Friday, November 27, 2015

Yellen tries to cover the Federal Reserve’s fraud

janet yellen

Either Fed Chairman Janet Yellen is a consummate liar or she is oblivious of the economic realities of her policies and those of her predecessor, Helicopter Ben Bernanke. Or, more likely, she is both.
In a letter to Ralph Nader on Monday, Yellen said that zero interest rates had helped create millions of jobs by lowering borrowing costs for businesses and consumers. The truth is zero interest has decimated the livelihood of savers and the elderly living off retirement income, while making the 1 percent thousands of times richer.
Yellen was responding to an open letter Nader wrote on his blog in which he claimed: “We are tired of this melodrama that exploits so many people who used to rely on interest income to pay some of their essential bills. Think about the elderly among us who need to supplement their Social Security checks every month.”
Nader also urged Yellen to consult her Nobel Prize-winning husband, economist George Akerloff, and consider the prospect that “tens of millions of Americans, with more interest income, could stimulate the economy by spending toward the necessities of life.”
Nader nails Yellen with: “Please, don’t lecture us about the Fed not being ‘political.’ When you are the captives of the financial industry, led by the too-big-to-fail banks, you are generically ‘political.’ So political in fact that you have brazenly interpreted your legal authority as to become the de facto regulator of our economy, the de facto printer of money on a huge scale (‘quantitative easing’ is the euphemism for artificially boosting the stock market) and the leader of the Washington bailout machine crony capitalism when big business, especially a shaky Wall Street firm, indulges in manipulative, avaricious, speculative binges with our money.”
Nader also rightly reminds Yellen that only the crony firms get the benefit of low interest rates. College loans, which are eating up the livelihoods of most future and recent college graduates to the tune of $1.3 trillion in debt, are being charged by the government 6 percent to 9 percent interest.
The Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal, nor holds any reserves) is a private bank created by the banksters for the banksters. The Fed lends “money” to other banks — both in the United States and abroad — and the Federal government. The loans must be paid back with interest. But the money the Fed lends is not real money. It’s simply a kited check.
It is the central cause of the boom and bust cycle that is currently bankrupting middle America. Artificially low interest rates cause malinvestment. This malinvestment always creates bubbles which inevitably burst as in 2008.
The Fed’s money printing policies have caused the recession to continue far longer than it should have, just as the Fed’s policies exacerbated and lengthened the Great Depression. The workforce participation rate is at an historic low. Real unemployment (not the government contrived number) is almost 23 percent, if you include in the count all discouraged workers. So much for Yellen’s claims of “millions of jobs created.”
Zero interest means those holding their money in banks or money markets (this especially applies to seniors) are “losing money” by keeping their money in banks, which are supposed to be safe havens. How does this happen? Near zero interest paid by the banks on the savings, and more money printed and infused into the economy devalues their “money,” just like pouring water into milk waters down the milk until eventually there is only water left.
And banks’ paying zero interest also drives people’s money into the stock market, which artificially props it up, to the benefit of Wall Street and the 1 percent. The propaganda media always play up rising stock markets as a sign of booming economy, even (or especially when) it is not so.
America’s financial system is a fraud, and Yellen is the fraudster in chief. Not one person in a million suspects that his dollars are melting every day and that his dollar assets — his savings and retirements — are evaporating. Because it is gradual, no one gets upset.
Now you may ask: “Bob, why are you writing about money when we have so many pressing things going on like illegal immigration and ISIS terror and Syrian war?” Because I believe it is the singularly most important issue to your life and one of the biggest frauds in history. Money printing makes illegal immigration and all wars possible.
I believe the best explanation for what is happening, and what you can do about it for your own protection, was written by Lloyd Darland in his outstanding book, “The Emperor’s Clothes Cost Twenty Dollars.” If you would like a copy, please click here.
Those who don’t receive this important information will continue to be victims of the constant confusion and noise that diverts the public mind away from government theft of our assets. Underneath lies that deep dark secret that the government gets everything for nothing. It’s all so simple.
The money creators “buy” with money that costs them nothing. But you can take these depreciating dollars and buy real assets like silver and gold while there is still time.
This entry was posted in Freedom Watch

