The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon




By Dan Dicks, December 16, 2014

The Hydro Monopoly

Can you imagine a world where electricity flows in an open and free market? Nicola Tesla did. But before his vision of free energy could be realized the elite oligarchy seized control and monopolized an entire industry which it controls to this day. Ever since the 1970s there has been a concerted effort to bring all hydro systems under the umbrella of the North American Union.

Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great pertinent articles from Press For Truth.


A federal district court judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that portions of President Obama’s executive amnesty are unconstitutional, according to the Washington Post.

Western Pennsylvania District Judge Arthur Schwab concluded in his opinion that Obama’s executive actions go “beyond prosecutorial discretion” and into the realm of legislating.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” Schwab wrote in his opinion.

Schwab’s ruling, the Washington Post notes, is the first judicial opinion rendered about President Obama’s executive amnesty.

The Pennsylvania opinion came as a result of a case involving an illegal immigrant — Elionardo Juarez-Escobar — arrested for drunk driving and who was found to have already been deported in 2005 but illegally re-entered the country. The court sought to consider whether the November executive orders would apply to Escobar.

In the course of that consideration, Schwab determined some of the actions to be unconstitutional.

“The opinion of the Pennsylvania federal district court regarding the President’s Executive Action on Immigration came from an unexpected place, in an unexpected context; but the court was correct in stating that the Executive Action is an unconstitutional violation of Separation of Powers,” John S. Baker, Jr. Louisiana State University Law School professor said in a statement reacting to the decision.

Three other legal challenges to Obama’s executive actions are still awaiting outcomes, including a suit filed by 24 states challenging the executive actions.

See more and read comments at BREITBART


By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges

Ron Paul called Hillary Clinton pro-Fed and pro-War, and these two traits may represent her strong points.

With the country poised to go to war over Ukraine, Hillary Clinton cannot be allowed to enter into the decision making in this frightening series of events or any other crises for that matter. A Hillary Clinton presidency would spell the sudden and decisive doom for this country. Is she worse than Obama? Undoubtedly, she would prove worse for the country than even the current President.

Hillary Clinton cannot be allowed to become president. Her treachery, propensity for criminal behavior and her depraved indifference for her fellow Americans, makes her at the moment, the most dangerous woman in America. SHE IS WORSE THAN OBAMA!

In every scandal that she has been a part of, the body count skyrockets, far beyond the normal actuaries of mortality. Nothing sticks to this woman. If Hillary ever becomes President, history has shown that she is capable of the greatest reign of terror ever perpetrated by a sitting President. Warmongers like John McCain are doing their best to lead the US into World War III on behalf of the globalist bankers in Ukraine. After reading the following, even an Obama phone recipient would be hard pressed to throw their blind support behind Hillary Clinton.


The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

hillary-it-takes-a-socialist-to-raze-a-nationIn a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same, the scope of Hillary Clinton’s criminality cannot be covered in one article. In fact, I doubt that it could be covered in one book. The body count stories alone, associated with both Hillary and Bill, could fill volumes. By some estimates, the body count now tops 85 victims. Therefore, in the interest of brevity, a brief comparison will be made between the Clinton Whitewater affair and the Benghazi murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. The undeniable conclusion that the reader will draw from these two comparative cases is that Hillary Clinton, one the President’s former top cabinet members, is, has been and probably always will be a sociopathic criminal with no conscience.

Whitewater and the Missing Billing Records

clinton whitewaterFor those who were old enough to remember, you will recall that Whitewater was a real estate development in Arkansas which became a nightmarish scandal for Bill and Hillary when it became insolvent. Clintons’ partner, Jim McDougal, owned a savings and loan association (i.e. Madison Guaranty) that hired Hillary and her firm, the Rose Law Firm. When the Savings and Loan institution failed, costing taxpayers $65 million, the Whitewater vacation development project collapsed as well. Hillary stated 99 times under oath in 1996, that she did not recall what work she did for Madison Guarantee. This is a stellar case in point why I believe that Hillary will never tell what she REALLY knows about the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. After six hearings and $40 million dollars of investigations, Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr did not determine that the Clintons’ were innocent of criminal wrongdoing when he concluded that “This office has determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct … or knew of such conduct.” Prosecutors had previously subpoenaed Hillary’s billing records from Madison. However, Hillary continued to lie as she reported that she couldn’t find them. Two years later, the records turned up in the White House family residence under circumstances that Hillary has never been able to fully explain. Why she did not go to jail is a mystery. The best case scenario was that the First Couple were lying under oath and obstructing justice, just like Hillary has done with regard to the Chris Stevens murder.

The Whitewater Body Count

John Wilson was found dead from an apparent hanging suicide on May 18, 1993. He was a former Washington DC council member and claimed to have information on Whitewater at the time of his death. Jon Parnell Walker was an investigator for the RTC who was looking into the linkage between the Whitewater and Madison Savings & Loan bankruptcy. Walker “fell” from the top of the Lincoln Towers Building. Stanley Huggins was a principal in a Memphis law firm which headed a 1987 investigation into the loan practices of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. Stanley died in Delaware in July 1994 and the highly questionable reported cause of death was viral pneumonia.


Jim McDougal

Jim McDougal was a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was also their banker, and political ally prior to being sent to prison for eighteen felony convictions for his Whitewater related actions. A key Whitewater witness, McDougal died of a heart attack on March, 8, 1998, while, inexplicably, being held in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement? I thought high profile prisoners like McDougal went to Club Fed to serve out their terms, not solitary confinement. Of course, in solitary confinement, there are no witnesses to murder. McDougal was in position to have had intimate knowledge of Hillary’s Whitewater affairs, but dead men tell no tales. Johnny Lawhon died on March 29, 1998. The former Arkansas transmission specialist who discovered a pile of Whitewater documents in the trunk of an abandoned car on his property and turned them over to Ken Starr. Lawhon was killed in a car wreck two weeks after the McDougal death. Details of the “accident” have remained suspicious.

Clinton Is Backed By Criminals


Norman Hsu, major Campaign Contributor to Hillary Clinton

Both of the Clintons’ have a long history of questionable criminal associations. Because this is an article and not a book, I will use the Hsu case as an example of the many criminal associations that Hillary Clinton has participated in.   hsu 2The infamous Norman Hsu became one of Hillary’s biggest fundraisers in which he donated over $850,000 to her campaign, and his donations continued to the day that Hsu surrendered to the California State Superior Court after being found guilty of a Grand Theft conviction.  Hsu had been a fugitive from justice for over 15 years. Hsu became a fugitive when he failed to appear for sentencing by the court after pleading no contest to the Grand Theft charges. You might want to loosen your collar and adjust your eyeglasses. This means that Hillary Clinton was accepting money from a convicted criminal who was evading justice during the same exact time frame. Hsu’s crime was connected to raising more than a million dollars from investors for a phony business scheme which didn’t exist.  And true to the criminal nature of the Obama Administration, Hsu also gave $18,000 to Barack Obama election campaign. Doesn’t that make Hillary an accessory after the fact?

One is judged by the company one keeps

 The Benghazi Murders

clinton they knewThere is now proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton.     As Stevens was begging for help after the attack had begun, General Hamm had activated a special forces team within minutes of learning that the embassy, which was really a CIA safe house, was under attack.


General Hamm

When General Hamm received his “stand down” orders from Panetta on behalf of Obama, he defiantly made plans to go ahead with the rescue and was arrested within minutes of contravening the order, by his second in command, General Rodriquez. Out to sea, Admiral Gayouette, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Three, was preparing to provide intelligence and air cover for General Hamm’s rescue team in violation of his standing orders and he was promptly relieved of command for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.” Both men were held for months in undisclosed locations, until after the 2012 election and then became part of the Obama body count as they were two of the 260+ senior command military officers that have been fired by Obama. As an aside, if there is any kind of a silver lining in these very dark clouds, it appears that much of the senior military leadership has had enough of the traitorous Obama and his den of corrupt criminals and some of them are willing to risk their career in the name of actually serving the American people.


Admiral Gayouette

The evidence is clear. Clinton knew that Stevens was in grave danger and ordered extra security. Obama refused to support Clinton, purposely leaving Stevens exposed. At this point, Clinton had a choice…… Does she go along to get along and become an accomplice to murder? Or, does she resign and refuse to go along with the murderous intentions of Panetta and Obama? Even if Clinton had resigned that should not have been enough to avoid criminal charges of depraved indifference by failing to report a crime that she knew was going to happen and then did take place.She later did quit, but she never told what really happened. Clinton had both a moral and legal imperative to resign and then tell what she knew. General Hamm and Admiral Gayouette are clearly men who understand their moral and legal imperatives. They refused to obey an unlawful and unconstitutional order. Clinton, true to her criminal background and history of inappropriate choices, chose to go along, to get along. There can be no doubt that Clinton would have had limited options if she would have displayed the courage of Hamm and Gayouette and refused to obey an illegal order from Obama through Panetta. I also understand that it would have been gut wrenching to decide where she could have gone with this information? The logical choice is Eric Holder, the Attorney General. However, with Holder’s complicity in Fast and Furious, Clinton would have known that Holder was not an option and that he is just as corrupt as Obama. She could not have gone to the FBI, because it is controlled by the President. Local law enforcement has no jurisdiction. Now, before you start to feel sorry for Clinton, please realize that Congress threw her a lifeline. Clinton’s supporters have told me that her life would have been in danger, if she had told all to Congress, and my response was “You mean in the same way that Chris Stevens life was in danger?”

The Clot Heard Around the World

Leaders are supposed to possess both moral and physical courage. Do not feel sorry for Clinton, she was not totally without options. Congress gave her a chance to save her reputation and possibly her legal rear end. She could have told what she knew about Obama and Panetta being the butchers of Benghazi. Hillary’s testimony could have brought down this criminal administration. Instead, we find a Secretary of State who developed the Benghazi flu and “could not” testify. And when this strategy, designed to avoid congressional testimony, wore thin, Clinton demonstrated that she has a better head fake than hall of fame basketball star, Michael Jordan, when she suddenly developed an alleged blood clot near the brain. clinton 2016Clinton is still putting her political career and her loyalty to the democratic party ahead of her oath of office. Anyone, who has an IQ higher than room temperature, knows that Obama and Panetta let Stevens be murdered and their intent was deliberate. So, rather than doing the right thing, Clinton wants to appear to be protecting the President and ultimately the Democratic party. In my opinion, Clinton chose to take the proverbial political bullet so she could retain support from her party in order that she can run in 2016 with full party support. Meanwhile, Obama and Panetta made a decision to let Stevens get murdered to make the trail of evidence go cold with regard to their illegal gun running operations to Al-Qaeda, into Syria via Turkey, in this Middle East version of Fast and Furious. And Hillary simply goes along to get along. In the aftermath of Stevens murder, here sits Hillary Clinton placing her personal political ambition over the life of an ambassador who did not have to die. She is still breaking the law by obstructing justice and not telling what she knows. Ironically, if Clinton had done the right thing with regard to the murders of these four Americans, some people might have softened their views on her past criminality. However, at the end of the day, America needs to face the fact that Hillary Clinton is a criminal to the core. People like her are so used to using graft, corruption and murder, so often, to get what they want, they do not honestly know how to pursue personal goals without incorporating these variables into their decision making.

