I upload various mods to ModDB, so that they may gain some attention. If anyone needs any help with their profile pages send me a PM.
Breakthrough in science that reveals intelligence is mostly genetic: Amren.com
Two of the major superstitions of our time are the notion that man is merely a blank slate whose behavior is merely the product of the social environment and its sister, that race doesn`t exist. Yet one by one, the pseudo-scientific sources of these myths are being discredited by serious scientists, and in 2002, one of the biggest sources of all took a nose dive.
Franz Boas, often called the grandfather of modern anthropology and a pioneer pusher of the idea that race is not a very meaningful concept, merely a "social construct" not found in nature, probably ranks with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud as one of the most influential thinkers of the modern age. As a Columbia professor from 1899 to 1942, he virtually created modern anthropology, and the students he trained—among them, Margaret Mead and some of the most famous names in the field—dominated the discipline until only a few years ago.
One of Boas' favorite targets was so-called "scientific racism," and much of his own writing was intended to combat what he saw—sometimes rightly—as unscientific or simply false thinking about race.
But it now turns out that Boas himself was guilty of no small degree of unscientific blunder—and maybe even fraud.
In 1912, Boas published what became a classic study that claimed to show that the skull shapes ("cranial forms") of the descendants of European immigrants to the United States altered from those of the original immigrants. Boas offered no explanation for why the changes took place, but if they were real, his finding pretty much wiped out the idea that different racial and ethnic types differ in fixed physical characteristics.
"did much to establish the notion in human genetics that what are transmitted in the germ plasm are not fixed characters but potentialities ... dependent upon the environment for the particular form they will assume. The 'nature-nurture' controversy was largely obviated by this alternative."
In political terms, if human beings have few or no "fixed characters" and are shaped by the social environment, then what we know as modern liberalism is in business. So is communism, which also assumes that human beings can be transformed by manipulating the social environment.
It's no accident that Boas was a lifelong sympathizer of Marxism.
Unfortunately, for the social and human engineers, the study has now been shown to be invalid. Last week in the New York TimesScience section, science reporter Nicholas Wade reported on anarticle in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard L. Jantz that took another look at Boas's study and methods. The effects of the new environment on the skulls of the immigrants' descendants, they found, are "insignificant," and the difference between the European and American born children were "negligible in comparison to the differentiation between ethnic groups." ["A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race" By Nicholas Wade, NYT.Oct 8, 2002]
Moreover, as Dr. Jantz told the Times, Boas
"was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it come out that way."
In other words, Boas decided what his conclusions would be before he finished the research and then "shaded"—i.e., cheated on—the data to make them support the conclusion he wanted.
This is not science; it's fraud -- and modern liberalism is founded on it.
It doesn't mean that the "scientific racism" Boas wanted to destroy is valid, but then again, as Dr. Jantz, says, it also "doesn't mean cranial morphology [the classification of skulls by race] is meaningless either."
Yet Boas was by far not the worst offender when it came to twisting data to support politically desired conclusions. His student Margaret Mead has been shown to have outright fabricated much of her data on Samoan sex life in the 1920s, and the claims about the lack of genetic influence on IQ of several other scientists trained or influenced by Boas have also been challenged by later research.
Anthropologist David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, tells the Times
"once we anthropologists said race doesn't exist, we have ignored it since then,"
but now, the reappraisal of Boas' work
"really does have far-reaching ramifications."
You can say that again.
Not only has a giant of modern social science—and a pillar of modern liberalism—tumbled from his pedestal, but the dogma that man is merely a blank slate, on which state bureaucrats and social engineers may scribble whatever ideologies they please, has toppled with him. Sophisticated attempts to control people won't work because ultimately we are different and that nature within each kind of people deserves and longs for its own societies.
If that dogma really can be killed, then much of the tyranny and chaos it has helped create will die with it.
by Roderick Kaine
infogalactic - Infogalactic.com
Metapedia - Metapedia.org
I like to refer to Lewontin’s fallacy frequently when debating people who deny the biological basis of race. Wikipedia, while clearly not perfect, did have a reasonable article (at least for quick referral of lay-people) on the paper written by W.F. Edwards which coined “Lewontin’s fallacy.”(1) A brief overview is that in the 1970’s an academic social justice advocate published a paper(2) in which he claimed that there is more variation within individuals from one race than there is variation between different racial populations. So much that you can regularly find people of different races who are more similar to each other than they are to members of their own race. However, the first paper linked to above shows that the problem mainly stems from the fact that very few loci were studied by Lewontin. Allele frequencies differ between populations and with enough loci studied, the ability to distinguish between racial groups based purely on genetic information is quite high. Virtually 100%.
As is typical for pretty much all articles on Wikipedia, anything that isn’t politically correct can be expected to drift over time such that claims that are not PC are deleted, diluted, and placed next to a larger number of criticisms than is warranted such that it implies that the non-PC claims seem unsupported or only supported by very few outliers. Sometimes, like in this article, a paper which can be seen to support one conclusion actually supports the opposite on more careful inspection. All of this is the wikipedia version of death by 1000 cuts. I once tried editing the page on gender differences in intelligence and was basically run out and banned by marxist feminists. I assume this happens to anyone who objectively tries to include factual and balanced information into potentially politically incorrect articles. These same people got that article deleted or subsumed into gender differences in psychology for awhile, but it looks like it has been resurrected now. Honestly, the constant battle over these sorts of articles is just beyond all reason and I will never bother editing wikipedia again. Chances are your work is just going to get deleted and there are other platforms where that won’t happen.
Subjectively, it seems like this sort of thing has been happening to the Lewontin’s fallacy article, but I will let you be the judge:
Here is an old archived version of this article.
Here is an archived version of the current article.
Here is a direct link to the article. (It shouldn’t look different than the above link at the time of this post, but who knows what future changes will be made. In a year or two it could be interesting to compare these three versions)
The thing that is most obvious in my mind is that a paper discussed in an earlier version of the article which supported the concept of Lewontin’s fallacy has had any reference to it completely deleted. Here is the now deleted content:
Studies of human genetic clustering have shown that people can be accurately classified into racial groups using correlations between alleles from multiple loci. For instance, a 2001 paper by Wilson et al.reported that an analysis of 39 microsatellite loci divided their sample of 354 individuals into four natural clusters, which broadly correspond to four geographical areas (Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China, and New Guinea)
In addition, a paper which purports to undermine the concept that Lewontin’s thinking is fallacious is present at the end in both versions, but is quoted more (and very selectively) in the most recent version. In my opinion, the findings in both wikipedia versions are misrepresented.