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Why Immigration Won't Solve the World's Problems


If Islam is so great, why aren't Muslims heading for Muslim-led nations? We've been told my Muslim "scholars" that Islam built great civilizations. If this is true, why haven't Islamic nations flourished like Europe and the United States?
The type of questions can be asked of every poverty-stricken country. In a word, worldviews matter? What people believe about themselves, other people, God, man, economics, politics, and ethics make a difference.
Simon Bolivar (1783-1830), who has been described as the "George Washington of South America," died an "exhausted and disillusioned idealist" at the age of forty-seven.
Shortly before his death, he declared that "[Latin] America is ungovernable." one revolution after another did not bring prosperity. "He who serves a revolution ploughs the sea."1 He was so discouraged with how the people expressed their new freedoms that he quickly concluded that they needed a dictator. Some months before his death Bolivar wrote:
"There is no good faith in [Latin] America, nor among the nations of [Latin] America. Treaties are scraps of paper; constitutions, printed matter; elections, battles; freedom, anarchy; and life a torment."2
Over time, many people in these nations understood that the United States stood for something that was different, and as much as liberals refuse to admit it, what made the United States great was its Christian foundation. People who risked limb and life to come here understood that to be a part of that greatness they would have to build on that foundation even if they did not agree with every aspect of Christianity.
This is no longer the case. Many immigrants refuse to assimilate. We see this in signage that includes multiple languages. Then there's the welfare state.
In order for the world to change, people have to change. And in order for people to change, their worldview must change where they are. Immigrating to the United States will not change the world when you consider that there are 7 billion people in the world.
The following video shows why immigration to the United States is all a matter of numbers:

  1. Edward Coleson, "The American Revolution: Typical or Unique?," The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Symposium on Christianity and the American Revolution, ed. Gary North, 3:1 (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon, 1976), 176-177. 
  2. Quoted in Edward Coleson, "The American Revolution: Typical or Unique?," 177. 

Monday, November 23, 2015

Why the United States was Designed as a Republic


 Benjamin Franklin

 Ben Franklin famously replied when asked about the government that was created by the Constitution: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
“Democracy ” Not In Any Founding Document 
The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a “democracy.” No American founding document, not the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution mention “democracy”.  This is because democracy was viewed as dangerous to the rights of minorities.
Command for State Republics Found in the Constitution 
In contrast, the Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
This means a government without a king, accountable to the people and governed by the “rule of law”. States would have no kings, elections for government representatives and an established law applied equally to all citizens. This is the essence of a republic.
The Dangers of Democracy 
Franklin’s description of democracy sums up the danger: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.”
Thomas JeffersonThomas Jefferson thought democracies were dangerous because: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
John Adams knew democracies had short lives: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Because of that Understanding the United States is a Republic
The United States is a republic. In a republic the people choose representatives to exercise their power. A republic does not have a king or queen, but rather an elected or appointed president. A republic starts with a free individual with the right to govern himself. That individual gives some of that power to the community. The community chooses representatives to serve in government and gives those representatives the power to make laws. That power is to make laws only about those subjects that the community has identified.
The Elements of a Republic 
The elements of a republic are these: 1) a representative government, 2) a written constitution and 3) the rule of law. The rule of law requires that no one be above the law, that the law has been defined before a controversy exists, and that the rights of minorities are protected.
The source of authority in a republic is the people as a whole, and the people as a whole ratify, or agree to, a constitution before it becomes effective. A republic does not operate under the 50% + 1 rule by design in order to limit the government’s power and to protect “natural rights”.   
Democracy Contrasted with Republic
In a democracy citizens exercise power directly. In a pure democracy, 50% of the group plus one more citizen determine the laws. There are no protections for minority rights. Minorities have only those privileges granted by the good graces of the majority.
In its pure form, democracy is simply majority rule. All citizens get together to decide every issue of government. Decisions made by 50% + 1 of those participating are binding on everyone. Pure democracy is sometimes referred to as “mobocracy” because decisions are made by a simple majority of a mob and enforced on everyone.
Article IVArticle IV, Section 4, Republican Form of Government
The Article IV, Section 4 command of a Republican Form of Government for the states is known as the Guarantee Clause. This clause requires that state governments consist of representatives, rather than the alternative of “direct democracy”. Direct democracy is when all eligible citizens vote on every law. To be part of the Union a state must have a representative republican government.
Following the Civil War when Congress delayed “readmission” of many Confederate States. Congress refused to seat the Representatives and Senators that used tactics to limit voting by newly freed black males. These tactics resulted in “unrepresentative” state governments and thus the governments were not republican.
Washington Gridlock by Design
The Founders were well aware that having rule by a simple majority imperiled the natural rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence. They constructed a system designed to be ultimately responsible to the people, but included layers that required a consensus be built that included the input of minorities before action could be taken.
When there are complaints that “Washington isn’t doing anything”, they should understand that the slow process that sometimes seems to frustrate the will of the majority was intended to do just that, to protect the freedom and liberty of all.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