The Benghazi Victim Trail

Ambassador Chris Stevens along with Sean Smith,  Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed in a planned terrorist attack in Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. Some of the four victims families render a harsh verdict of the Obama Administration.  Sean Smith’s mother. Patricia Smith, has said that the president ‘murdered her son’ and Tyrone Woods’ father has echoed her sentiment. And Hillary went along to get along.

Just Like Slick Willie, Hillary Is Made Out of Teflon With regard to Benghazi

Did Hillary go down with the Obama ship? It is not likely that she will have to worry about that possibility. As Congress buckled and allowed the Wall Street bankers to plunder and subsequently destroy the economy through unconstitutional and illegal bail outs, Congress will buckle again in the Benghazi affair because they will not bite that hand that ultimately feeds them their insider deals which leads to their insider trading opportunities that has been admitted to by Nancy Pelosi. If you understand the contents of this paragraph, then you understand why the American empire is crumbling right before our eyes.


Clinton cannot be allowed to become President. When one considers the facts in evidence, Hillary Clinton is an enemy of the Republic.This is her legacy. 

The Late Ambassador

Hillary's Legacy

The face of evil that helping to run our Republic



About the Author

Dave Hodges is the host of the popular radio talk show, which airs from 9 PM to Midnight (Central). The show can be heard by clicking the following icon in the upper right hand corner of The Common Sense Show.

© 2014. The Common Sense Show. The Logo and Articles are protected by U.S. Copyright Laws, and are not to be downloaded or reproduced in any way without the written permission of Dave Hodges. Copyright 2014. Dave Hodges. All Rights Reserved

TLB recommends you visit Dave here:


See featured article and read comments HERE


TLB: Click on images to enlarge.

Shocking DOJ Jewish Lobby case files released under a Freedom of Information Act show President Kennedy & AG Robert Kennedy were fighting the Zionists When Murdered.

Contributed to TLB by: Nicky Nelson

These fascinating historical documents were released on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act filing. I have in bold critical information just prior to President Kennedy’s murder; click on the date to see the original documents.

Keep in mind the dates that President John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy were murdered while reading these historical documents regarding their efforts to get the nefarious Jewish Lobby in America registered as Foreign Agents as is required by law; AZC (American Zionist Counsil) / AIPAC (The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee).

Instead of the Kennedy brothers accomplishing this critical goal, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee AIPAC applied for a federal tax exemption in 1967 and the “Federal” Reserve’s criminal collection agency, the IRS aka the US Treasury Department grants it—backdated to 1953!!! Click here: 11/27/1967

Congressman Donald Rumsfeld sent a letter to Robert F. Kennedy on behalf of the Zionists and status of AZC FARA registration on 07/15/1963. It appears Rumsfeld has been working on behalf of Israel and the Zionists his entire career and we know what a big help he was to Israel during 9/11 when 3,000 of our countrymen were burned alive in broad daylight.

Donald Rumsfeld letter to Bobby Kennedy

FARA – The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. Fd ARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.  Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents. The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.

FARA Law Information

22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq – United States Code

Title 28 C.F.R. Part 5 – Judicial Administration

 President Kennedy

(10/17/1963 – J. Walter Yeagley notes of DOJ AZC meeting attended by Nicholas Katzenbach.  “Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons affiliated with the Council that such registration would be so publicized by the American Council on Judaism that it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement…he did not believe his clients would file any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a foreign principal.  I told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made part of the Department’s public files available for inspection by the public…”)

About one month after this last correspondence ^ Kennedy was murdered, November 22, 1963. Zionism and the Jewish Lobby lived on… President Kennedy was now dead.

See Christopher Bollyn’s “LBJ & the Zionist Cover-up of the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy”

The article continues below…

Bobby Kennedy

FARA Registration Jewish Lobby AZC


DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent

“Attached hereto is the entire file relating to the American Zionist Council and our efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act…

Israeli Lobby Archives


In the early 1960’s Israel funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today’s dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations.  The funds were channeled via the quasi governmental Jewish Agency‘s New York office into an Israel lobby umbrella group, the American Zionist Council.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations and hearings documented funding flows, propaganda, and public relations efforts and put them into the recordBut the true fate of the American Zionist Council was never known, except that its major functions were visibly shut down and shifted over to a former AZC unit known as the “Kenen Committee,” called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) in the late 1960’s.  The following chronology provides links to images of original Department of Justice case files released on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act filing.  

John F. Kennedy President, Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General

* AZC (American Zionist Counsil)
* AIPAC (The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee)

Document/File Date Contents
08/27/1962 AZC internal memo – Lenore Karp to Rabbi Jerome Unger about AZC Department of Public Information literature distribution.
Undated 1962-1963 AZC Public Relations Plan summary
10/31/1962 Assistant Attorney General and Director of the Internal Security Division J. Walter Yeagley notifies Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy we are soliciting next week the registration of the American Zionist Council under the Foreign Agents Registration Act...You may be aware that the American Zionist Council is composed of representatives of the various Zionist organizations in the United States including the Zionist Organization of America.
11/06/1962 Nathan B. Lenvin, head of the FARA section, memo to central files, about a meeting with Jewish Agency representative Maurice M. Boukstein who asks about FARA applicability to AZC.  “…in his view it was doubtful that any great protest would be made since in the discussions he has had with various officials connected both with the Zionist Council and the Jewish Agency he had made it clear in his view an agency relationship would result which may require registration.’”
11/14/1962 Edwin Guthman letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach about future AZC FARA registration order.  “I doubt very much there will be any fuss.  I don’t think the American Zionist Council is in any position to do so…the Council has compromised its position.”  OK’d by Robert F. Kennedy.
11/21/1962 DOJ orders AZC to register under FARA “…receipt of such funds from the American Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel constitutes the Council an agent of a foreign principal…the Council’s registration is requested.”
12/06/1962 AZC President Rabbi Irving Miller response to DOJ “The request for registration contained in your letter raises many questions of fact and of relationships which first must be resolved by us before compliance can be made.  Therefore, it is requested that you be good enough to grant us a delay of 120 days…”
Isaiah L. Kenen incorporates the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC

DOJ draft file memo about 01/23/1963 DOJ meeting with AZC head legal counsel Simon H. Rifkind “…he had advised his client to discontinue completely the agency relationship and cut off the receipt of any additional funds…Mr. Lenvin pointed out specifically that the termination of the ‘activities’ on the part of AZC did not absolve it of its obligation to register…”

01/25/1963 Article in the National Jewish Post, filed in FARA Section – “AZC Gives Up $ to Avoid Foreign Agent Registration”
02/01/1963 DOJ Executive Assistant Thomas Hall memo to Nathan Lenvin updating meeting notes “Mr. Hall emphasized that a contrary conclusion would not of course be reached during the course of this meeting and suggested that the subject submit a detailed argument as to why it was of the opinion it should not be required to register….”
02/08/1963 DOJ AZC January 23, 1963 meeting notes by Nathan Lenvin filed “discontinuance of receipt of such funds thus terminating the agency relationship did not absolve the Council of its obligation to register.”
02/19/1963 American Council for Judaism (AJC) newsletter.  “The American Zionist Council (coordinating political action arm of all U.S. Zionist organizations) was asked last month by the Justice Department to register as a ‘foreign agent’ of the State of Israel.”
03/07/1963 New York Times reporter Tony Lewis calls FARA section to verify AZC foreign agent order state AJC press release.
3/23/1963 AZC Counsel “Memorandum of Law in support of our position that the American Zionist Council is not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.”
04/01/1963 Nathan Lenvin file memo of DOJ AZC meeting on  April 1, 1963- AZC Memorandum of Law rejected.  “…if necessary I would be willing to recommend, if the representatives of the Council insisted upon these points, that the matter be litigated.”
04/05/1963 Thomas Hall memo with J. Walter Yeagley notes “Okay, but let’s get it concluded.  Have we sent them J.A. reg[istration] statement?”
05/02/1963 Nathan Lenvin file memo of DOJ AZC meeting on  May 2, 1963 “Finally, Judge Rifkind raised the point…that the vast number of Jews who adhered to the principles of Zionism could not understand how ‘our administration’ could do such harm to the Zionist movement and impair the effectiveness of the Council by insistence on registration.  He appealed to the discretionary power of the Department…Mr. Katzenbach then noted that if the Council made a full disclosure of the receipt and expenditure of the funds it had received from the Jewish Agency so that such information would then be available for public inspection the purposes and objectives of the Registration Act might well be accomplished and very likely there would be nothing further for the Government to do…” 
 05/23/1963 First Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings on Israeli Foreign Agents (Senate Records)
06/28/1963 Wall Street Journal article “Federal lawyers near decision on whether to require the American Zionist Council to register as an agent of the Israeli government.  High Justice Department officials weigh the risk of offending Jewish opinion in the U.S.   Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Fulbright also eyes the council’s activities.”
06/28/1963-07/26/1963 Citizen telegrams and letters urging FARA decision based on legal merits rather than political considerations.
07/02/1963 Irene Bowman FARA section file memo on a June 28, 1963 DOJ AZC meeting, “Mr. Adrian W. DeWind and a Mr. Kahn (ph) of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison …for the purpose of submitting for the Department’s examination a stack of publications and several books prepared by the American Zionist Council….Prior to Mr. DeWind’s departure he said he was disturbed by what he described as the speed with which the American Council on Judaism learned that the Department had solicited the registration of the American Zionist Council.  He wondered whether there was a leak in the Department.”
07/15/1963 Congressman Donald Rumsfeld letter to Robert F. Kennedy about status of AZC FARA registration.
07/19/1963 Thomas K. Hall Memo to Deputy AG Katzenbach and J. Walter Yeagley on Wall Street Journal Article.  Yeagley notes “I called Judge Rifkind Thursday July 18.  He said he thought the material had been submitted and was ‘embarrassed.’  Fri[day] someone else from the firm called asking for still another 2 or 3 weeks as their controller or someone is in Europe.”
07/19/1963 J. Walter Yeagley responds to Rumsfeld “ultimate determination will be based on the law as applied to the facts…not on any consideration of its effect on the public opinion of the Jewish community…”
07/26/1963 American Council for Judaism Letter to RFK about AZC FARA registration “I am enclosing latest issue of our newsletter, Brief, featuring our comments on the Department of Justice investigation of the American Zionist Council…”
07/26/1963 Theresa Green FARA memo about AZC phone call request for two week filing deadline extension.
7/30/1963 Routing memo from Deputy AG Nicholas Katzenbach to J. Walter Yeagley “I guess this is the correct response.  Rifkind should be needled, but much depends on Fulbright, too.”
8/1/1963 Second Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings on Israeli Foreign Agents (Senate Records)
08/14/1963 FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover offers J. Walter Yeagley FBI assistance to investigate the AZC “In view of recent public hearings…it is requested that you advise whether any investigation is desired….”
8/14/1963 J. Walter Yeagley response to 7/30/1963 Katzenbach routing memo (copy from above) “Mr. Hall – is it time to write Rifkind—or send memo to A.G. or send in FBI?”  
08/15/1963 Thomas K. Hall internal FARA memo about AZC legal counsel “stalling hoping that time will resolve the difficulties faced by the AZC…We should go on record with the AG (copy to deputy) outlining the posture of this matter and indicate the need for more drastic action…
8/16/1963 Irene Bowman, FARA section analysis on alleged AZC FARA violations derived from Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings.  “…the Department should insist on the immediate registration of the American Zionist Council under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and if such registration is not forthcoming, appropriate action should be taken to enforce such a request.”
08/17/1963 AZC Executive Director Rabbi Jerome Unger letter and filing to FARA Section “Enclosed wherewith are the two reports of Income and Expenditures of the American Zionist Council…”
08/20/1963 Nathan Lenvin query asking if Irene Bowman would accept as FARA registration, Bowman: “Absolutely not!”
08/22/1963 J. Walter Yeagley memo to Nicholas Katzenbach: “There is also attached a proposed letter from me to Judge Rifkind requesting a registration to be filed within ten days.”
08/23/1963 J. Walter Yeagley to FBI Director “..registration was originally solicited by letter dated November 21, 1962…Pending a determination as to whether further letter should be written insisting on registration no investigation will be required.  You will be kept advised of developments in this matter.”
10/11/1963 DOJ Demand for AZC Registration “the Department expects a response from you within 72 hours with regard to this matter.”
10/17/1963 J. Walter Yeagley notes of DOJ AZC meeting attended by Nicholas Katzenbach.  “Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons affiliated with the Council that such registration would be so publicized by the American Council on Judaism that it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement…he did not believe his clients would file any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a foreign principal.  I told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made part of the Department’s public files available for inspection by the public…”

President Kennedy was murdered one month after this last entry on November 22, 1963, during he and his brother’s struggle to get the Jewish Lobby to register as foreign agents as is required by law.