In the old article this:
The paper claims that this masks a great deal of genetic similarity between individuals belonging to different clusters. Or in other words, two individuals from different clusters can be more similar to each other than to a member of their own cluster, while still both being more similar to the typical genotype of their own cluster than to the typical genotype of a different cluster. When differences between individual pairs of people are tested, Witherspoon et al. found that the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” is not adequately addressed by multi locus clustering analyses. They found that even for just three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian) the inclusion of many thousands of loci is required before the answer can become “never”
On the other hand, the accurate classification of the global population must include more closely related and admixed populations, which will increase this above zero, so they state “In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible”. Witherspoon et al.conclude “The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our ﬁnding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population”
expanded into this:
In the 2007 paper “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations”, Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?”. The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was “never”. However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis
Witherspoon et al. conclude that, “Since an individual’s geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one’s population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. […] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes”,and warn that, “A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.”
This paper… It had decent data and methodology actually. But as is almost always the case with these sorts of things, interpretations and framing of the results are key. It is clear that the people who wrote this are deliberately softballing their wording either to cover their ass (my guess) or to promote a more progressive narrative.
ω in the following quotes is defined as given a certain number of loci considered, the probability of individuals originating from two distinct geographical areas will be more similar to each other than to someone originating closer to them. I.E., the probability that two randomly selected individuals from different races will be more similar to each other than each is similar to a randomly selected member of their own race. Keep in mind that ω is not the same as determining what race a person is based on genetic data. Even with small numbers of loci and a high ω, there is very low probability of misclassifying the race of an individual person. From the very same paper used to undermine the Edwards’ paper:
[A relatively large ω is found with low numbers of loci] It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.
With the large and diverse data sets now available, we have been able to evaluate these contrasts quantitatively. Even the pairwise relatedness measure, ω, can show clear distinctions between populations if enough polymorphic loci are used. Observations of high ω and low classification errors are the norm with intermediate numbers of loci (up to several hundred)
Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ω, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
Molecular biologists and geneticists use a little bit different definition of polymorphism than some other branches in biology. In this case, they are referring to single nucleotide differences in the genome. This is equivalent to having one letter different in spelling a word. Prog and prig mean almost the same thing, but there is one letter difference which slightly changes the meaning. This is a reasonable analogy to the differences in the genetic code.
What this paper says (and it should be said with less tip-toeing) is that if you only consider a small number of these single nucleotide polymorphisms, there is a high degree of error and you can often erroneously conclude that two people from different races are more similar to each other than they are to individuals of their own race. The key word here is erroneously. This is a statistical problem, not biological fact. If you consider thousands of SNPS at once, then you have virtually no chance of encountering this problem. The authors of this paper found that Edwards was right and Lewontin was wrong. Individuals from two different races are never more similarly related than people from the same race, and the genetics supports this when you consider enough loci. It is pretty unambiguous. The quotes in the Wikipedia article and in the paper don’t really represent what the researchers actually found. The researchers had to dress this language up the way they did because of progressive influence in academia. Chances are they wouldn’t have gotten published if they were straight forward about what they found, and even if they could have published political heresy they may have had their careers ruined by SJWs in academia. See what happens when you don’t toe the line with the progressive narrative by reading what happened to a University of Texas researcher who didn’t find the “right” conclusions with regards to gay couples raising children. Though there is a huge problem with how Wikipedia articles are written and “maintained,” they wouldn’t have been able to misconstrue these results so badly if it weren’t from the same sorts of SJWs in academia malevolently influencing researchers. Though it shouldn’t be understated that the wikipedia editors did in fact selectively quote from this already bludgeoned paper. Two layers of SJW influence changed the findings of this paper to mean the exact opposite of what it actually found. Unbelievable. It is truly amazing that this sort of shenanigans is allowed to go on.
You might object that “thousands” is a huge number and that this demonstration of statistical problems convincingly shows that races don’t differ if it takes that many to reduce error to zero. However, the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. If you were to use 3000 base pair SNPs, which is consistent with the minimum in the paper, then you need to utilize only .0001% of the whole genome to reduce this error to zero. Or, if you want to consider SNPs only, there are about 10 million SNPs in the human genome. A sample of 3000 SNPs is only .003% of the total number of SNPs that could be used. This is a conservative estimate because their figure 2 indicates it only takes about 1000 SNPS to minimize this error. In other words, it only takes a vanishingly small fraction of the genome to relieve you of this statistical error that can find that humans from two different races are more similar to each other than either is to their own race.
Yet this paper, which so conclusively shows that human races are different from each other on the genetic level, is used to debunk the original Edwards’ paper. The author’s of the paper attempt to debunk themselves or at least pretend like they found the opposite of what they actually did. This paper is absolutely one of the worst instances of doublethink I have ever come across. It literally blows my mind. As a society, we seem to have a real hatred for truth when it comes to biological realities and the uninformed are clearly being purposefully told lies.
Sidenote: I know there was another article on cathedral entryism on Wikipedia in the alt-right in the last year or so, but for the life of me I can’t find it. If anyone can provide a link I would appreciate it. Edit: Found it.
(1) Bioessays. 2003 Aug;25(8):798-801. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy. Edwards
(2) The Apportionment of Human Diversity. R. C. Lewontin. 1972
(3) Genetics. 2007 May; 176(1): 351–359. doi: 10.1534/genetics.106.067355 PMCID: PMC1893020 Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, A. R. Rogers, E. E. Marchani, W. S. Watkins, M. A. Batzer, and L. B. Jorde
September 12, 2005 Edwin S. RubensteinDOWNLOAD PDF
In their 1993 Forbes article, “When Quotas Replace Merit, Everybody Suffers,” Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer determined that the “total shortfall” or cost attributed to federal compliance with affirmative-action policies and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations was close to four percent of GNP or well over $225 billion. As the authors pointed out, the total economic cost of racial preferences and diversity in both the private and public sector is difficult to pinpoint in an aggregate sum, but is not impossible to calculate in terms of a reasonably reliable estimate. The following paper analyzes the economic costs to taxpayers as a result of federal compliance with affirmative action and equal employment-based regulations. Estimates show “that for every dollar spent on regulatory enforcement, about twenty dollars is spent on compliance costs by the private sector.” The policy implications of federal EEOC regulations apply an unnecessary burden in terms of direct and indirect costs to taxpayers, in addition to undercutting merit-based employment practices, and therefore Executive Order 11246 and subsequent regulations should be repealed.