It’s a $cam!: The American Way of War in the Twenty-First Century

Roads to Nowhere, Ghost Soldiers, and a $43 Million Gas Station in Afghanistan

by , November 13, 2015 
 Let’s begin with the $12 billion in shrink-wrapped $100 bills, Iraqi oil money held in the U.S. The Bush administration began flying it into Baghdad on C-130s soon after U.S. troops entered that city in April 2003. Essentially dumped into the void that had once been the Iraqi state, at least $1.2 to $1.6 billion of it was stolen and ended up years later in a mysterious bunker in Lebanon. And that’s just what happened as the starting gun went off.
It’s never ended. In 2011, the final report of the congressionally mandated Commission on Wartime Contracting estimated that somewhere between $31 billion and $60 billion taxpayer dollars had been lost to fraud and waste in the American “reconstruction” of Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, for instance, there was that $75 million police academy, initially hailed “as crucial to U.S. efforts to prepare Iraqis to take control of the country’s security.” It was, however, so poorly constructed that it proved a health hazard. In 2006, “feces and urine rained from the ceilings in [its] student barracks” and that was only the beginning of its problems.
When the bad press started, Parsons Corporation, the private contractor that built it, agreed to fix it for nothing more than the princely sum already paid. A year later, a New York Times reporter visited and found that “the ceilings are still stained with excrement, parts of the structures are crumbling, and sections of the buildings are unusable because the toilets are filthy and nonfunctioning.” This seems to have been par for the course. Typically enough, the Khan Bani Saad Correctional Facility, a $40 million prison Parsons also contracted to build, was never even finished.
And these were hardly isolated cases or problems specific to Iraq. Consider, for instance, those police stations in Afghanistan believed to be crucial to “standing up” a new security force in that country. Despite the money poured into them and endless cost overruns, many were either never completed or never built, leaving new Afghan police recruits camping out. And the police were hardly alone. Take the $3.4 million unfinished teacher-training center in Sheberghan, Afghanistan, that an Iraqi company was contracted to build (using, of course, American dollars) and from which it walked away, money in hand.
And why stick to buildings, when there were those Iraqi roads to nowhere paid for by American dollars? At least one of them did at least prove useful to insurgent groups moving their guerrillas around (like the $37 million bridge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built between Afghanistan and Tajikistan that helped facilitate the region’s booming drug trade in opium and heroin). In Afghanistan, Highway 1 between the capital Kabul and the southern city of Kandahar, unofficially dubbed the “highway to nowhere,” was so poorly constructed that it began crumbling in its first Afghan winter.
And don’t think that this was an aberration. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hired an American nonprofit, International Relief and Development (IRD), to oversee an ambitious road-building program meant to gain the support of rural villagers. Almost $300 million later, it could point to “less than 100 miles of gravel road completed.” Each mile of road had, by then, cost U.S. taxpayers $2.8 million, instead of the expected $290,000, while a quarter of the road-building funds reportedly went directly to IRD for administrative and staff costs. Needless to say, as the road program failed, USAID hired IRD to oversee other non-transportation projects.
In these years, the cost of reconstruction never stopped growing. In 2011, McClatchy News reported that “U.S. government funding for at least 15 large-scale programs and projects grew from just over $1 billion to nearly $3 billion despite the government’s questions about their effectiveness or cost.”
The Gas Station to Nowhere
So much construction and reconstruction – and so many failures. There was the chicken-processing plant built in Iraq for $2.58 million that, except in a few Potemkin-Village-like moments, never plucked a chicken and sent it to market. There was the sparkling new, 64,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art, $25 million headquarters for the U.S. military in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, that doubled in cost as it was being built and that three generals tried to stop. They were overruled because Congress had already allotted the money for it, so why not spend it, even though it would never be used? And don’t forget the $20 million that went into constructing roads and utilities for the base that was to hold it, or the $8.4 billion that went into Afghan opium-poppy-suppression and anti-drug programs and resulted in… bumper poppy crops and record opium yields, or the aid funds that somehow made their way directly into the hands of the Taliban (reputedly its second-largest funding source after those poppies).