It’s hard to imagine that the President of the United States and the Attorney General were unable to accomplish this critical goal given their authority and positions of power.

In addition, President Kennedy had recently signed Executive Order 11110 to stop the Jewish Banker’s “Federal” Reserve:

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superseded by any subsequent Executive Order.

In simple terms, it is still valid. When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy – the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money – without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110 gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated.

It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. “United States Notes” were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a “Federal Reserve Note” issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a “United States Note” from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy’s Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says “Federal Reserve Note” on the top while the other says “United States Note”. Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number. President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper “currency” circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes. Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes.

This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level…(Excerpts from John P. Curran’s JFK vs The Federal Reserve)

“Final Judgment” by Michael Collins Piper is a MUST READ recommended by Jim Condit Jr. You can read this fascinating well-documented book for free by clicking on the photo below, or you can purchase your own copy.

PDF provided by American Free Press

Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper Cover


Michael Collins Piper Final Judgment


Another book recommended by Jim Condit Jr. is “There’s a Fish in the Courtroom” by Gary L. Wean. Copies of this controversial book run between $107 -$632 on Amazon. Click the photo for more information:

Theres a Fish in the Courthouse by Gary Wean

Kennedy was also going to put an end to the traitorous CIA and stated he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” (3)

(In late April 1961, over fourteen hundred members of the Cuban Expeditionary Forces landed at the Bay of Pigs, in Cuba. Their mission was to overthrow the communist regime of Cuban President Fidel Castro. The mission was a striking failure. Almost immediately it became known that the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) trained the “freedom fighters:” Cubans trained to overthrow the Castro regime. American President John F. Kennedy had approved the mission. President Kennedy soon after the failure spoke at a meeting of the American Association of Newspaper Editors and assumed all blame for the failed invasion. His staff then began leaking information to reporters, blaming the failure on anyone except the administration. (1)President Kennedy was quoted as saying, “How could I have been so stupid?” to trust the groups who were advising him, such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). (2) Even more damning to the CIA was a reputed quote by President Kennedy that he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” (3) ) Source:


Lyndon B. Johnson President, Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General

12/11/1963 AZC Counsel to DOJ “…our client is not prepared to register as an agent of a foreign government.  It has, however, no reluctance to make this information available voluntarily…”
01/02/1964 Deputy AG Katzenbach asks DOJ FARA section to prepare a “reply for his signature in a friendly rather than a hostile tone…to the effect that the material he submitted is not satisfactory…”
01/10/1964 Deputy AG Katzenbach letter to AZC counsel “The material you submitted is much less useful than what I had expected you were going to submit and of course there is no disclosure unless the data is available for public inspection.”
01/16/1964 AZC counsel Rifkind to Katzenbach “I shall try to accommodate my trip to Washington to some occasion when I am there on other business..”
02/03/1964 Nathan Lenvin meetings with AZC counsel Rifkind “Judge Rifkind opened the meeting by showing me a pamphlet distributed by the American Council for Judaism which contained charges that Zionists were acting as propaganda agents for the State of Israel…he was concerned that any disclosure which were being made should not be such as to substantiate these charges made by the American Council [for Judaism]… Mr. Rothenberg made one caviat, that they would have to be sure anything they submitted would not ultimately prejudice the organization in the eyes of the public.”
02/10/1964 Ed Guthman Letter to J. Walter Yeagley “I don’t see how we can accept a caveat that an organization won’t submit information that might prejudice it publicly.”
02/10/1964 J. Walter Yeagley letter to AZC counsel Rothenberg “the Department is not concerned with the Council’s expenditures in connection with exempt activities such as Hebrew education and culture but requests that the Council submit a statement detailing its other expenditures and particularly those under the category of the Department of Information and Public Relations…”
02/12/1964 AZC counsel Rothenberg acknowledgement “I acknowledge receipt of your letter…”
03/16/1964 AZC counsel Rothenberg letter to Lenvin – “You are familiar, I know, with the agreement reached between Judge Rifkind and Mr. Katzenbach, in the presence of Mr. Yeagley, with regard to additional information to be furnished your Section.  Such agreement was reached, as I understand it, in the realization by Mr. Katzenbach that with the present size of the staff of the Council it would be indeed burdensome to furnish your department with itemization of expenses of the past two years.  A sample itemization was therefore forwarded to you for a period of approximately three months.”
03/16/1964 James Weldon FARA letter to Rothenberg “it is requested you advise of your progress in this matter”.
04/28/1964 AZC counsel Rothenberg letter to Weldon  “Reference is made to my letter of March 16 addressed to Mr. Nathan B. Lenvin.”
04/30/1964 Assistant AG Yeagley note to Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach “This is the most blatant stall we have encountered.  Do you mind suggesting what we do next because all of us here would call their records before a grand jury.”
05/4/1964 Assistant AG Yeagley note to Katzenbach forwarding 3/16/1964 Rothenberg inquiry “Here is tickler from Rothenberg about his March 16 letter on the American Zionist Council.  Do you want me to do something on this?”

Lyndon B. Johnson President, Nicholas Katzenbach acting Attorney General

10/07/1964 Acting AG Katzenbach letter to AZC counsel Rothenberg “While we have endeavored to make our requests as reasonable as possible, we cannot accept your suggestion since the information offered is not in compliance with the Act or what we thought our understanding was with Judge Rifkind.”
10/20/1964 Irene Bowman FARA section review of AZC filing for 1962 and 1962 – “sample itemization deemed deficient.”
10/30/1964 Nathan Lenvin notes October 22, 1964 DOJ-AZC meeting – “Mr. Katzenbach had to excuse himself shortly after the meeting commenced because of urgent business elsewhere, but before he left he made clear to Mr. Rothenberg that, in response to the latter’s assertion that to submit all of the financial information we had previously requested for a two- to two-and-a-half year period would be a great burden on the subject, we would accept a statement as to a typical three month expenditure projected for the entire period concerned.”  Assistant AG Yeagley notes “They are to include the names for confid[ential] info of the Dept.—not for public file.”
11/04/1964 AZC counsel Rothenberg letter “Pursuant to understanding reached at our meeting…I write to give you an outline of the information to be submitted.” 
11/09/1964 Nathan Lenvin FARA section cover memo to Bowman “looks okay to me, please prepare a reply”
11/18/1964 J. Walter Yeagley letter to AZC counsel Rothenberg “Your proposed outline of the information to be contained in the report appears to be in accordance with our understanding.”
11/23/1964 AZC counsel Rothenberg letter to Nathan Lenvin, FARA section – “In accordance with our understanding I have asked the American Zionist Council to proceed with the preparation of the report.”
01/19/1965 Irene Bowman FARA section memo to Nathan Lenvin – “To date to my knowledge no such report has been submitted.”

Lyndon B. Johnson President, Nicholas Katzenbach Attorney General

02/25/1965 Nathan Lenvin FARA memo to files – “The delay, according to Mr. Rothenberg, was caused by the inability of the subject to collect all of the information we wanted in the detail it was indicated…”

Harry A. Steinberg, Executive Director AZC cover letter and filing to FARA section “There is also enclosed herewith, in duplicate, a listing of persons who have received funds as shown in the record of disbursements.  Mr. Rothenberg has requested of you that this listing be kept separate and apart from the record of disbursements in any public files in your Section.”

03/02/1965 AZC FARA section filing  for April 1, 1962 to June 30, 1962 (public)
03/02/1965 AZC FARA section filing  for April 1, 1962 to June 30, 1962 (non-public)
03/23/1965 Irene Bowman, FARA memo that AZC filing is in “substantial compliance”  Irene Bowman handwritten note “I agree with the conclusion that the material be accepted and put into form for public examination.”
03/24/1965 Irene Bowman, FARA retraction and list of AZC filing inadequacies “While it appears possible to make up a registration statement from documents furnished by a prospective registrant, these documents should furnish all of the information required by the Act to be stated in a registration statement.  The above material, none of which is executed under oath, fails to provide the following information which is material for the purpose of the Act…:”
03/31/1965 Nathan Lenvin file transfer to J. Walter Yeagley – “Attached hereto is the entire file relating to the American Zionist Council and our efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act…In her memorandum to Files, Mrs. Bowman points out certain lacunae, which fail to establish all of this material as meeting all of the requirements for registration…we were well aware that no full  and complete registration statement in the ordinary sense would ever be received…only alternative to a refusal to accept what has been submitted as compliance with the Act would be to institute prosecutive proceedings, which would be impractical…no useful purpose would be served by including these names in the material which would be made available for public inspection.”
4/08/1965 Nathan Lenvin instruction memo to Ulda Eldred, FARA section “The material filed by the American Zionist Council (AZC) was filed in accordance with an understanding between the Department and the AZC…If you should receive inquiries as to whether the AZC is registered under the Act, you should respond in the negative.  You should advise, however, that the AZC has filed information with this Section which is available for public examination.
05/17/1965 Nathan Lenvin / J. Walter Yeagley notice to files – “…material of the AZC was placed in an expandable portfolio to distinguish it in appearance from the registration statements which are filed in manila folders.  In the event Mrs. Eldred receives inquiries as to whether the AZC is registered under the Act, she has been instructed to respond in the negative.”
05/14/1965 J. Walter Yeagley Yeagley requests closure of AZC case at the FBI “the material does not comprise a registration statement but does supply basic information regarding the activities of the AZC financed in part by the Jewish Agency…”
05/20/1965 Nathan Lenvin to J. Walter Yeagley on special handling/case closure – Yeagley handwritten note OK.  This seems to be what attorney Gen[eral] Kennedy and the then Dep[uty] AG Katzenbach had in mind.”
06/22/1965 05/17/1965 New York Times article: AZC convenes a major meeting at Jewish Agency New York headquarters “revising its program to strengthen every phase of Jewish religious and cultural life in this country….there should be no appeasement at the expense of Israel.” FARA section file copy, reviewed by DOJ officials.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee AIPAC applies for a federal tax exemption.  The US Treasury Department grants it—backdated to 1953.