President Bush says he is against quotas and racial preferences. During the 2004 presidential campaign he stated that the best way to help minority businesses is to open all contracts to competitive bidding “....so people have a chance to be able to bid and receive a contract to help get their businesses going.” “Minority ownership of businesses is up,” the president said, “because we created an environment for the entrepreneurial spirit to be strong.”1
Yet from day one the Bush administration has backed affirmative-action plans. The first opportunity came in August 2001 when the administration asked the Supreme Court to uphold a Transportation Department program intended to help minority contractors. In its brief, the Bush Justice Department took the same position that the Clinton administration had in the case, which grew out of a challenge by a White-owned construction company in Colorado Springs.
The company, Adarand Constructors, submitted the low bid for a Transportation Department contract. But the contract was awarded to a minority contractor as part of the department’s “disadvantaged business enterprise.”2 In its 50-page brief, the Bush Justice Department asserted that “the program is not unconstitutional,” noting that all companies that are economically disadvantaged could apply for the same preferences in receiving contracts.3 Of course, their solution discriminated against the more efficient non-minority contractor, as preference programs usually do. That didn’t bother the White House. Even the George Bush regime seems—or at least seemed—interested in the rights of particular groups rather than colorblind equality.
When it comes to affirmative action, the Bush administration goes by the book: The Federal Code of Regulations states that individuals who certify that they are members of named groups (Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian Pacific, Sub-continental-Asian) are to be considered socially and economically disadvantaged. Under some programs, women “shall be presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” too.
The rules affect everything from “surface transportation,” which requires that 10 percent of federal monies go to minority and female contractors, to the space program, which requires that 8 percent of the dollar value of its contracts go to such firms. The Small Business Administration reserves portions of its contracts for, among others, Asian-Americans, Sri Lankans, Tongans, and “Hasidic Jewish Americans.”4
Nor does government intervention end when a company hires the appropriate percentage of minorities. An initiative began by the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in the early 1990s requires companies to focus on promotion and pay disparities among workers of different races and genders.5
Reports of the death of affirmative action are premature. But this is not your father’s affirmative action: Companies owned by White females are eligible for consideration as disadvantaged businesses under the Transportation Department program supported by the Bush Administration. Nineteen separate federally mandated preference programs are designed to benefit “economically disadvantaged” bankers.
Wealthy minorities can buy broadcast licenses from existing license holders in so-called “distress sales” for as little as 75 percent of fair market value, while others can’t even compete. The FCC also exempts “minority-controlled broadcast facilities” from rules restricting multiple ownership of such facilities.6 Such provisions tilt the playing field against non-minority entrepreneurs striving to attain the wealth enjoyed by their minority competitors.
Obviously the government doesn’t define “disadvantaged” the way you or I do. An estimated 70 percent of the nation’s population is now legally eligible for federal contracts and affirmative-action benefits on the basis of their alleged disadvantages. But in the government’s eyes the son of an unemployed White Detroit auto worker is more privileged than the daughter of a Manhattan surgeon of color.
Reverse discrimination is the law of the land. To affirmative action ideologues, however, it’s “pay back” time, when White American males must atone for their alleged economic advantages—even if they grew up poor. “White males are the only growth area for the modern victim movement,” says John Leo, a contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report. “Everybody else is covered.”7 In typical Washington style, a program designed to aid “disadvantaged minorities” metastasizes into a near-universal entitlement. Is there a method to this madness? You bet: By casting a wide affirmative-action net the federal government has vastly increased political support for such programs.
Quotas are explicitly banned in both the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts. Minority hiring ratios are officially just “goals” for achieving a balanced” workforce in which the number of female and minority employees reflects their share of the underlying population. Failure to meet a goal does not subject the employer to legal sanctions—as long as “good faith” efforts were made.
At least that’s what Executive Order 11246 said when it established affirmative-action programs for Federal agencies back in the late 1960s.
Two things stand out about the current system of goals/quotas. First, they cover a wide swath of U.S. companies. All employers with more than fifteen staff, public, private, or non-profit, come under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. All are obligated to match the mix of new hires with the racial, ethnic, and gender mix of qualified applicants. All can be sued by the EEOC for “discrimination” if the racial and gender mix of new hires differs sufficiently from the availability of such workers. EEOC regulations cover nearly 90 percent of the non-farm private sector workforce.
Then there is E.O. 11246 administered by the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The Executive Order requires all Federal contractors and subcontractors with contracts worth more than $10,000 per year to prepare and file affirmative action plans. More than 400,000 corporations, covering about 42 percent of the private sector workforce, are under its purview.8
Unfortunately, what makes these statistical “guidelines” and “goals” so appealing is the very thing that undermines their credibility: They are easily distorted and misinterpreted by government bureaucrats. Any deviation between hiring goals and population ratios can be construed as intentional discrimination—no matter what the underlying reality.
The threat of costly litigation has forced many employers to protect themselves by hiring unqualified minorities to satisfy the numerical goals. Even this isn’t enough to satisfy affirmative-action activists. In 1997, for example, five discrimination lawsuits were filed on behalf of Black, Asian, and female employees of Boeing.
Boeing is the nation’s largest defense contractor, with over $18 billion in federal contracts. It is the largest employer of minorities and females in the aerospace industry.
Boeing did not contest the two largest suits and instead agreed to pay $20 million to settle out of court. Jessie Jackson figured prominently in brokering the largest of the settlements—$15 million for Black employees. Several non-profit organizations he controls profited handsomely from the deal.9
In its analysis of Boeing’s alleged diversity lapses, the EEOC ignored seniority or years of service. Nevertheless, the contractor has subsequently spent more than $1.3 billion on race and gender based initiatives.
