race to provide protective camouflage for vote thieves.  Those of you who live in states that have not yet had primaries or caucuses must watch them carefully. It’s not enough to read their lips; watch their hands.

How Banking Really Works

(Or Sachs, Lies, and Video Clips)

Henry Ford once said that, if the American people knew how the banking system really worked, there would be a revolution. Let me tell you how the banking system really works.
Most people think that it works pretty much like commerce. In fact, the British use the same word for rent and borrow. They hire a car and hire money. In practice, there’s no comparison.
When you rent a car, the car rental place gives up some of the value of a car (wear and tear on the vehicle) in exchange for your money. Your money has value because of the time and effort you sacrificed to get it.
In short, both you and the car rental place are giving up something of value (cost) to gain something of value (reward.) All commerce is based on the three elements of Social Exchange Theory: cost, trust, and reward.
In banking, the cost is almost entirely one sided. That’s because banks have the power to create money out of thin air. Banks can create “money,” but they can’t create value.
Let’s skip over the history of banking, which, I’m sure, every one of you has heard.
Dollars no longer take the form of silver or gold. They may not even be in the form of something tangible, such as a check. Because of the intangible nature of money these days, bankers can monkey with it in ways that’ll curl your hair.
For every dollar that’s deposited in a bank, the bank can lend thirty dollars or more. The ability to lend more money than they actually have is called fractional lending.
Where do they get these extra dollars? They create them out of thin air, based on the supposed authority granted to them by Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed.) This cartel isn’t federal any more than Federal Express is. It has no reserves, and it’s a privately owned banking cartel rather than a single bank.
Any value assigned to this “money” comes from dollars already in circulation. With each dollar that’s created out of thin air, each dollar already existing becomes worth less until, finally, it becomes worthless. (Compared to the value of the dollar in 1929, today’s dollar is valued at less than four cents.) It’s a form of invisible taxation, and not one American in a thousand is aware of it.
It doesn’t cost a bank any more to lend $30,000 than it does to lend $1,000. By contrast, a car rental place can rent out only one car—not thirty or more—for each car that it has. The car rental place is limited to getting rental fees for each car they have; but banks can gain interest payments on thirty times the amount of money they have on deposit.

Now let’s look at how this applies to the “bailouts” of Goldman Sachs and other banksters. I placed the word bailout in quotes because Goldman Sachs and the other banksters suffered no losses; thus, no losses needed to be covered.
They created money out of thin air (being fiat money, it had no intrinsic value) and loaned it to people to buy houses (which, of course, have value.) The borrowers agreed to repay the fiat money with money they had earned through the sweat of their brow. Thus, they borrowed something with no intrinsic value and agreed to repay it with something that had value—plus interest.
Remember Social Exchange Theory: cost, trust, and reward? Those loans didn’t cost the banks anything, yet they’re expecting value in return.
Goldman Sachs then set up a parallel system in which they made bets that their own system would collapse. So what happened when the system collapsed?
Well, it’s not as if the borrowers never repaid anything. Goldman Sachs and the other banksters did get some money that had value as repayment for money that the banksters had created out of thin air. When the borrowers fell behind in their payments, the banksters also received the houses—which had value—and those who had bet that the system would collapse thus made hefty profits when the system did collapse.

Then Goldman Sachs and the other banksters went crying to congressmen who had received hefty campaign contributions from them. Congress then voted to embezzle trillions of dollars (which have value, as the taxpayers had worked to earn them or must work to repay them) to “compensate” the banksters on their supposed losses.
It’s reasonable to ask, “If all this is true, why did Bear Stearns and other corrupt outfits go bankrupt?” They went bankrupt because even banksters have financial obligations that have to be met with real money. Not everyone can be played for saps. Each time a borrower defaults on a loan, the bankster can expect fewer real dollars to meet his obligations.
Who controls this corrupt system? It’s controlled by the Federal Reserve—the same privately owned banking cartel I mentioned earlier. Under the United States Constitution, the Congress has complete responsibility for coining money, borrowing against the credit of the United States, and paying it back.
In 1913, Congress voted to violate the Constitution by placing this responsibility into the hands of a few large banks. It was about that time that Mark Twain said that congressmen were idiots. Since idiots can’t be trusted to handle money (I’ve often wondered: If a fool and his money are soon parted, how did the fool and his money get together in the first place?) Congress voted to place that responsibility in the hands of bankers.
The rationale for the Federal Reserve System was that bankers’ expertise was needed to avert another crisis like the Panic of 1908. When Congress voted to create the Fed, then Congressman Charles Lindbergh (the father of Lucky Lindy) said, “Now depressions will be scientifically created.”
The Panic of 1908 is largely forgotten, but everyone has heard of the Great Depressions of the 1930’s and the present day.

Maybe it’s a silly question, but, since the Federal Reserve is in control of all of America’s money supply, shouldn’t the Fed be audited once in awhile? Yes, I believe so. That's why HR1207 was introduced. Maybe it’s a sillier question, but, since the Federal Reserve has completely failed in the only purpose given for its existence, do we really need it? Congressman Ron Paul and many others say, “No.”

Recommended reading: The Creature from Jekyll Island. Despite its flippant-sounding title, it’s the most important book pertaining to the Federal Reserve that I’ve ever read. Of necessity, I’ve breezed through a lot of important points concerning the Fed. The Creature from Jekyll Island will fill you in on the details. If you can’t find the book and still can’t trust Internet purchases enough to buy it on line, click here to begin watching the twelve-part You Tube videos by G. Edward Griffin.