There were the billions of dollars in aid that no one could account for, and a significant percentage of the 465,000 small arms (rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and the like) that the U.S. shipped to Afghanistan and simply lost track of. Most recently, there was the Task Force for Business Stability Operations, an $800-million Pentagon project to help jump-start the Afghan economy. It was shut down only six months ago and yet, in response to requests from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Pentagon swears that there are “no Defense Department personnel who can answer questions about” what the task force did with its money. As ProPublica’s Megan McCloskey writes, “The Pentagon’s claims are particularly surprising since Joseph Catalino, the former acting director of the task force who was with the program for two years, is still employed by the Pentagon as Senior Advisor for Special Operations and Combating Terrorism.”
Still, from that pile of unaccountable taxpayer dollars, one nearly $43 million chunk did prove traceable to a single project: the building of a compressed natural gas station. (The cost of constructing a similar gas station in neighboring Pakistan: $300,000.) Located in an area that seems to have had no infrastructure for delivering natural gas and no cars converted for the use of such fuel, it represented the only example on record in those years of a gas station to nowhere.
All of this just scratches the surface when it comes to the piles of money that were poured into an increasingly privatized version of the American way of war and, in the form of overcharges and abuses of every sort, often simply disappeared into the pockets of the warrior corporations that entered America’s war zones. In a sense, a surprising amount of the money that the Pentagon and U.S. civilian agencies “invested” in Iraq and Afghanistan never left the United States, since it went directly into the coffers of those companies.
Clearly, Washington had gone to war like a drunk on a bender, while the domestic infrastructure began to fray. At $109 billion by 2014, the American reconstruction program in Afghanistan was already, in today’s dollars, larger than the Marshall Plan (which helped put all of devastated Western Europe back on its feet after World War II) and still the country was a shambles. In Iraq, a mere $60 billion was squandered on the failed rebuilding of the country. Keep in mind that none of this takes into account the staggering billions spent by the Pentagon in both countries to build strings of bases, ranging in size from American towns (with all the amenities of home) to tiny outposts. There would be 505 of them in Iraq and at least 550 in Afghanistan. Most were, in the end, abandoned, dismantled, or sometimes simply looted. And don’t forget the vast quantities of fuel imported into Afghanistan to run the U.S. military machine in those years, some of which was siphoned off by American soldiers, to the tune of at least $15 million, and sold to local Afghans on the sly.
In other words, in the post-9/11 years, “reconstruction” and “war” have really been euphemisms for what, in other countries, we would recognize as a massive system of corruption.
And let’s not forget another kind of “reconstruction” then underway. In both countries, the U.S. was creating enormous militaries and police forces essentially from scratch to the tune of at least $25 billion in Iraq and $65 billion in Afghanistan. What’s striking about both of these security forces, once constructed, is how similar they turned out to be to those police academies, the unfinished schools, and that natural gas station. It can’t be purely coincidental that both of the forces Americans proudly “stood up” have turned out to be the definition of corrupt: that is, they were filled not just with genuine recruits but with serried ranks of “ghost personnel.”
In June 2014, after whole divisions of the Iraqi army collapsed and fled before modest numbers of Islamic State militants, abandoning much of their weaponry and equipment, it became clear that they had been significantly smaller in reality than on paper. And no wonder, as that army had enlisted 50,000 “ghost soldiers” (who existed only on paper and whose salaries were lining the pockets of commanders and others). In Afghanistan, the U.S. is still evidently helping to pay for similarly stunning numbers of phantom personnel, though no specific figures are available. (In 2009, an estimated more than 25% of the police force consisted of such ghosts.) As John Sopko, the U.S. inspector general for Afghanistan, warned last June: “We are paying a lot of money for ghosts in Afghanistan… whether they are ghost teachers, ghost doctors or ghost policeman or ghost soldiers.”