In November 2000, Coca Cola became the second U.S. firm to cave in to racial extortion demands of minority workers. In this case four Black employees charged that the company (a) underpaid them because they are Black and (b) created a hostile work environment. In addition to a $193 million cash settlement, Coke committed to spend $1 billion to promote business opportunities for preferred minorities and women.10
Oh yes: the allegations against Coke were never proven in a court of law.
Similarly, Texaco agreed to settle disparate pay claims for about $3.1 million in 1999—the largest settlement in a glass ceiling case up to that time. Back pay was awarded, ranging from $1,700 to $51,000, as well as pay raises.11Once again the government made no finding of discrimination.
If discrimination is as widespread as activists claim, surely it exists in small and medium-sized companies also. Yet no federal lawsuit has ever been filed against such firms. Instead the legal actions have been directed solely at companies big enough to pay mega settlement amounts. Affirmative-action shakedowns seem to be about money rather than equality and justice.
Nevertheless, the list of companies that have capitulated to unsubstantiated charges of racial discrimination reads like a Who’s Who of U.S. business. The legal threats have created a “quota culture” in many U.S. corporations. Kodak’s employee manual spells out in great detail what constitutes unacceptable views towards its diversity policies, along with steps employees should follow to notify management of violators.12 Xerox ties a portion of its managers’ bonuses to how well they promoted diversity efforts at the company.
Most ominous of all, United Airlines has reportedly reduced training requirements and pilot qualifications in order to hire the “right” number of selected minorities.13
No discrimination? That may sound improbable to the average citizen, but not to the economists who study labor markets. In a free-market economy, competition among employers for the most productive workers precludes discrimination. Employers who pay minority workers less than their “marginal product” will lose those workers to competitors. They will not survive. This process can be forestalled only by monopoly or government intervention—both of which occurred, for example, in South Africa under apartheid. And now in the U.S., under affirmative action.
Education and work experience are the two most reliable predictors of a worker’s earnings. Black workers have historically been far less educated than White workers. Adjusting for racial differences in education levels, test scores, and work experience, 70 percent to 85 percent of the gap in income levels between White and Black workers disappears. For Black college graduates, the gap more than vanishes. Harvard economist Richard Freeman finds: “By the late 1970s, young Black male college graduates attained rough income parity with young White graduates. Joseph Conti reports [inChallenging the Civil Rights Establishment: Profiles of a New Black Vanguard] that ‘black college-educated females currently earn 125 percent of what White college educated females earn.’”14
All of which shows the fallacy underlying affirmative action in the American labor market.
The programs may even be counter-productive. Since the onset of affirmative action in the 1960s, the employment-population ratio for Black workers has deteriorated relative to that of Whites and Hispanics.15 This could reflect the reluctance of employers to hire workers likely to file affirmative action lawsuits.
Minority unemployment usually responds to changing economic conditions more than White unemployment, reflecting the over-representation of Blacks in manufacturing and other highly cyclical sectors of the economy. The trend held in the early 1990s; it abruptly ended with the economic recovery under the second Bush Administration. Indeed, the Black unemployment rate is higher today than it was when the current economic recovery started thirteen quarters ago.16
Why the persistently high Black unemployment rate? Discrimination may be the best explanation—but not the sort of discrimination affirmative action is designed to combat. The most racist policy in this country for the past quarter century has been immigration policy. U.S. companies knowingly employ millions of illegal immigrants while the government looks the other way. The illegals are paid less than comparable native minorities, but they obviously cannot sue their employers.
The onslaught of poorly educated, mainly Hispanic, immigrants has stymied good faith efforts of low-income Americans—minority and White alike—to climb up the economic ladder.
If contracts were awarded to the lowest qualified bid, discrimination would not enter the picture. Firms that pay minority and female workers less than their “marginal product” would lose qualified workers—and their competitive advantage—to non-discriminating competitors. Eventually they would fold.
The Bush White House seems immune to this point, however. Using Clinton-era standards, the Commerce Department has labeled industries awarded roughly three-quarters of all federal contracts—a truly staggering sum—guilty of discrimination, thereby making female- and minority-owned firms in these industries eligible for a 10-percent bid shelter.17
Translation: Ten percent wiggle room on federal contracts for anyone of the appropriate skin color.
How much do federal set asides cost taxpayers?
Data provided to us by the Federal Procurement Data System shows $15.7 billion of federal contracts were awarded to firms owned by minorities and females in fiscal 2004. The amount of such contracts more than doubled since 2000:
(Obligated Amount in Billions of Dollars)Fiscal YearMinority-Owned FirmsFemale-Woned FirmsTotal2000$0.089$5.921$6.0102000$0.161$7.178$7.3392002$0.342$7.178$7.5202003$0.761$8.824$9.5852004$6.019$9.634$15.653Source: Federal Procurement Data System; unpublished statistics sent to author in July 2005.
The premium for awarding contracts to minority- and female-headed enterprises is not supposed to exceed 10 percent, but on some contracts it can be as high as 25 percent.18 Two billion dollars (less than 15 percent of the $15.7 billion awarded in 2004) is thus a reasonable estimate of what such contracts cost taxpayers today.
Set asides are just the tip of the affirmative-action iceberg. All firms awarded a federal contract worth $50,000 are subject to strict racial- and gender-based hiring regulations. Such firms must submit a written “affirmative-action plan” to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), laying out, in excruciating detail, the special recruitment, monitoring, notification, review, and record-keeping procedures they will implement to hire the target percentages of minority and female employees.
A typical “Affirmative Action/Non-Discrimination/MBE-WBE Requirement” document lists “participation goals” for the construction trades. Carpenters for one job were expected to be 42.74 percent minority and 1.58 percent female; iron workers are expected to be 58.53 percent minority and 7.63 percent female.19 There is no clue as to how those numbers were derived—but you can see the value of a minority female ironworker.
Contractors must keep records of each applicant and document reasons for not hiring a woman or minority candidate. Even if there are no openings, help wanted ads must be published—just to add potential female and minority hires to company files. The process is so onerous that the OFCCP’s explanatory manual is about 700 pages long.