Documentation Source: The Israel Lobby Archive –

For constantly updated content,

Congress is powerfully controlled by the organized Jewish Lobby through such organizations as The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-defamation League (ADL), who happens to be funding the training of our out-of-control Law Enforcement Officials in Israel. Click on photo to read more.

The Real Scoop on FergusonAccording to former Congressman Jim Traficant, who ended up doing nearly 8-years in prison for going up against the Jewish Lobby, both the Congress and the Senate; both houses are powerfully controlled by AIPAC, in fact he said they were “owned” by them.

The Hon. Jim Traficant passed away after a freak accident on his family farm in 2014 during the launch of Project Freedom USA which meant to do away with the “Federal” Reserve and their criminal collection agency, the IRS. Jim Condit Jr. was running against Speaker of the House, John Boehner, at the time and had been working and traveling with Traficant the last 6-months of his life helping him with this project. We carry on with Target Freedom USA in his memory.

He was one of the last honest and freedom loving Americans to serve in Congress. Jim was one of the few to speak out about Israel’s stranglehold on American politics. The world has lost a great and courageous man. (2014) RIP  – Jim Condit Jr.


“As stated by the late, former Congressman Jim Traficant, former Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, former Senator Friz Hollins, and former Congressman Paul Findley, Congress is powerfully controlled by the organized Jewish Lobby through such organizations as AIPAC (The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). Congressmen and women must be nominated and elected who will throw off this foreign control of our nation.

Republican Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out Again – AIPAC exposed!

Former Congressman paul Findley was a Congressman from Illinois who talks for 1 hours about how AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) controls the US Congress, State Legislators, and City Councilman, — in conjunction with their fellow operatives for the organized Jewish Lobby in the Big Media.” – Jim Condit Jr


A Dire Plea to the Media and Chilling Warning to Americans from President John F. Kennedy before he died.

Don’t think the Zionists could take over the U.S. and keep it out of the Zionist controlled media?  Listen to this alarming speech.

“…The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

 – II -

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face…”

For the entire transcript from the Presidential Library:

So what are the possible repercussions of the Kennedy’s not being able to get the Zionists and Jews to register as foreign agents? How powerful have the Zionists become? What do the Zionist/Jews/Dual-US-Israeli Citizens own and control?

Nearly all major media (96%) and global means of communicating. Banking and finance are controlled at every corner and the Rothschild Zionist’s Crowning Jewel? The Not-So-Federal “Federal” Reserve that has been destroying America and the world around us since 1913 along with their Criminal Collection Agency the IRS that same year, and the creation of the Anti-defamation League in 1913 to protect the Jewish bankers that had taken over America.


Michael Collins Piper Final Judgment




Brother Nathanael presents his 4 Point Plan to deal with AIPAC’s stranglehold.



 The ADL – The Anti-Defamation League

ADL History

The Rothschilds (German Jews) had more money than governments and didn’t want it confiscated, they needed a safe haven to protect their wealth. The Rockefellers and Rothschild Zionists set up their “Federal” Reserve in 1913 along with their criminal collection agency the IRS. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 showing the intent to make a “Jewish” state in Palestine, against the Torah.

(“…United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”)

Then the Rothschild and Rockefeller families create the UN and about 1948 take over Palestine using their alliance with the British and the UN; Party A (Britain) gives Party B’s property (Palestine) to Party C (Rothschild’s Zionist Israel). Israel is the head of the snake and the “Federal” Reserve. – Nicky Nelson

Federal Reserve Graphic


NickyAbout the Author:

Nicky Nelson is a freedom loving patriot, activist and freelance writer for several blogs and websites including The Liberty Beacon project. Nicky was also highly instrumental in laying the foundation for TLB, something we will always be extremely grateful for.


TLB recommends you visit Target Freedom USA for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:

dick-cheney-senate-torture-reportThe Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture reveals that we did much more than “torture some folks”


The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report today condemning the CIA’s brutal interrogation techniques of suspected terrorist detainees during the Bush era.

The report reveals gruesome details about the CIA’s torture program: interrogations lasting for days on end; detainees forced to stand on broken legs, subjected to upwards of 180 hours of sleep deprivation, and forced to withstand conditions so cold it killed an inmate; prisoners were subjected to “rectal feeding” or “rectal hydration”—techniques that were described by the CIA’s chief of interrogations as a way to exert “total control over the detainee.”

Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein called the CIA’s actions in the aftermath of 9/11 a “stain on our values and on our history.”

“This is not America. This is not who we are,” said Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine and committee member. “What was done diminished our stature and enflamed… terrorists around the world.”

Despite these sentiments, there remains a number of individuals who did not want the report released to the public, including Dick Cheney.

Listed below is what you need to know about the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Continue reading here:


By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges

Police brutality need not always involve the wrongful killing of a suspect by a police officer, although it is increasingly the case. Since the murder of Eric Garner, I have watched over 80 videos of alleged police brutalityand they don’t all involve wrongfully murdering a suspect. Police brutality can come in a variety ways.

Although I do not think most police cross the line of acceptable use of force, I have concluded that most police departments have some rogue officers who are indeed crossing the line and most of these officers are being protected by the “thin blue line”.  This article contains examples of police brutality and abject violations of the rights of citizens.

One factor that needs to be considered is the 1033 program in which DHS is militarizing our police forces and I have come to believe that this is why we are seeing such wholesale abuses of power by the police. The following is a cross-section of abuse being perpetrated by police against the citizens of this country.

Denver PD Face Plants Unarmed Pregnant Woman

The following video was taken by a witness during an arrest shows a Denver police officer punching a suspect in the face six times and then tripping the man’s girlfriend who is 8 months pregnant, causing her to land on her belly and face. The witness who took the video claims an officer then took the tablet he was using to record the arrest, deleted the video file, not realizing it had already been stored on the electronic cloud. The video made its way to  FOX 31 in Denver and its shows a drug suspect’s head bouncing off the pavement from the force of the punches being administered by a Denver police officer trying to extract drugs from the mouth of the victim.

While Officer Chris Jones IV and his partner Christopher Evans were holding and punching a drug suspect who was in a prone position on the ground, the suspect’s  girlfriend, Mayra Lazos-Guerrero, 25, falls hard on her face and belly when Jones kicks her feet out from under her. This recent video has outraged many in the Denver area as another example of how our militarized police forces are increasingly engaged in flagrant excesses when it comes to use of force.

In Springfield, Illinois, Lucinda White was tasered by a cop after her boyfriend’s dispute with another individual over a fender bender went south. The 29 year-old called the police in an effort to settle the dispute, but later the eight months pregnant woman was brought down and tasered for “yelling and screaming” in another manly act by the Springfield Police Department.

When Cops Shoot Suspect, They Simply Call Their Union Rep Rather Than Seek Aid for Dying Man

police brutality gurley

Immediately on the heels of the Eric Garner murder by NYPD, another questionable use of force has surfaced in the Big Apple.

In the six minutes after police officer, Peter Liang, discharged a single bullet that struck Akai Gurley, 28, he and his partner couldn’t be reached, according to what sources told the New York Daily News. Instead of calling for help for the dying man, Liang was texting his union representative. What’s more, the sources said, the pair of officers weren’t supposed to be patrolling the stairways of the Pink Houses that night. What the cops were doing there is under investigation by the Brooklyn District Attorney. This is the height of depraved indifference to a human being’s life.

Hot In Cleveland

cleveland police

In a rare moment of agreement with Eric Holder and the Justice Department, they have concluded that the Cleveland Police Department routinely engages in excessive use of force against the citizens. The icing on the cake came when a Cleveland police office shot dead a 12-year-old boy who was carrying a toy replica gun.  The conclusion, reached by the Justice Department, was arrived at this past week after a 20 month investigation.

Cop Gets Fired for Rendering Aid Rather Than Applying Painful Force

The Salinas Californian newpaper reported that an unidentified Monterey Bay officer, who managed to calm a suicidal student and got him to sit down and drink a glass of water, is likely going to be fired.  The officer is “guilty” according to his department of not using a taser on the student. Subsequently, after the student was calm and sitting down, other officers arriving at the scene did taser the defenseless student.

It would appear that the 1033 program, which has militarized local police forces under the auspices of DHS,  is inviting policies which predispose the use of needless and painful force against the public even when they are complying with police orders.

Choking An Unarmed Woman Eric Garner Style

Nueces County Attorney’s Office investigator Gary Witherspoon, in the video below, is seen placing Lanessa Espinosa in a chokehold, similar to what killed Eric Garner, while Corpus Christi Police Officer Jerry Lockhart attempted to obtain  identification from a woman who was not charged with a crime.

Police spokesperson, Espinosa, explained to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times that Lockhart was demanding to see her ID because she believed that she may have been involved in a fight at a restaurant back on August 16th. As it turned out, the woman was not guilty or charged. Again, we witness the cowardly act of a law enforcement officer in the carrying out of his duties. This is reprehensible behavior.  The officer resigned under pressure.

McGuilty of Domestic Abuse

Guilty of assault with a deadly McChicken sandwich.

And when the police are not abusing their physical authority we see cases like the one in Des Moines where police charged Tramaine Hill II, 21, for attacking his pregnant wife. This a very serious charge and if guilty, Mr. Hill could and  should certainly do some jail time. Mr. Hill is charged with the heinous crime of attacking his pregnant wife with a  McChicken sandwich from McDonald’s that he threw at his wife in the midst of an argument in which he refused to eat the sandwich and this led to the verbal argument between Hill and his wife.


I find it interesting that Eric Holder and the Justice Department take it upon themselves to investigate police brutality similar to what is being reported here for it is this administration that is giving tanks and tactical equipment to police similar to what combat troops use in war. The militarization of our police has taught young police officers that the public is their enemy and that excessive and sometimes deadly force should be applied when dealing with the public.

Every American community must take a hard look at their police force and their tactics. The good police officers must be praised and held up in high regard. The officers connected to the kinds of events detailed in this article, need to be sent to prison. Eric Garner’s murderer needs to be sent to prison.

Final thought: The 1033 program is excellent martial law training, don’t you think?


About the Author

Dave Hodges is the host of the popular radio talk show, which airs from 9 PM to Midnight (Central). The show can be heard by clicking the following icon in the upper right hand corner of The Common Sense Show.

© 2014. The Common Sense Show. The Logo and Articles are protected by U.S. Copyright Laws, and are not to be downloaded or reproduced in any way without the written permission of Dave Hodges. Copyright 2014. Dave Hodges. All Rights Reserved

TLB recommends you visit Dave here:


See featured article and read comments HERE

Constitution gavel

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people “a Republic, if you can keep it.” We should apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, for we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.

Madison, the father of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. “Democracies,” he said, “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

If Madison’s assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the Republic has vanished, when it occurred, and exactly what to expect in the way of “turbulence, contention, and violence.” And above all else, what can we and what will we do about it?

The turbulence seems self-evident. Domestic welfare programs are not sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals. State and federal spending and deficits are out of control. Terrorism and uncontrollable fear undermine our sense of well-being. Hysterical reactions to dangers not yet seen prompt the people at the prodding of the politicians to readily sacrifice their liberties in vain hope that someone else will take care of them and guarantee their security. With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation building, foreign intervention, preemptive war, and global government drive our foreign policy. There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it.