And lest you imagine that the U.S. military has learned its lesson, rest assured that it’s still quite capable of producing nonexistent proxy forces. Take the Pentagon-CIA program to train thousands of carefully vetted “moderate” Syrian rebels, equip them, arm them, and put them in the field to fight the Islamic State. Congress ponied up $500 million for it, $384 million of which was spent before that project was shut down as an abject failure. By then, less than 200 American-backed rebels had been trained and even less put into the field in Syria – and they were almost instantly kidnapped or killed, or they simply handed over their equipment to the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. At one point, according to the congressional testimony of the top American commander in the Middle East, only four or five American-produced rebels were left “in the field.” The cost-per-rebel sent into Syria, by the way, is now estimated at approximately $2 million.
A final footnote: the general who oversaw this program is, according to the New York Times, still a “rising star” in the Pentagon and in line for a promotion.
You’ve just revisited the privatized, twenty-first-century version of the American way of war, which proved to be a smorgasbord of scandal, mismanagement, and corruption as far as the eye could see. In the tradition of Watergate, perhaps the whole system could be dubbed Profli-gate, since American war making across the Greater Middle East has represented perhaps the most profligate and least effective use of funds in the history of modern warfare. In fact, here’s a word not usually associated with the U.S. military: the war system of this era seems to function remarkably like a monumental scam, a swindle, a fraud.
The evidence is in: the U.S. military can win battles, but not a war, not even against minimally armed minority insurgencies; it can “stand up” foreign militaries, but only if they are filled with phantom feet and if the forces themselves are as hollow as tombs; it can pour funds into the reconstruction of countries, a process guaranteed to leave them more prostrate than before; it can bomb, missile, and drone-kill significant numbers of terrorists and other enemies, even as their terror outfits and insurgent movements continue to grow stronger under the shadow of American air power. Fourteen years and five failed states later in the Greater Middle East, all of that seems irrefutable.
And here’s something else irrefutable: amid the defeats, corruption, and disappointments, there lurks a kind of success. After all, every disaster in which the U.S. military takes part only brings more bounty to the Pentagon. Domestically, every failure results in calls for yet more military interventions around the world. As a result, the military is so much bigger and better funded than it was on September 10, 2001. The commanders who led our forces into such failures have repeatedly been rewarded and much of the top brass, civilian and military, though they should have retired in shame, have taken ever more golden parachutes into the lucrative worlds of defense contractors, lobbyists, and consultancies.
All of this couldn’t be more obvious, though it’s seldom said. In short, there turns out to be much good fortune in the disaster business, a fact which gives the whole process the look of a classic swindle in which the patsies lose their shirts but the scam artists make out like bandits.
Add in one more thing: these days, the only part of the state held in great esteem by conservatives and the present batch of Republican presidential candidates is the U.S. military. All of them, with the exception of Rand Paul, swear that on entering the Oval Office they will let that military loose, sending in more troops, or special ops forces, or air power, and funding the various services even more lavishly; all of this despite overwhelming evidence that the U.S. military is incapable of spending a dollar responsibly or effectively monitoring what it’s done with the taxpayer funds in its possession. (If you don’t believe me, forget everything in this piece and just check out the finances of the most expensive weapons system in history, the F-35 Lightning II, which should really be redubbed the F-35 Overrun for its madly spiraling costs.)
But no matter. If a system works (particularly for those in it), why change it? And by the way, in case you’re looking for a genuine steal, I have a fabulous gas station in Afghanistan to sell you…