Public sector costs are substantial. The staffing and budget appropriations for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission mushroomed during the 1990s, and have continued rising during the Bush years:
(Obligated Amount in Billions of Dollars)1990$1812000$2902003$3152004 est.$3252005 est.$347Source: Susan Dudley and Melinda Warren, “Regulators’ Budget Continues to Rise: An Analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005,” Mercatus Center, George Mason University and Weidenbaum Center, Washington University, July 2004.
In 2005 an estimated 79,432 grievances will be filed with the EEOC—about the same annual amount as during its Clinton Administration heyday.
Research at the Center for the Study of American Business estimates that for every dollar spent on regulatory enforcement, about 20 dollars is spent on compliance costs by the private sector. Applying the 20-to-1 ratio to EEOC’s estimated outlays, we arrive at $6.5 billion as the estimated cost to private sector firms of complying with federal affirmative-action regulations in 2005.
Federal agencies spent a total of $1.7 billion to enforce all workplace regulations (affirmative-action-related and others) in 2005. That translates to private sector compliance costs of $21.4 billion. How many more minorities and females would be working today had that amount been plowed back into businesses?
Minorities have made considerable social and economic progress since the 1960s. Dropout rates have declined, college attendance rates are up, and the Black middle-class has expanded. Minority wages have come closer to parity with Whites. These gains have occurred despite, rather than because of, affirmative action.
Here are some of the unintended consequences of the race and gender preferences enforced by the federal government:
A rollback of affirmative action may be one of the most efficient pro-growth policies available to the federal government.
Edwin S. Rubenstein, President, ESR Research, has 25 years experience in business research, financial analysis, and economics journalism. Mr. Rubenstein joined Hudson Institute, a public policy think tank headquartered in Indianapolis, as Director of Research in November 1997. At Hudson he wrote proposals and conducted research on a wide array of topics, including work-force development, the impact of AIDS on South Africa’s labor force, Boston’s “Big Dig” the economic impact of transportation infrastructure, and the future of the private water industry in the U.S. Mr. Rubenstein is also an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where he is principal investigator in the institute’s ongoing analysis of New York State’s budget and tax structure.
Essays explaining what has happened to this World - Home.iae.nl
Posted on April 7, 2013
This is an audio interview between the Informer and Vyzygoth. They discuss how the United states is really just a Corporation and not the country that stands for freedom and justice as we have been propagandized to believe in by the school system and the media.
Current Manta Documentation
Archived Manta Documentation
Posted on April 3, 2013
The Informer is by profession a researcher of 40 years and worked for major 500 companies. He started the legal research into government as a whole in 1979 and went heavy into the taxation part, all phases, in 1981, and continues to this day. He is retired and uses his cognitive skills of 40 years to continue studying. His history research came about because of the government research that uncovered many inconsistencies in what people perceive to be true about government, but which is not. His inquiries and study led him to other historical researchers nationwide. These findings show governments are run by people other than the common man and woman of America and is not the “representative form” as people believe.
The History of the American Bar
Posted on April 2, 2013
If you have ever watched the trilogy of the Matrix, you probably chalked it up to science fiction fare purely meant to entertain. However, have you ever given it a second thought that perhaps the Matrix may be real and that the movie trilogy is an allegory for an omnipresent authority that we are unaware of?
Well if you dare, there is proof out there that indeed we have and are currently living in a Matrix of sorts. OK, what’s your point,what’s this Matrix that you speak of? I’m getting to that, read on.
Perhaps we can script a movie based on a quasi country known as the United States of America, where what we were taught to believe is false and your national identity is a facade. Who would we cast in the role of the narrator? Morgan Freeman? (too authoritative sounding), Dustin Hoffman? (too nasally), Robin Williams?(OK, maybe not, way too manic). No, the person that I think should narrate the tale is a mysterious man called the “Informer”.
The Informer is a man who has been in the murky shadows of places where most people don’t dare to go and did the things they don’t dare to do. To Find out more about this man of mystery read on, if you dare, because if you do, you may never believe again. You have been warned!
THE BEGINNING OF THE LIE
by The Informer
Once upon a time before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title to their land. Not even the king could take the land for not paying a tithe. William the Conquer came in 1066 and stole the Kings Title and took the land of the people. From William I, 1066, to King John, 1199, England was in dire straits. It was bankrupt.
The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man’s hand, so people couldn’t pass their land on to the church or anyone else without the King’s permission, (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King would lose the land he controlled. The Vatican didn’t like that because the King owed a lot of pounds to the Vatican.(WHY?)(1). King John refused to accept The Vatican’s representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to rule England(religious or in fact?)(2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict(?). Interdict means a prohibition.)
King John was excommunicated and in trying to regain his stature he groveled before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals, and swore submission and loyalty to him. King John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, as Vicar of Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as tradition.
Question 1. Where in the Bible did Jesus give any man this kind of power over all men and land? He didn’t. He did not create a religion nor did he create the office of Pope.
Question 2. Can you have a third party break a contract between you and another person under duress..? Don’t those of you who are forced into a contract reserve all your rights under modern UCC 1-207 and claim UCC 1-103?
The contract (treaty of 1213) was between two parties. Now the Barons of England would not put up with being slaves anymore so they took to the sword and made King John sign the Magna Charta. So doesn’t this act of the Barons violate the principle of natural law, when they created the Magna Charta, as having no force and effect upon a contract between two parties? Well Pope Innocent III, the other contracting party thought so, for he declared the Magna Charta to be: “. . .unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful. . . whereby the Apostolic See is brought into contempt, the Royal Prerogative diminished, the English outraged, and the whole enterprise of the Crusade greatly imperiled.” Quoted from G.R.C. Davis: Magna Charta. Trustee of the British Museum. London. 1965.
The Pope, in order to introduce strife in England and Ireland that would help him, used Jesus teachings to his advantage that is verified in the Gospels by two of His Apostles. So St. Levy (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), alias Matthew, cites Jesus at Matthew 10::34-36 and Luke 12:49, 51-3. Nothing reveals the antithesis of government and religion more clearly than these facts.