The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmund Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general object was to produce a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.

These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracy and the benefits of a Constitutional Republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and therefore completely arbitrary.

In contrast, a Republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government’s purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believed the majority should never be able to undermine this principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints. The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age-old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion, while ignoring the principles of individual liberty, led to some other serious errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately this was rectified after a short time with its repeal.

But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy as damaging to liberty as alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed program on the American people, without even bothering to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were much closer to being a true republic, there were no federal laws dealing with this serious medical problem of addiction.

The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for passage of the 16th Amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped to usher in the modern age of the welfare/warfare state. Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment has not been repealed, as was the 18th. As long as the 16th Amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is a predictable consequence.

Transition to Democracy

The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. It seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century. Chronic concern about war and economic downturns — events caused by an intrusive government’s failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution — allowed majority demands to supersede the rights of the minority.

By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was- a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a republic with limited and regional government and protection of personal liberty. The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of a true democracy.

Unfortunately, too many people confuse the democratic elections of leaders of a republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.

The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired egregious action demanded by special interests, the propaganda machine goes into operation, and the pollsters relay the results back to the politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity. The pretense of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients, and even the victims, of its necessity. Since it was never a precipitous departure from the republic, the gradual erosion of liberty went unnoticed.

However, it is encouraging that more and more citizens are realizing just how much has been lost by complacency. The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, and the Founders explicitly denounced it.

Over the last hundred years, the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness.

Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of “making the world safe for democracy,” and never mentioned national security. This theme has, to this day, persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neo-conservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call “Hard Wilsonism.”

A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary ingredient of a free society, is ignored. Self-determination implies separation of smaller government from the larger entities that we witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned with liberty.

Current Understanding

Today the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily “legislate” on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The republic is no longer recognizable.

Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government force to the poor. Although this may be true in limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short-lived, because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has developed precipitates angry outcries for even more “fairness.” Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny.

As our republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As the quality of education plummets, the role of the federal government is expanded. As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the federal government in medicine is greatly increased. Foreign policy failures precipitate cries for more intervention abroad and an even greater empire. Cries for security grow louder, and concern for liberty languishes.

Attacks on our homeland prompt massive increase in the bureaucracy to protect us from all dangers, seen and imagined. The prime goal and concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism.

Even if we could defeat al Qaeda, which surely is a worthwhile goal, it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of barbarians never left the Roman Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.

Democracy Subverts Liberty and Undermines Prosperity

Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial decrees, constitutional restraints on the government are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our history, but now it is routine.

Democracy is promoted in the name of fairness in an effort to help some special-interest group gain a benefit that it claims it needs or is entitled to. If only one small group were involved, nothing would come of the demands. But coalitions develop, and the various groups ban together to form a majority to vote themselves all those things that they expect others to provide for them.

Although the motivating factor is frequently the desire for the poor to better themselves through the willingness of others to sacrifice for what they see as good cause, the process is doomed to failure.

Governments are inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved.

Administrators, who benefit, perpetuate the programs.

Wealthy elites learn to benefit from the system in a superior fashion over the poor, because they know how to skim the cream off the top of all the programs designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various groups in producing the majority vote needed to fund their own special projects.

Take Public Housing . . .

Public financing of housing, for instance, benefits builders, bureaucrats, insurance companies, and financial institutions, while the poor end up in drug-infested, crime-ridden housing projects. For the same reason, not only do business leaders not object to the system, but they also become strong supporters of welfare programs and foreign aid.

Big business strongly supports programs like the Export/Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, farm subsidies, and military adventurism. Tax-code revisions and government contracts mean big profits for those who are well-connected. Concern for individual liberty is pushed to the bottom of the priority list for both the poor and rich welfare recipients.

Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidates in each election.

Those who champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media, banking, insurance, airlines, transportation, financial institutions, government employees, the military-industrial complex, the educational system, and the medical community are all dependent on government appropriations, resulting in a high-stakes system of government.

Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption — the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor.

Money in politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and a danger. Yet the response, unfortunately, is only more of the same. More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted, in hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system will curtail the abuse. But failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack of respect for the Constitution, and obsession with legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further undermine the rule of law.

Be Prepared: The Dangers of Pure Democracy are Known

We were adequately warned about the problem. Democracies lead to chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control over the monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate. It was no accident in 1913, when the dramatic shift toward a democracy became pronounced, that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist.

Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare (a guns and butter philosophy) knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government counterfeit and fractional-reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority’s demands. It is for this reason that democracies always bring about currency debasement through inflation of the money supply.

Some of the planners of today clearly understand the process and others, out of ignorance, view central-bank money creation as a convenience with little danger. That’s where they are wrong. Even though the wealthy and the bankers support paper money — believing they know how to protect against its ill effects — many of them are eventually dragged down in the economic downturns that always develop.

It’s not a new era that they have created for us today, but more of the same endured throughout history by so many other nations. The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses.

Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government’s goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property, and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality, micromanaging the economy, and protecting citizens from themselves and all their activities. The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once it’s realized that it has been undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty.

Democracy, by necessity, endorses special-interest interventionism, inflationism, and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians. The only thing left is to decide which group or groups have the greatest influence over the government officials. As the wealth of the nation dwindles, competition between the special-interest groups grows more intense and becomes the dominant goal of political action. Restoration of liberty, the market and personal responsibility are of little interest and are eventually seen as impractical.

Power and public opinion become crucial factors in determining the direction of all government expenditures. Although both major parties now accept the principles of rule by majority and reject the rule of law, the beneficiaries for each party are generally different, although they frequently overlap. Propaganda, demagoguery, and control of the educational system and the media are essential to directing the distribution of the loot the government steals from those who are still honestly working for a living.

The greater problem is that nearly everyone receives some government benefit, and at the same time contributes to the Treasury. Most hope they will get back more than they pay in and, therefore, go along with the firmly entrenched system. Others, who understand and would choose to opt out and assume responsibility for themselves, aren’t allowed to and are forced to participate. The end only comes with a collapse of the system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the inexorable march toward democratic socialism is unachievable.

Soviet-style communism dramatically collapsed once it was recognized that it could no longer function and a better system replaced it. It became no longer practical to pursue token reforms like those that took place over its 70-year history.

The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority.

Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of democracy is coming to an end.

History reveals that once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from within. But in order to maintain the special-interest system for as long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-expanding central government — which of course only makes matters worse.

The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What is too often ignored is that the flip side of delivering power to government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly what the government doesn’t want — less productive citizens who cannot pay taxes.

Even before 9/11, these trends were in place and proposals were abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9/11, the growth of centralized government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have significantly accelerated.

It is in dealing with homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social programs and the policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a rapid expansion of the state and erosion of liberty. Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign meddling and empire building abroad are a consequence of our becoming a pure democracy.

Foreign Affairs and Democracy

As expected, the dramatic shift away from republicanism that occurred in 1913 led to a bold change of purpose in foreign affairs. The goal of “making the world safe for democracy” was forcefully put forth by President Wilson. Protecting national security had become too narrow a goal and selfish in purpose. An obligation for spreading democracy became a noble obligation backed by a moral commitment, every bit as utopian as striving for economic equality in an egalitarian society here at home.

With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th Amendment — alcohol prohibition — was passed in 1919.

Ever since 1913, all our presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis, we hear that we must be prepared to spend our money and use our young people to police the entire world in order to spread democracy. Whether in Venezuela or Columbia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iraq or Iran, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with a tone of moral arrogance that “it’s for their own good.”

Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire building. “Promoting democracy” overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals, no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is, constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.

There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election.

This is the case with Pakistan’s Mushariff. For a temporary alliance, he reaps hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess weapons of mass destruction. No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised $28 billion to Turkey to buy their support for Persian Gulf War II.

Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to al Qaeda through financing and training, is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.

Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mid-East regional government. If these people were asked which country in this region possesses weapons of mass destruction, has a policy of oppressive occupation, and constantly defies UN Security council resolutions, the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No, this is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one-man, one-vote philosophy.

U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela, because we don’t like the economic policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we tell him.

There is no creditability in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations. Yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we’re going to risk the lives of our young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves in Iraq.

After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even a hundred years are remote. It’s virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated for protection of liberty any place in the region.

Foreign Policy, Welfare, and 9/11

The tragedy of 9/11 and its aftermath dramatize so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life.

Due to its natural inefficiencies and tremendous costs, a failing welfare state requires an ever-expanding authoritarian approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once the people grow to depend on government subsistence, they demand its continuation.

Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world.

The Japanese are tired of us.

The South Koreans are tired of us.

The Europeans are tired of us.

The Central Americans are tired of us.

The Filipinos are tired of us.

And above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us.

Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying and disgusted with having their own government bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.

To dismiss terrorism as the result of Muslims hating us because we’re rich and free is one of the greatest foreign-policy frauds ever perpetrated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it at face value. And the administration gets the political cover it needs to pursue a “holy” war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.

Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on the Congress and the administration? No, all we ever hear are reassurances that the majority supports the President; therefore it must be all right.

The terrorists’ attacks on us, though never justified, are related to our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to know about any impending attack but too cumbersome to do anything about it. Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize through our domination over world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.

But what has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion?

We have responded by massively increasing the federal government’s policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well-behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world. There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.

Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only move us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy, about which Madison and others had warned.

The Utopian Nightmare of One-World Government

Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justifications of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows.

We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.

Once it’s recognized that ultimate authority comes from an international body, whether the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank, or the IMF, the contest becomes a matter of who holds the reins of power and is able to dictate what is perceived as the will of the people (of the world). In the name of democracy, just as it is done in Washington, powerful nations with the most money will control UN policy. Bribery, threats, and intimidation are common practices used to achieve a “democratic” consensus-no matter how controversial and short-lived the benefits.

Can one imagine what it might be like if a true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a worldwide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we’re working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.

In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I’m optimistic that this utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved. This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses.

The same will occur internationally, even if it miraculously did not cause conflict among the groups demanding the loot confiscated from the producing individuals (or countries). Democratic socialism is so destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as socialism failed under Soviet Communism. We have a long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great harm to many people before its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of human progress.

Paying for Democracy

With the additional spending to wage war against terrorism at home, while propping up an ever-increasing expensive and failing welfare state, and the added funds needed to police the world — all in the midst of a recession — we are destined to see an unbelievably huge explosion of deficit spending.

Raising taxes won’t help. Borrowing the needed funds for the budgetary deficit — plus the daily borrowing from foreigners required to finance our ever-growing current account deficit — will put tremendous pressure on the dollar.

The time will come when the Fed will no longer be able to dictate low interest rates. Reluctance of foreigners to lend, the exorbitant size of our borrowing needs, and the risk premium will eventually send interest rates upward. Price inflation will accelerate, and the cost of living for all Americans will increase. Under these conditions, most Americans will face a decline in their standard of living.