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

A Pattern of Executive Overreach


David Berstein / / /

Recently, the Justice Department announced it would not be indicting anyone for his or her role in the most serious domestic political scandal since the Nixon years.
Starting in 2010, the IRS, under pressure from congressional Democrats and the White House, engaged in blatant ideologically motivated discrimination against conservative organizations applying for non-profit status.
That the most feared bureaucracy in Washington was making decisions based on illegal political criteria should send a chill down the spine of any American who cares about the First Amendment and the rule of law.
Yet the Department of Justice has refused to indict even IRS official Lois Lerner, who invoked her Fifth Amendment right to silence to avoid incriminating herself in testimony before Congress.

Unfortunately, the failure to prosecute anyone responsible for abusing the IRS’s authority reflects the Obama administration’s broader contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Consider just a few examples:
  1. Going to war in Libya in blatant violation of the War Powers Resolution, and in defiance of the legal advice of the president’s own lawyers, based on the ridiculous theory that bombing the heck out of Libya did not constitute “hostilities” under the law
  1. Appointing so-called policy czars to high-level positions to avoid constitutionally-required confirmation hearings
  1. Modifying, delaying, and ignoring various provisions of Obamacare in violation of the law itself
  1. Attacking private citizens for engaging in constitutionally protected speech
  1. Issuing draconian regulations regarding sexual assault on campus not through formal, lawful regulation but through an informal, and unreviewable, “dear colleague” letter
  1. Ignoring 100 years of legal rulings and the plain text of the Constitution and trying to get a vote in Congress for the D.C. delegate
  1. Trying to enact massive immigration reform via an executive order demanding that the Department of Homeland Security both refuse to enforce existing immigration law, and provide work permits to millions of people residing in the U.S. illegally
  1. Imposing common core standards on the states via administrative fiat
  1. Ignoring bankruptcy law and arranging Chrysler’s bankruptcy to benefit labor unions at the expense of bondholders
  1. Trying to strip churches and other religious bodies of their constitutional right to choose their clergy free from government involvement.
More generally, the president has abandoned any pretense of trying to work with Congress, as the Constitution’s separation of powers requires. He prefers instead to govern by unilateral executive fiat, even when there is little or no legal authority supporting his power to do so.
Presidents trying stretch their power as far as they can is hardly news. What is news, however, is that top Obama administration officials, including the president himself, see this not as something to be ashamed of, but as a desirable way of governing, something to brag about rather than do surreptitiously.
Obama behaves as if there is some inherent virtue in a president governing by decree and whim, as if promoting progressive political ends at the expense of the rule of law is proper not simply as a desperate last resort but as a matter of principle.
After all, Obama says, democracy is unduly “messy” and “complicated.” “We can’t wait,” the president intones, as he ignores the separation of powers again and again, ruling instead through executive order.
“Law is politics,” and only politics, according to a mantra popular on the legal left, and therefore the law should not be an independent constraint to doing the right thing politically. Obama seems to agree.
As Obama’s lawlessness has received increased attention from Congress, the (conservative) media, and the general public, the president has been defiant, even petulant. When confronted by allegations of lawlessness, Obama takes no responsibility, and doesn’t even bother to defend the legality of his actions.
Harry S. Truman famously said “the buck stops here.” Obama responds to serious concerns about his administration’s lawlessness with a derisive “so sue me.”
As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley writes, Obama “acts as if anything a court has not expressly forbidden is permissible.” And in many situations, no one has legal standing to challenge the president’s actions in court—which means that no judge can stop the administration’s lawbreaking.
So sue me? If only we could.