Question 3. What did the contract of 1213 A.D. create? A TRUST or CONTRACT. Only the two parties, the King’s heirs and the Pope, can break the contract. For the Trust /Contract cannot be broken as long as there are heirs to both sides of the contract.
At this time in history we now know who controlled the Kings of England and the land of the world. For Now we have the Pope claiming the whole Western Hemisphere besides Europe. The Holy See of Antioch ruled all the easterly side and the Holy See of Alexandria ruled the western side, so there was a conflict. (3)
So, on with the story. The King’s explorers had come to America to claim dominion over land by deceiving and murdering the natives, the American Indians. The King operated under the treaty of 1213 and everything was going along okay until the 1770’s when the bunch of rogues called the “Founding Fathers” decided they wanted the benefits but not pay the taxes to the King. They, being lawyers, and professional educated men, didn’t know they were still under the Pope’s control? Their lies and fraud now would affect the American colonies and the people who lived on the land.
Those common people who fought in the American Revolution were unaware that the 1213 treaty still ruled despite the fact they THOUGHT the Magna Charta was a viable piece of work.(4) The Declaration of Rights in 1689 declared the Rights of the British subjects in England. At the end of the English Declaration it stated at Section III ” …that should any of the Rights just mentioned be in violation of the HOLY ALLIANCE (1213 Treaty), …it is as if this Declaration was never written”.
So we know that the English Declaration didn’t fly, so what makes you think the 1774 Declaration of Rights in this British Colony would work. Weren’t these people doing the same thing as the Barons did in 1215 A.D. to King John? A contract is a contract. Look at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Can anyone obligate a contract? Were the “founding fathers” trying to obligate a contract between two parties that still have heirs living today?
Question 4. How important is the “ultimate benefactor”, the Pope, The HOLY SEE, in the scheme of things? Move through history till modern times and pull Public Law 88-244, which follows Public Law 88-243 – the institution of the law- merchants Uniform Commercial Code. Are you shocked that the Pope is listed in this Public Law?
Doesn’t the United States have an ambassador in the Vatican? Why? Is it a government like all other nations such as France, Japan, Spain or Brazil? The Vatican runs the world, it controls the British Crown. Is it any wonder they separate man’s Church and government? They don’t talk about the Lord Almighty’s Church (government) do they.(5) “Organized churches” are given special tax privileges because the Vatican dictates to the sixty United States trustees through the trust document, the U.S. Constitution created by the 1783 treaty between the King, frontman for the Vatican, and Adams, Hartly, Laurens, & Franklin who were operating for the King and not the people of America. Look at Article VI of the Constitution for the United States for your answer as stated in the “New History of America”.(6)
You see we are still under the Pope who rules over all nations as he declared he did back in 1213. The 1783 Treaty did say in the opening statement quoted exactly as it appears in olde English; “It having pleafed the Divine Providence to difpofe the hearts of the Moft Serene and Moft Porent Prince, George the Third, by the grace of God, King of the Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender, of the Faith , Duke of Brunfwick and Laurenberg, Arch-Treafurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, & C. AND OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . . ..”
(Emphasis added in caps).
Did you catch the last few words? This is from a King (man) who can supposedly make no claim over the United States of America because he was defeated? The King claims God gave him the almighty power to say that no man can ever own property because it, “goes against the tenets of his church, the Vatican/Holy Roman Empire, because the King is the “Elector of the Holy Roman Empire’”
What about the secret Treaty of Verona, made the 22nd of November, 1822, which shows the power of the Pope and the Vatican’s interest in the US Republic.
Here is part of The Secret Treaty of Verona. “The undersigned specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in what ever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.
ARTICLE 2. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own state but also in the rest of Europe.
ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations.”
Do we have a false God before us and worship him and his church instead of the real Lord, Jesus and his government. The divine right of kings exists in Clinton and every Governor of the states in corporate Union. Well let me go on record and say that the Lord gave me the same right as the Pope claims was given to him. Am I not a Steward upon the land of the Lord as a mere sojourner, the same as the Pope? Are not you also a Steward?
Did the Lord make a covenant with Adam and Eve to subdue the earth and reign over the animals and to populate the earth? Doesn’t that contract still exist? And doesn’t it exist with you also? And we, the true believers in that contract, can we take all the nations (mans) laws in the world and dump them in the ocean to regain our rightful place on this earth under the Lord’s Natural Law to thwart the contract between King John and the Pope that appears to defeat the original contract the Lord made with man?
Yes, let us go back to the original contract and destroy the Vatican’s control over everybody. Before 1066 the Pope did not claim all the land as the people claimed the land and didn’t pay taxes on it to anybody. Didn’t the Lord say to the people after coming out of Egypt, “why do you want a king when you have me and my contract?” Which Lord do you want to live under, a Pope, a King, President, Governors, Senators, Representatives, or a real Lord called Jesus Christ. “Christians,” are ridiculed and put down because they read the Word of the Lord correctly and could defeat even the best the Pope has to throw at them.
The King James version of the Bible is just that. A version concocted by the King under the guidance of the Pope so as to hide the real truth. I was taught by the church I went to, which is government controlled as it has to be by the treaty of 1213 and reiterated in the 1783 Treaty between The Pope’s Elector, King John and the First President of the United States, Sam Huntington and Charles Thompson, Secretary. I read the passage, when Jesus was on the cross, from a very old manuscript that said, “Forgive them NOT, for they know what they do.” This is different than what most people believe he said, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” Bottom line is that when men write, transcribe, translate, update, and copy over thousands of years they always alter the interpretation, words and insert their own meanings. You can see this in just the 200 years that our country became separated from England, but still remains a colony under different compact and use of clever wording. But that is another whole subject that you do not know about.
Eminent domain and Allodial title:
Why and where did “eminent domain” rear its ugly head? Right after the King’s government was formed here in America. Eminent domain replaced the Law of Mortmain of England and when government wanted your land they claimed eminent domain thereby destroying that to what people think they have allodial title. Allodial title only existed in America when the King granted the use of the land to the likes of William Penn, ………
But it could be taken at any time. Are you or were your great, great, great grandfathers ever free to hold land that could never be taken away? Ask some of today’s farmers and see how many lost their farms to the government that belonged to their past family and I’ll bet none of the land goes back to the 1789 era. Well it’s a wonderful world to live in the end times, isn’t it. Read Revelations to see where the false preachers come from. Who is the “Harlot” in Revelations?