Faced with this problem of paying for past and present excess spending, borrowing and inflating of the money supply has already begun in earnest. Many retirees, depending on their 401k funds and other retirement programs, are suffering the ill-effects of the stock market crash — a phenomenon that still has a long way to go. Depreciating the dollar by printing excessive money, like the Fed is doing, will eventually devastate the purchasing power of those retirees who are dependent on Social Security. Government cost-of-living increases will never be able to keep up with this loss. The reality is that we will not be able to inflate, tax, spend or borrow our way out of this mess that the Congress has delivered to the American people. The demands that come with pure democracy always lead to an unaffordable system that ends with economic turmoil and political upheaval.

Tragically, the worse the problems get, the louder is the demand for more of the same government programs that caused the problems in the first place, both domestic and international. Weaning off of government programs and getting away from foreign meddling because of political pressure are virtually impossible. The end comes only after economic forces make it clear we can no longer afford to pay for the extravagance that comes from democratic dictates.

Democracy is the most expensive form of government. There is no “king” with an interest in preserving the nation’s capital. Everyone desires something, and the special-interest groups, banding together, dictate to the politicians exactly what they need and want. Politicians are handsomely rewarded for being “effective,” that is, getting the benefits for the groups that support them. Effectiveness is never measured by efforts and achievements in securing liberty, even though it’s the most important element in a prosperous and progressive world.

Spending is predictable in a democracy, especially one that endorses foreign interventionism. It always goes up, both in nominal terms and in percentage of the nation’s wealth.

Paying for it can be quite complicated. The exact method is less consequential than the percent of the nation’s wealth the government commands. Borrowing and central-bank credit creation are generally used — they are less noticeable, but more deceitful, than direct taxation (which would amount to “pay as we go”). If direct taxation were accomplished through monthly checks written by each taxpayer, the cost of government would immediately be revealed, and the democratic con-game would end much more quickly.

The withholding principle was devised to make paying for the programs the majority demanded seem less painful. Passing on debt to the next generation through borrowing is also a popular way to pay for welfare and warfare.

Inflation — The Most Sinister Tax of All

Because the effect of inflating a currency to pay the bills is difficult to understand, and the victims are hard to identify, inflation is the most sinister method of payment for a welfare state. It, too, grows in popularity as the demands increase for services that aren’t affordable. Although this appears to be a convenient and cheap way to pay the bills, the economic consequences of lost employment, inflated prices, and economic dislocation make the long-term consequences much more severe than paying as we go. Not only is this costly in terms of national wealth, it significantly contributes to the political chaos and loss of liberty that accompany the death throes of a doomed democracy.

This does not mean that direct taxes won’t be continuously raised to pay for out-of-control spending. In a democracy, all earned wealth is assumed to belong to the government. Therefore any restraint in raising taxes, and any tax cuts or tax credits, are considered “costs” to government. Once this notion is established, tax credits or cuts are given only under condition that the beneficiaries conform to the democratic consensus. Freedom of choice is removed, even if a group is merely getting back control of that which was rightfully theirs in the first place.

Tax-exempt status for various groups is not universal but is conditioned on whether their beliefs and practices are compatible with politically correct opinions endorsed by the democratic majority. This concept is incompatible with the principles of private-property ownership and individual liberty. By contrast, in a free society all economic and social decision-making is controlled by private property owners without government intrusion, as long as no one is harmed in the process.

Confusion Regarding Democracy

The vast majority of the American people have come to accept democracy as a favorable system and are pleased with our efforts to pursue Wilson’s dream of “making the world safe for democracy.” But the goals of pure democracy and that of a constitutional republic are incompatible. A clear understanding of the difference is paramount, if we are to remain a free and prosperous nation.

There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of liberty and a Constitution to protect them. This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a consensus, the rule of law fails.

This does not mean that the majority or public opinion measured by polls, court rulings, or legislative bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the government’s abuse of life, liberty, and property. But in a democracy, that happens — and we know that today it is happening in this country on a routine basis.

In a free society with totally free markets, the “votes” by consumers “cast” through their purchases, or refusals to purchase, determine which businesses survive and which fail. This is “free-choice” democracy, and it is a powerful force in producing and bringing about economic efficiency.

In today’s democracy by decree, government laws dictate who receives the benefits and who gets shortchanged. Conditions of employment and sales are taxed and regulated at varying rates, and success or failure is too often dependent on government action than by consumers’ “voting” in the marketplace by their spending habits. Individual consumers by their decisions should be in charge — not governments armed with mandates from the majority.

Even a system of free-market money (a redeemable gold-coin standard) functions through the principle of consumers always voting or withholding support for that currency. A gold standard can only work when freely converted into gold coins, giving every citizen a right to vote on a daily basis for or against the government money.

The Way Out

It’s too late to avoid the turbulence and violence that Madison warned about. It has already started. But it’s important to minimize the damage and prepare the way for a restoration of the republic. The odds are not favorable, but not impossible. No one can know the future with certainty. The Soviet system came to an abrupt end with less violence than could have ever been imagined at the height of the Cold War. It was a pleasant surprise.

Interestingly enough, what is needed is a majority opinion — especially by those who find themselves in leadership roles, whether political, educational, or in the media — that rejects democracy- and support the rule of law within the republic. This majority support is essential for the preservation of the freedom and prosperity with which America is identified.

This will not occur until we as a nation once again understand how freedom serves the interests of everyone. Henry Grady Weaver, in his 1947 classic, “The Mainspring of Human Progress,” superbly explains how it works. His thesis is simple. Liberty permits progress, while government intervention tends always to tyranny.

Liberty releases creative energy; government intervention suppresses it. This release of energy was never greater than in the time following the American Revolution and the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

Instead of individual activity being controlled by the government or superstitious beliefs about natural and mystical events, activity is controlled by the individual. This understanding recognizes the immense value in voluntary cooperation and enlightened self-interests.

Freedom requires self-control and moral responsibility. No one owes anyone else anything and everyone is responsible for his or her own acts. The principle of never harming one’s neighbor, or never sending the government to do the dirty work, is key to making the system tend toward peaceful pursuits and away from the tyranny and majority-induced violence. Nothing short of a reaffirmation of this principle can restore the freedoms once guaranteed under the Constitution. Without this, prosperity for the masses is impossible, and as a nation we become more vulnerable to outside threats.

In a republic, the people are in charge. The Constitution provides strict restraints on the politicians, bureaucrats and the military. Everything the government is allowed to do is only done with explicit permission from the people or the Constitution. Today, it’s the opposite. The American people must get permission from the government for their every move, whether it’s use of their own property or spending their own money.

Even the most serious decision, such as going to war, is done while ignoring the Constitution and without a vote of the people’s representatives in the Congress. Members of the global government have more to say about when American troops are put in harm’s way than the U.S. Congress.

The Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government restrains the people in all that they do. This destroys individual creative energy, and the “mainspring of human progress” is lost. The consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and less personal fulfillment.

A system that rejects voluntary contracts, enlightened self interest, and individual responsibilities permits the government to assume these responsibilities. And the government officials become morally obligated to protect us from ourselves, attempting to make us better people and setting standards for our personal behavior. That effort is already in full swing. But if this attitude prevails, liberty is lost.

When government assumes the responsibility for individuals to achieve excellence and virtue, it does so at the expense of liberty, and must resort to force and intimidation. Standards become completely arbitrary, depending on the attitude of those in power and the perceived opinion of the majority. Freedom of choice is gone.

This leads to inevitable conflicts with the government dictating what one can eat, drink or smoke. One group may promote abstinence, the other tax-supported condom distribution. Arguments over literature, prayer, pornography, and sexual behavior are endless. It is now not even permissible to mention the word “God” on public property.

A people who allows its government to set personal moral standards, for all non-violent behavior, will naturally allow it to be involved in the more important aspects of spiritual life. For instance, there are tax deductions for churches that are politically correct, but not for those whose beliefs that are considered out of the mainstream. Groups that do not meet the official politically correct standards are more likely to be put on a “terrorist” list. This arbitrary and destructive approach to solving difficult problems must be rejected if we ever hope to live again in a society where the role of government is limited to that of protecting liberty.

The question that I’m most often asked when talking about this subject is, “Why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have such little respect for the Constitution?” The people of whom I speak are convinced that liberty is good and big government is dangerous. They are also quite certain that we have drifted a long way away from the principles that made America great, and their bewilderment continuously elicits a big “Why?”

There’s no easy answer to this and no single explanation. It involves temptation, envy, greed, and ignorance, but worst of all, humanitarian zeal.

Unfortunately, the greater the humanitarian outreach, the greater the violence required to achieve it. The greater the desire to perform humanitarian deeds through legislation, the greater the violence required to achieve it. Few understand this.

There are literally no limits to the good deeds that some believe need to be done. Rarely does anyone question how each humanitarian act by government undermines the essential element of all human progress: individual liberty.

Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it’s the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice of liberty, here and there, is a small price to pay.

The results, though, are frightening and will soon become even more so. Poverty has been made worse, the drug war is a bigger threat than drug use, terrorism remains a threat, and foreign wars have become routine and decided upon without congressional approval.

Most of the damage to liberty and the Constitution is done by men and women of good will who are convinced they know what is best for the economy, for others, and foreign powers. They inevitably fail to recognize their own arrogance in assuming they know what is the best personal behavior for others. Their failure to recognize the likelihood of mistakes by central planners allows them to ignore the magnitude of a flawed central government directive, compared to an individual or a smaller unit of government mistake.

C. S. Lewis had an opinion on this subject:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

A system that is based on majority vote rather than the strict rule of law encourages the few who thrive on power and exerting authority over other people’s lives, unlike the many driven by sincere humanitarian concerns. Our current system rewards those who respond to age-old human instincts of envy and greed as they gang up on those who produce.

Those individuals who are tempted by the offer of power are quick to accommodate those who are the most demanding of government-giveaway programs and government contracts. These special-interest groups notoriously come from both the poor and the rich, while the middle class is required to pay.

It’s not just a coincidence that, in the times of rapid monetary debasement, the middle class suffers the most from the inflation and job losses that monetary inflation brings. When inflation is severe, which it will become, the middle class can be completely wiped out. The stock market crash gives us a hint as to what is likely to come as this country is forced to pay for the excesses sustained over the past 30 years while operating under a fiat monetary system.

Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher, commented on this subject as well: “Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep.”

Good men driven by a desire for benevolence encourage the centralization of power. The corruptive temptation of power is made worse when domestic and international interventions go wrong and feed into the hate and envy that invade men’s souls when the love of liberty is absent.

Those of good will who work to help the downtrodden do so not knowing they are building a class of rulers who will become drunk with their own arrogance and lust for power. Generally only a few in a society yield to the urge to dictate to others, and seek power for the sake of power and then abuse it.

Most members of society are complacent and respond to propaganda, but they unite in the democratic effort to rearrange the world in hopes of gaining benefits through coercive means and convince themselves they are helping their fellow man as well. A promise of security is a powerful temptation for many.

A free society, on the other hand, requires that these same desires be redirected. The desire for power and authority must be over one’s self alone. The desire for security and prosperity should be directed inward, rather than toward controlling others. We cannot accept the notion that the gang solution endorsed by the majority is the only option. Self-reliance and personal responsibility are crucial.

But there is also a problem with economic understanding. Economic ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic planning, excessive taxation and regulations, central bank manipulation of money, and credit and interest rates is pervasive in our nation’s capital.

A large number of conservatives now forcefully argue that deficits don’t matter.

Spending programs never shrink, no matter whether conservatives or liberals are in charge.

Rhetoric favoring free trade is canceled out by special-interest protectionist measures.