An American Dictator


I was recently speaking to a friend and fellow conservative. The conversation invariably turned to a discussion of “The One”. My friend was complaining of what a fascist dictator Obama is becoming. I had to laugh knowing that Obama has always been a fascist and it’s just becoming more obvious now. He spoke as if this were the first time in American history we have a president that fancies himself a dictator or King.
I gave my friend a quick synopsis of King Andrew Jackson. You may link to it here.  It was as if he hadn’t heard this, as if it were news to him, and he, I regard as someone who is a fairly well-rounded and knowledgeable conservative. He did understand, and I agree, that fascism is a product of the left, not the right is most are taught. The left, progressives, like fascist are enamored and in fact worship the power and expansion of the state and absolute control of it.
There have actually been several “want to be” fascist leaders in America before the present. As bad as they all were, in my opinion, there has been none worse than president Thomas Woodrow Wilson, our 28th.
Historian Walter McDougall wrote that Wilson, “loved, craved and in a sense, glorified power”.
Wilson said, “I cannot imagine power as something negative and not positive. No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fu

fundamental principle.” He went on to say, “government does  whatever experience permits or that the times demand” and, “the president is at liberty both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set a limit.”
Progressives, Statists like Wilson are always arguing that the “Times”, not the Constitution, dictate government policy. He believed that the country’s leaders are not servants of its citizens but Masters. He alleged that a, “true leader uses the masses of people like tools. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader”. Humility was not one of Wilson’s attributes.
Another trait of all dictatorial advocates is that is that they abhor dissent. They won’t accept and frankly don’t understand any disagreement of their brilliance. For example, upon entering World War I Wilson exclaimed of antiwar protesters, “Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way”. Just imagine the rancor of the left leaning press if George Bush had the stones to stand up and say something like that.
Wilson, as all progressives, claimed to have a reverence for America’s founders and the original documents until, of course, their beliefs clash with said founders. Then it is always the same excuse not to adhere to the founders’ original intent. The “Times” again, they say, dictate all actions.
Wilson exclaimed, “While we are followers of Jefferson….You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is one that does as little governing as possible….But that time has passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise.” I guess the average American just can’t handle freedom.
Now have you ever noticed that most wars break out when a progressive is in charge? Just an observation and I’m sure strictly coincidental.
But Woodrow Wilson actually bragged about fighting a war with no national interest at stake as is the law. “There is not a single selfish element, so far as I can see, in the cause we are fighting for.” So according to Wilson we had no national interest, no strategic benefit, no clear and present danger to our involvement in World War I. Is that what he’s saying?
Wilson said of World War I, “As head of a nation participating in the war, the President of the United States would have a seat at the peace table, but… If he remained the representative of a neutral country, he could at best only call through a crack in the door.”
So was Wilson saying he got America into World War I so he could have a seat at the peace table? Over 116,000 died in even more wounded so he could promote his warped view of worldwide collectivism and one world government through his “League of Nations”? He did proudly admit that we had no national interest in the war. I would not like to think this of any man but the more I look, it appears that he did just that.