Does the Vatican come close with a mortal calling himself the “vicar” of Christ?
Here is the definition of vicar in Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
Vicar: “In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office.”
The Pope PRETENDS to be vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Pretend; To hold out as a false appearance; to offer something feigned instead of that which is real; To exhibit as a cover for something hidden.”
You bet your life the Pope has something to hide. He is no more powerful than You. The King is no more powerful than You. The American President and Governor’s are no more powerful than You. You allow THEM run your lives …WHY.?
Thinkers, you cannot fight the Pope or the King on their contract even though you are affected by the contract. You must go elsewhere for relief. Remember the first contract in history, God with Adam and Eve? You had better because you were a part of it as an heir and it is your saving grace. Why do you think the “courts of common law” are despised and Government and States are taking action to stop them? See where the power lies when this happens? Clinton, the Governors, and Congress of the United States and the Legislatures of the several states are only following orders and delegate to the 60 U.S. Trustees, who always show up in bankruptcy generated mostly by IRS actions. Isn’t that a starting point?
What do Trustees administer? A trust? The Constitution is a trust, correct? It was created by the 1783 Treaty, correct? It is not the private man’s trust contract, correct? Only those entering into the contract are UNDER the constitution and are bound by it, correct? Look up the definition of “under” in words and phrases and a good dictionary such as Webster’s 1828 at Vol. II, 101. I, my dear readers, am not “under” some damn corporate trust (constitution) drafted in secrecy by the King and corporate lawyer esquires (you call them the “Founding Fathers”) whom were controlled by the Treaty of 1213, wherein the Vatican still ruled over all. It was never “my constitution” and never will be. The Constitution does not apply to me nor will it ever.
However, some of the states’ representatives in 1776 realized that the Constitution was a commercial contract among the Founding Fathers to protect their financial interests in the Americas and in Europe. The Articles of the Bill of Rights is designed to keep those United States citizens whom are bound by the Constitution (contract) from encroaching upon my natural Law Rights, (With this hint in mind you may discover where the IRS gets its purported power that makes you liable, because you claim to be UNDER the constitution, but they will never admit it because only a few know the real reason and they are not about to tell their agents. The same goes for any license issued to you by the corporate States). I hope you have read the Supreme Court cases of State and United States cited in my previous books that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt I am correct in my previous two sentences. Yet you always fall back into the trap by claiming citizenship of the United States AND THE STATES.
No! You are not a citizen of the corporate or organic State if you want to be free. You cannot claim it is your constitution and remain free. You cannot claim representatives in the legislatures and remain free. How about your estate? State and Estate come from the same contract.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines it;
“ESTA’TE, n. 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a condition; now generally written and pronounced state. (6) The general interest of business or government; hence a political body; a commonwealth; a republic.
But in this sense, we now use State.” Get the picture? We are the ryots tenure holding the “estate” of the King called your estate. Belong to a body politic and you are a slave. In my previous books I told the people a “republic” is a fraud, for then you belong to the estate of the King which makes you a law-merchant holding as a trustee the King’s land that he is holding in trust for the Vatican. The States are the “estate ” of the Vatican/King cabal with the money changers along for the ride are a full blown consortium which includes the Congress/President/ Governors et al. I don’t want to drive you crazy, since you might not comprehend all that is here. Once you know the truth and let go of all you were taught by the government and the preachers you don’t become the drowning man grasping at the lies to stay afloat. Have you ever wondered why you were sinking while pleading case law and their constitution to protect you?
Bye till next time,
(1)(WHY?). Because the Pope claimed all lands as the vicar of Christ and the king owed money from the Vatican that was to be collected by the Church of England. The church reduced their parishioners to mere serfdom. When they died the church got the property and the King, in order to preserve what property he had instituted the law of Mortmain. This prevented the people from willing the land to the Pope. When the pope got wind of this he excommunicated the King. That’s the explanation for the Why?
(2) This is a fact that is documented in the English documents of History at the Leeds Library.
(3)The conflict between each of the Holy Sees, one controlling the western front (America) and the other controlling the China side with the dividing line somewhere in Spain and France through Germany. The Pope is the figurehead, remember and the best way to explain it is Congress is Alexandria and the Senate is Antioch.
(4) (Why doesn’t the Magna Charta hold more force and effect than a later contract between the king and the Pope? Because the Pope decreed it null and void as it would break the contract he had initiated with the King. The Magna Charta was a contract breaker by third parties and that was a no-no in any law. Besides the Pope owned England and how could the Barons take the land that the King pledged let alone all the surfs that the Pope still controlled through the church of England? He can’t and so the Magna Charta was declared Void. Now the Pope, through the front man, The King, could create the other contracts called treaties and no one is the wiser. Remember, the Pope was being controlled by the creditor, The Rothschilds to whom the Pope was indebted.
(5) Why? It is clear as a bell. The “church” of GOD is ‘Government of GOD and man created all these religions and made churches for them. They, man, cannot allow the Government of the Lord “Church upon this rock” to get in the way of the government of men, now can they?
(6) “New History of America”, by The Informer
People you can read this for yourself in American Council of Christian Laymen: “How Red Is The Federal Council of Churches”, Madison, Wisconsin, 1949. Now you may better understand James Montgomery’s latest as to why all the declarations, Magna Charta, etc. have no effect. Read on to see why.
See: James Montgomery’s – “British Colony III” on the Internet. To further prove what I say that the declared rights were also at the mercy of any previous charters or grants from the king of England you must read section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights which states;09″And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.”
Since 1990 I have been preaching that the Constitution was never mine and the People in "We the People" was not the common man on the street, but rather the aristocracy of Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Jay and others. Lysander Spooner is another man in the 1800's that had the same sentiments. He too showed that the constitution was not only NOT a contract with the people, but that none of the signers signed it with any conviction and it is evident that they only signed in a witness capacity, check it out for yourself by looking at how they signed the constitution and bound no one unless they agreed to the terms in the alleged contract called a constitution that they drafted.