Support of international government agencies that manage trade, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and Nafta politicizes international trade and eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will soon emerge.

The federal government will not improve on its policies until the people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of economists than those who dominate our government-run universities. Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.

The current economic system of fiat money and interventionism (both domestic and international) serves to accommodate the unreasonable demands for government to take care of the people. And this, in turn, contributes to the worst of human instincts: authoritarian control by the few over the many.

We, as a nation, have lost our understanding of how the free market provides the greatest prosperity for the greatest number. Not only have most of us forgotten about the invisible hand of Adam Smith, few have ever heard of Mises and Hayek- two individuals who understood exactly why all the economic ups and downs of the 20th century occurred, as well as the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But worst of all, we have lost our faith in freedom. Materialistic concerns and desire for security drive all national politics. This trend has sharply accelerated since 9/11.

Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity, and security has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come as a consequence of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the government — in our case, the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution was the best ever devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. Only the rule of law can constrain those who, by human instinct, look for a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.

The rule of law in a republic protects free-market activity and private-property ownership and provides for equal justice under the law. It is this respect for law and rights over government power that protects the mainspring of human progress from the enemies of liberty.

Communists and other socialists have routinely argued that the law is merely a tool of the powerful capitalists. But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudo-capitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to realize it is the real law, the Constitution itself, which guarantees rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing progress.

Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living document, and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They fail to mention that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well.

The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics, it’s always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only challenge for men and women of good will is to decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.

Nothing short of restoring a republican form of government with strict adherence to the rule of law, and curtailing illegal government programs, will solve our current and evolving problems.

Eventually the solution will be found with the passage of the Liberty Amendment. Once there is serious debate on this amendment, we will know that the American people are considering the restoration of our constitutional republic and the protection of individual liberty.

You have just read:

SEWELL2-popup[1]AN ADDRESS TO THE U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS ENTITLED, Sorry, Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now” January 29, 2003

To make this subject perfectly clear, an excellent example of democracy is a lynch mob. The majority wants to hang the guy, and the guy to be hanged doesn’t. So, they have a vote and hang the guy. THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRAINTS OF ANY KIND IN A PURE DEMOCRACY.

Related article:


hitler youth movement

By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges.

There is presently a massive conspiracy designed to separate you from your children and give the government complete control over your children. To put it simply, Human, Health and Services (HHS) and their state level emissary, Children Protective Services (CPS) are engaged in a conspiracy which will culminate in (1) the Agenda 21 designed breakdown of the family; (2) the eradication of any semblance of parental authority over children; and, (3) unbridled and unfettered access to seizing children from the home in unlimited quantities for whatever nefarious purposes which might dictate the volume of child seizures.

The Plot Is International Begins with the UN

This program emanates from a partnership between various United Nations organizations and ICF, acting on behalf of HHS, CPS and Obamacare (i.e. The Affordable Health Care Act). The evidence in this article, along with the included links, will demonstrate that when Obamacare is fully operational, our families, specifically our children will be living in a Hitler Youth Movement hellish nightmare in which the state owns and can seize your children.

After reviewing HHS, CPS and UN documents. What is being presently reported in the alternative media is merely the tip of the iceberg with regard to HHS’ intentions toward the ultimate outcome of the children in this country. After reviewing the documents, there is no doubt that Obama is representing international interests which will seek to remove as many children as possible from the homes of their parents in the spirit of the Hitler Youth Movement.

But first let me quickly review the recent revelations of the HHS/CPS/Obamacare intention to conduct what I have dubbed as “home invasion interventions.”

Obamacare Home Invasions and Interventions

According to a previously unreported Obamacare regulation, that has managed to escape “scrutiny” from the mainstream media, millions of American families will be targeted for home invasion by the forces of the Federal government in the name of preventing parental neglect resulting in disabilities in their children. And the Fourth Amendment be damned, as of this past January 1, 2014, Federal officials may enter your home without a warrant in order to “intervene” for the purpose of saving “high risk” children.

Obamacare’s Definition of High Risk

The exposure of the extreme and intrusive nature of Obamacare through home invasion visits is finally seeing the light of day in the alternative media. However, this exposure is grossly understated. As a starting point, I will briefly review what is making the rounds in the alternative media. According to Human Health Services, your family is eligible for this Hitler style for “intervention” in the following situations:

1. Families where mom is not yet 21.

2. Families where someone is a tobacco user.

3. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

4. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

5. Although this is not being widely reported, homeschoolers and their families will be targeted for “interventions” as will be families who object to having their children take vaccines.

There is no question that all of the above categories, warrants a home invasion followed by “remediation.” The visits are not being conducted by HHS officials as has been reported in several publications. The home invasion visits are being conducted by CPS on behalf of HHS.

HHS has designed a detailed 110 page policy manual which focuses on the criteria constituting child neglect. This policy manual which is the guide created by HHS for CPS’ home intervention visits makes the above criteria, presently being reported in the alternative media, look tame by comparison.

HHS, CPS and the Criminalization of Parenthood

In the 110 page HHS/CPS manual, the variables which comprise child neglect, worthy of government intervention is frightening beyond any words I can find to express their undisguised intentions. This entire document which will serve as the field manual by CPS in support of Obamacare undermines parental authority to a level that is beyond belief.

"We are from HHS and we are here to help you."

How many of you were ever grounded by your parents and not permitted to play outside with your friends? This is now illegal under the HHS/CPS policy manual. They label the treatment as neglect by isolation. There are no time frames set forth which constitutes isolation and it is left to the field representative. This obviously erodes parental discipline.

If your child is judged to be underachieving in school, this is referred to as educational neglect and is worthy of governmental intervention. Further, if your child is absent for five days in any one month from school, the same allegation would be made against the parent.

If your child has ADD or ADHD, you could be accused of neglect because the document details how this can be somehow caused by poor nutrition, although the variables associated with the cause are not specified.

The document goes out of its way to specify that poverty and neglect are not inextricably linked. Then the document goes out of its way to link poverty with child neglect. Read between the lines America. As we already are aware, many poor children who go missing from scandals such as Jerry Sandusky’s Second Mile Foundation, the infamous Franklin Scandal and last year’s CPS scandal with the 78 missing wards of the state in Oklahoma, frequently end up being put into child sex trafficking rings operated and funded by such notables as DynCorps and HSBC bank.

Of course, no Obama inspired program would be complete without an attack upon the Second Amendment. Obamacare is no exception as one of the criteria for child neglect are parents who are also gun owners.

The presence of alcohol in the home is a trigger for an allegation of neglect and subsequent “intervention.” Of course, alcoholic parents can present a clear and present danger to a child’s well-being. However, in the policy manual the conditions for concern over alcohol do not detail the amount and percentage of the family resources involved necessary to obtain alcohol. In other words, one can of beer in the home can be considered to constitute child neglect by the Obamacare CPS fieldworker.

If your child has engages in any type of illicit or criminal behavior, your family is at risk. Raise your hands if you ever smoked pot before the age of 18, or drank as a teen, or engaged in any kind of sexual activity before the age of 18, ever stayed out past curfew, or ever shoplifted? IF your children ever engages in these and a multitude of other transgressions, you are in danger of losing your children. This also means that if your child is ever involved in a fight in school or is assigned detention, the school will be required to report the behavior to the HHS/CPS and you can expect to have a “home invasion intervention” session with your friendly Obamacare CPS fieldworker.

If you are ever late picking up your child from daycare or from school aftercare, you will now be reported to CPS.

If you have ever been depressed or have been treated for any mental disorder (e.g. PTSD, anxiety, etc.), you are at risk for losing your children.

Even illegal immigrant families are not immune from this insanity. Children are judged by the field worker to not be fully acculturated, do not properly speak the language, exhibits signs of being homesick and is judged to have not formed an unspecified number of friends and formed a cohesive social network, allegations of neglect can be made.

I would invite the reader to spend some time reviewing the document which will be serving as the policy manual for the forced home inspections. Please note that when the reader gets beyond the flowery language and professed concern for children, that the language is written so broadly that virtually any human condition, any family circumstance or child’s behavior can be interpreted as child neglect. There is literally no end to the tyranny that awaits the art of parenting in the present day.

The important thing to note is the use of language by this manual. Parents who are deemed by an Obamacare CPS field worker, operating under the HHS flag, to be neglectful towards their children are considered to have created “disabilities” within their children. As the reader will soon discover, the use of the term “disabilities” is key to understanding how far this administration is willing to go to seize children for some nefarious purpose.

Sadly, this is still only the beginning. There is far more to be concerned about beginning with who is ultimately responsible for these outrages.

Meet the Creators of the State Sponsored Child Kidnapping Rings

The primary author for this insane manual for HHS/CPS and their designed home invasion interventions is Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D., M.S.W. She is the Associate Dean for. Research and an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Maryland. More importantly she is a co-editor of the Handbook on Child Protection Practice. In other words, DePanfills has been a major player in the unconstitutional practices we see in CPS in all 50 states. As if this is not concerning enough, all of the other contributing authors have their professional origins and affiliations with the same organization.

Lindsay Ritter Taylor from Caliber, an ICF International Company

Matthew Shuman, M.S.W, A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company

Jean Strohl, A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company,

Jeannie Newman, M.S.W, M.I.B.S., A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company

It was at this point, I smelled a rat. We have the primary author being a CPS author designed to teach their field operatives on the methods of how to abuse parents and undermine parental authority. And all of the contributing authors come from the exact same corporation, ICF. At this point, it is prudent to ask the question, who is ICF?

ICF Is the Biggest Player That You Have Never Heard Of

ICF International partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in climate change, energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. In my mind, this established ICF as a major player in the introduction and implementation of the globalist agenda by designing matching Federal programs. And as it turned out they are a major player in Obamacare through their subsidiary acquisition, Caliber Associates.

Caliber is an “established leader in providing research, consulting, and innovation in human services and human resource issues.” ICF acquired Caliber in 2005 in order “to serve HHS, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Education.” Caliber Associates and their four contributing authors to the HHS/CPS field manual, which will be used to enforce child welfare regulations, was the undeniable link to Obamacare through this field manual. But as I discovered, the rabbit hole went even deeper.

After I found the co-authors of the HHS/CPS policy manual which will guide these forced home inspections, I smelled the distinct odor of the United Nations and Agenda 21 and sure enough, this was exactly what I found.

The United Nations and Obamacare

At times, I feel that I have the globalist playbook and I am able to often anticipate their next move. Please allow me to briefly illustrate how the globalists have operated in another area, education, and then draw the parallel to how the UN is deeply involved in Obamacare.

The Common Core Curriculum, which is sweeping the nation’s education system, was the product of “Education for All.” Education for All comes from the United Nations education arm, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Common Core went from UNESCO to the National Governors Association who in turn farmed out the development of the details to various NGO’s which in turn sent the standards to each state for implementation. This is the standard model that the globalists follow when implementing a controversial program and Obamacare follows a similar pattern as did Common Core.

There is no doubt that the provisions of allegedly protecting children in Obamacare, originated with the United Nations

Why do they want our kids?

In the United Nations document entitled, Human Rights, Persons with Disabilities, ICF and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Training toolkit), implementation for programs designed to help people, children in particular, with disabilities, came from the World Health Organization (WHO) [Page 36], UNESCO [Page 37], the International Labour Organization (ILO) [Page 36] and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)[Page 38]. As one can see from the title, ICF and the UN have partnered to protect people/children with disabilities.