An American Dictator (Part Deux)


As I stated in Part One, Barack Obama is not our first progressive president to fancy himself a supreme ruler.
It remains to be seen if Obama will supplant all predecessors as America’s worst president. He has the potential but I believe Woodrow Wilson is still king of American fascist presidents.
During World War I Woodrow Wilson created the “Committee on Public Information (CPI)”. The wicked progressive and Wilson advisor Edward Bernays described the CPI as the “engineering of consent” and “the conscious manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses”. Wilson, in the CPI, had created America’s first official government propaganda department, designed solely to control the population and manipulate their behavior.
One example of manipulation the CPI produced was a World War I liberty Bond poster that read: “I am Public Opinion. All men fear me! If you have money to buy and do not buy, I will make this No Man’s Land for you!” Now that’s not at all creepy, is it?
The CPI trained a group of almost 100,000 men to give four-minute propaganda speeches to any audience that would listen. They extolled the greatness of government and portrayed Woodrow Wilson as a larger-than-life leader. They also produced and released many government propaganda films.
Wilson enacted his own sedition act, which forbade American citizens from criticizing their government during a time of war. The American people could not, “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” regarding the government or the military.
The postmaster general was even given the authority to revoke all mailing privileges of those who disobeyed Wilson’s directive. Many publications were given warnings and the government shut down almost 75 for disloyal printings.
In the Wilson police state, citizens were not even safe in their own homes if they spoke ill of the president. Federal attorneys and US marshals publicly claimed that citizens had nothing to fear as long as they “Obeyed the law and kept their mouths shut”.
Wilson’s Justice Department created the “American Protective League (APL)”. Its purpose was to spy on the people and turn in any “seditious persons”. In 1918, in a single month, the New York City APL rounded up almost 50,000 citizens. The Gestapo had nothing on them.
In an address to Congress, Wilson exclaimed, “The gravest threats against our national peace and safety have been uttered within our borders. There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit….who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; have

sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into woodrow-wilson-2contempt…”. Notice Wilson spoke of the “good name” of the government, not the United States. As it always is with progressives and Statists, the government is set before all.
It is estimated that almost 175,000 citizens were arrested for seditious behavior or failure to demonstrate Wilson’s version of patriotism.
This was very similar to conquered nations during World War II, where Hitler was paraded into a sacked city and its citizens were forced to wave Nazi flags and cheer the Fuehrer, or else.
President Wilson charged another progressive, Bernard Baruch with running the “War Industries Board (WIB)”. The board was formed to assure that all American industry be in service to the State.
It is said the WIB served as a precursor to the fascist policies of both Mussolini and Hitler.
Grosvenor Clarkson, a member of the WIB, characterized it as, “An industrial dictatorship without parallel; A dictatorship by force of necessity and common consent which, step-by-step, at least encompassed the nation and united it into a coordinated and mobile unit”.
These are not the only unconstitutional transgressions of the Woodrow Wilson administration, but at least now you have an idea of just how oppressive his administration was.
My point is only to demonstrate to all that claim the Obama administration is the worst and most unconstitutional in history, don’t know their history.
I am also not saying, that given the chance, King Barack would be the most oppressive; just that as of now, he’s not even close.
Together, as we learn more of our own history, it may be easier to see the signs of oppression before we are forced to live them. And finally, disregard, as I have, those nayayers that insist these types of things could “Never happen in America”, for we know they already have.

The Most Disturbing Video You'll Ever See Exposing Muslim Refugees

By /

Many in America are still fast asleep in their mental beds, completely unaware of the judgment that is upon them and what is coming. I would normally comment on video that I post, but I think seeing this video is something that you have to personally assess with your own eyes and your own mind.
The purpose in sharing this is not to frighten people, but to awaken those still asleep as to what is going on. As Christians, we should be those opposed to our money being funneled through government as a welfare state for anyone, including those from other countries. However, if they are brought here, we must be those who are courageously pushing forward with the Gospel of Jesus Christ that saves even antichrist Muslims from their sins!


What we see taking place in Europe through an invasion of Muslims into the West is a preview of what is coming to America if we do not take a stand and do what is right.

Please share this video to help open the eyes of your friends as well.