Please remember that earlier in the article, I made the point that the HHS/CPS field manual referred to neglected children as children who have disabilities. It is quite apparent that any of the conditions listed in the HHS/CPS manual will produce children who have disabilities. Under this guise, I can draw no other conclusion than Obamacare is ultimately state sponsored child slavery.

Under Obamacare, virtually every aspect of parenting is criminalized. Any child can be considered to have a disability for which the state is the only legitimate treatment source. When Obama was first running for President in 2008, he promised to build a civilian security force that “was just as strong, just as well-funded as our military.” And when one combines this conspiracy with Obama’s Executive Order 13603 which calls for a mandatory civilian conscription to complement a coming military draft, it is clear that this lunatic is planning to enslave a large segment of the population and he will obtain many of his conscripts from Obamacare. And many of you who are familiar with Agenda 21 and their expressed views toward parental rights and the rights of children, do not need me to make connect the dots, you already have done so.

Unfortunately, there are no reliable statistics which will tell the American public how many of its children have been abducted under these circumstances because the abduction statistics show up as a CPS intervention. One thing we can be sure of is that your parental rights are gone as you merely the temporary caregiver for the state when it comes to who has authority over your children.

My advice to all parents, don’t answer the door when you see the lady ringing your doorbell.

I cannot see any way out of this dilemma than to resist through the use of force. The Obamacare goons will NOT gain entry into my home while I am still breathing. I predict that HHS/CPS will soon be armed because they will, and should, meet massive resistance from the citizens.

America, we must resist this heinous tyranny with every means at our disposal.

Will you protect your children?


TLB Highly recommends you visit Dave at The Common Sense Show for more great/pertinent commentary, articles, radio shows and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE



Wow. President Obama and his Democrat cronies have done it again. They are once again showing the nation the incredible amount of disdain they have for the American people. This time, it’s the perfect storm of Obamacare, Amnesty and Unemployment…

The Democrats under Obama have created a perverse system of incentives that give companies 3,000 reasons to hire illegal aliens who have been amnestied instead of unemployed American citizens…

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, “If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury. The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A spokesman for Senator John McCain said that there is an easy answer to this mess… Get rid of Obamacare’s Employer Mandate because that “would eliminate the incentive to hire people who are ineligible for Obamacare subsidies.”

Dick Morris explained the issue in an Op-Ed for the Hill last week.

Those granted amnesty will not be eligible for ObamaCare. The amnesty will merely keep them safe from deportation; it won’t make them legal. And ObamaCare can only go to citizens and legal noncitizens living in the U.S.

But the employer mandate in ObamaCare requires large companies to offer insurance to each of their full-time workers or pay a hefty fine to the government for failing to do so.

Combine these two programs and you have a huge incentive for employers to dismiss any blue-collar workers on their payroll and replace them with illegal immigrants covered by amnesty. These folks are allowed to work but not to get ObamaCare. An employer can’t be fined for failing to offer ObamaCare to employees who are ineligible to receive it. It’s an employer’s dream!

By creating a pool of work-legal/ObamaCare-illegal workers, the president will make the incentive to replace citizens with illegal immigrants practically irresistible.

Do you get it, folks? There are now 5 million newly amnestied illegal immigrants who can now find work, but whose employers will legally be allowed to compensate at a rate of $3,000 less every year.

Do you understand the gravity of that?

That’s 15 BILLION DOLLARS. This is a huge incentive for companies to hire illegals who’ve been amnestied over Americans who are out of work… and it’s all thanks to the Democrats two “greatest achievements” – Obamacare and Amnesty.


TLB recommends you visit EAGLE RISING for more pertinent articles and information>

See featured article and read comments here:

Obama-constitution-burning 1

By: Roger Landry (TLB)

WARNING: If you are weak of mind and heart, Avoid this article as it WILL cause a severe if not fatal attack of anxiety!

What follows is a statement of reality, NOT what could be!

Since the turn of the century, and especially in the last six plus years, aided by Congress, there has been an accelerated paradigm shift in America away from a Republic to a soft dictatorship with more power being consolidated into the hands of a single individual than any American patriot would have ever believed! So please read, and I invite one and all to challenge any part of this article they feel is falsely stated!

This is a partial list of unalienable rights and freedoms we can now, by law or by executive order, be denied in the land of the (used to be) free, and the circumstances that prevail for the powers that be to enforce this tyranny! It is not an all-inclusive list, but enough to scare the holy crap out of any patriot …

You now have lost your right to assembly or protest through HR 347, giving government the ability to arrest and bring felony charges against anyone engaged in political protests outside their allowed or permitted definition of protest! Passed by Congress!

What we now see on college campuses and protest rallies such as the Bundy ranch, is exclusion zones where free speech is not permitted via local or federal government intervention. This unalienable right must now be practiced as a (government) granted privilege in designated “Free Speech Zones” … REALLY ??? How can something be called Free Speech if the government defines when and where THEY will permit it? But if you violate their restrictions again you can suffer arrest and felony charges.

The exclusion zones (where exercising free speech is NOT permitted) imposed by Section 1752 of this law have no set boundaries. They can be as expansive as local or federal government deem necessary. The “Free Speech Zone” will always be an area designated outside the focal point of the desired protest … and isolated from appropriate press coverage and broadcast media. So by losing your right to protest, haven’t you also lost (or fatally damaged) your right to free speech through HR 347,  Passed by Congress!

The president no longer requires the Senate to approve all his Czars, and can appoint any crony or political ally to certain high-ranking government positions now with impunity from congressional checks and balances with the passage of S 679. This will allow him to consolidate powers never before even considered, due to the relationships he may have with these appointed individuals or their organizations! Passed By congress!

You no longer have the right to due process in any way, shape, or form if our president or his appointed government officials declare you an enemy of the state through the NDAA bill (section 1032/1021). Now this in itself is not so new … But the NDAA bill for 2013 military spending included a clause to protect the rights of American citizens for due process … this (under pressure from the president/White House) was subsequently stripped from the bill leaving the tyranny of the bill intact, WHY ??? There remains no requirement for the burden of proof, as you have no due process and can be locked away indefinitely, without the prospects of a trial. Passed by congress!

You can now be targeted for assassination, as an American via Executive Order 12333, by the president or his appointed representatives if for any reason you are deemed an enemy of the state, and there again is no burden of proof, no oversight and no requirement for due process! My God doesn’t this sound like the political machinations of a Dictatorial Banana Republic? Passed by presidential executive order (but of course)!

This president has made law his power to declare a national emergency, (defined by him) or martial law in an emergency, (also defined by him) with the ability to completely subjugate We The People via Executive order 13603, National Defense Resources Preparedness , This tyrannical order calls for civilian conscription under the Department of the Labor … without compensation! Can you say “Labor Camps”, or “Total Subjugation”!

Also consider under this supposed national emergency, that this EO gives this president TOTAL and absolute control over all food, food production and storage in American … So if you wish to eat, or feed your family, you had better tow the line !!!

His EO states said government would exercise TOTAL CONTROL over the following:

e)  “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption.  “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f)  “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…”

Also consider that that Section 201(b) of  EO 13603 clearly states that it is enforceable under both “emergency ” and “NON-emergency conditions” … REALLY ??? … WHY ???

This president has signed a plethora of executive orders since he entered office, with some having immense power centralizing implications, but no clear definition of boundaries he may not exceed! Here is a partial list that shows the immense authority he would control over this country at his whim (pay particular attention to EO#11000)…

  • EO#10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
  • EO#10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
  • EO#10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
  • EO#10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
  • EO#11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
  • EO#11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
  • EO#11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration
  • EO#11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
  • EO#11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
  • EO#11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

Add to the above list the constant and fervent attack on our second amendment rights, a right our founders felt critical for We The People to keep an otherwise tyrannical government in check. A right that must be defeated and rendered obsolete in order to allow the progression of tyranny to come to fruition in America. Why, because we as a society own hundreds of millions of guns … more than just about any standing army on this planet, and this poses a serious threat to the fundamental change promised to America, change that does NOT bode well for Americans.

Now consider that this government has bought, paid for and staffed over 600 internment centers, built under contract by Halliburton industries, strategically placed around the country, and capable of holding millions of patriots for forced reeducation and relocation purposes, without due process and for an indefinite period of time as detailed in DOD report FM 3-39.40 (please research this, it is very real).

Your right to reasonable privacy is gone as, through the patriot act and other legislation we are not privileged to, government agencies may spy on you and collect your personal data with legal impunity. Whether it be through social media, phone conversations, internet searches, street lights, appliances in your home, your automobile, or high flying drones etc… Even if you wish to be, you will never be truly alone again!

The government has been, and continues to actively hire tens of thousands of goons, thugs and self proclaimed mercenaries, to man an internal army called by their soft names, the TSA and Homeland Security. These troops are being armed as well as the best combat troops we send abroad to fight our illegal, imperialistic wars, including battle-proven automatic weapons, 2.2 BILLION rounds of ammunition (enough to fight a ten year war of the scope we are involved in across the middle east) including a massive number of .40 caliber hollow point rounds (only meant to kill and outlawed by the Geneva convention even for use in times of war), body armor, armored vehicles, aerial surveillance (drones) etc…!

These internal forces are currently being stationed across the country at strategic locations such as airports, train and bus stations, shopping malls, checkpoints on major highways and even sports events. So, basically, in any place there is significant gathering, or the flow of population!

The Military is in the process of training as many as 40,000 returning soldiers in crowd control and riot termination to be used to augment the internal forces mentioned above, even though this is in direct violation of Posse Comitatus and the Constitution, which clearly states the standing army is to be used for foreign conflicts and not against the American people!

Now this list, as long and comprehensive as it is, only shows the surface of the preparations being made to subjugate the American population … Question, COULD THESE LAWS AND EO’S EVEN EXIST IN AMERICA without tyrannical presidents and a complicit congress?


Here is a list of things tyrannical governments throughout history have found cannot be tolerate in order to maintain and protect their hold on absolute power …

Freedom of speech

The right to bear arms

The right to assemble (protest)

The right to due process

The right to reasonable privacy

The right to ownership of critical properties

The right of citizens to choose their leaders

Now look at the above article again … Need I say more. Is the title of this article making more sense to you now?

Are you angry yet ???

All of this is mind boggling, and most would truly believe this cannot happen in America! But America has no magical immunity against tyranny. Just like all republics before us, any government not held accountable by its true governors (the people) will eventually accumulate power unto themselves and tyranny WILL result! Take a serious look at what has been presented here and understand that this is “What We Have Already Lost”! It is well past time to wake up and push back !!!

At present the line “Land of the Free and home of the Brave” is a cruel joke! It is obvious to anyone aware of the above that we are no longer free … and as far as being brave, well where is the massive push-back against this obvious tyranny, where are the masses of the Brave ???

The struggle for liberty may cost you a lot, BUT, doing nothing WILL cost you EVERYTHING!

Please remember, as bleak as this seems, there is hope, because regardless of their power and preparation, the most powerful force in this country has always been, and still remains the 315 million Americans! Together we constitute an unstoppable force that cannot be silenced!

One voice may speak but many unified voices can roar …

Dammit, it is time for We The People to …

ROAR !!!