The following is from the Cases in Constitutional law. I had used the John Barron case to prove my point that the common man on the street had nothing to do with creating the constitution quite a few years back.. The majority of the people put the constitution even before the word of the LORD ALMIGHTY, because they revere it so much they will say they will defend it. What they do not know is that the constitution gives unlimited power to those men who assume the power and jurisdiction over them and offers them no protection whatsoever. The hoopla of the government spin doctors have led the common man to believe the common man has protections built in to protect him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lie is so big that people, even when shown, still revert back to the constitution as if it were GOD himself. It is only because of the teachings they had that was passed down from generation to generation. Just like the little boy believes in the big lie you tell him for the fist 5 to 7 years of his life that there is a Santa, Tooth fairy and Easter bunny. Small lies but still lies. He won't believe there is none of the above when you tell him. It is more serious in real life, the lies that have been fed your relatives all the way back to 1776, and now when we researchers tell you the truth, you still want to believe in the Big Lie, just like the 5 year old wants to believe in Santa. I want to point out that what you read is not one word of mine, except where I make comments. I will bold those words that will draw your attention and make you see the light that I saw over 10 years ago. It is a slow process, to come to the realization that in order to control the people, they must be made to believe in (government) lies. Please note how the courts, after the John Barron case, have changed the meaning so that they can start changing what the genesis of the constitution was all about. They had to do this to keep the people 10 steps behind in figuring out what Patrick Henry warned, that the constitution was a document to enslave the people of America. So I start with the book, which is the same book I used describing the 16th Amendment, Direct and Indirect taxes. Remember it is what the enemy (government State and Federal) says that counts. Sometimes they tell us things in court cases that go right over our heads. They can't say that we were not warned.
The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights
Early Efforts To Extend the Bill of Rights to the States
BARRON v. BALTIMORE
7 Peters 243; 8 L. Ed. 672 (1833)
One of the bitter criticisms urged against our federal Constitution as it came from the hands of the Convention was that it contained no bill of rights. It was feared that without specific guarantees the civil rights and liberties of the people and the states would be at the mercy of the proposed national government. Ratification was secured, but with a tacit understanding that a bill of rights should promptly be added which should restrict the national government in behalf of individual liberty. That the early statesmen thought of a federal bill of rights only in terms of restrictions on national power is emphasized by Hamilton's ingenious argument in The Federalist (No. 84) that since the proposed central government was one which possessed only the powers delegated to it, it would be not only unnecessary but unwise to prohibit it from doing things which were clearly outside the scope of its delegated authority.
When the First Congress convened, the House of Representatives proposed seventeen amendments in the nature of a bill of rights. One of these, the fourteenth, provided that "no state should infringe the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press. This amendment, which was the only one restricting the powers of the states, was rejected by the Senate. The substance of the others was consolidated into twelve amendments, ten of which were finally ratified by the states.
The First Amendment indicates by its own language that it is directed only against the federal government, for it begins, "Congress shall make no law .... " The other amendments are couched in terms of general prohibition; and in spite of the perfectly clear historical evidence as to the intention of those who framed them, it came to be argued that these guarantees of civil liberty ought to be construed as restrictions upon state and federal governments alike. Whether this view is correct is the issue involved in Barron v. Baltimore, the last constitutional decision in which Mr. Chief Justice Marshall participated.
While paving its streets, the city of Baltimore had diverted from their natural courses certain streams, with the result that sand and gravel were deposited near Barron's wharf. The wharf, which had previously enjoyed the deepest water in the harbor, was rendered practically useless, for the deposits prevented the approach of vessels. A verdict of $4500 for Barron had been reversed by the state court of appeals, and a writ of error was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was alleged by Barron that this action upon the part of the city constituted a violation of that clause of the Fifth Amendment which forbids taking private property for public use without just compensation. He insisted that this amendment, being a guarantee in behalf of individual liberty, ought to be construed to restrain the states as well as the national government.
The decision in Barron v. Baltimore has left an indelible impression on the development of civil rights in this country. While today Barron would havebrought his case under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which does restrict the states), the process of change by which parts of the Bill of Rights have come to be applicable to the states has been slow, uncertain, and confusing. While most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only because they are essential to due process of law. The ruling in the present case that the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states has never been overruled.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court:
The judgment brought up by this writ of error having been rendered by the court of a State, this tribunal can exercise no jurisdiction over it unless it be shown to come within the provisions of the twenty-fifth section of the Judicial Act.
The plaintiff in error contends that it comes within that clause in the fifth amendment to the Constitution which inhibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. He insists that this amendment, being in favor of the liberty of the citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a State, as well as that of the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty.
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. . . . .
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress, and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
We are of opinion that the provision in the fifth amendment to the Constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States.
This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and [it] is dismissed.
Informer's Comment: Ever wonder why the federal judges say, "don't bring the constitution in my court?" Now you know why. So now we see the progression to hide this fact from the people in the states, who had no say whatsoever in drafting and creating the U.S. Constitution, by the courts dictating change by their decisions. Remember also, that the constitution of each of the states was never created or ratified by the common man either, for the same reasons the U. S. Constitution was never drafted nor ratified by the common man. So why do you all claim it is your constitution and Bill of Rights when it clearly is stated by the court that it is not?
In the next case please see if you can see RIGHTS mentioned. First the government granted "privileges" and after they were granted, they became rights under statute, only at the whim of the Congress. Today that is called "statutory rights" and NOT God given rights. That is why it was always a "privilege" to vote, because of the original restrictions, having property and money was the only criteria allowing those to vote. History has shown this to be so. That left the common man, who had no property or money in excess of 100 dollars silver, who you believe to have drafted both the Constitution and Bill of Rights, could not vote.
THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES 16 Wallace 36; 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)
In the years prior to the Civil War the individual relied almost entirely on the constitution of his state for the protection of his rights and liberties. The Supreme Court had ruled in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights limited only the national government, and with the exception of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Congress had passed no law which anyone seriously believed had violated these limitations. The ordinary citizen looked to the state legislature to protect his person and property from private interference, and to the state bill of rights for protection against injury by his state government. Certainly he did not, and could not, expect the national government to step in and protect him either from his neighbor or from his state government.
At the close of the Civil War it seemed clear that without the intervention of the federal government the Southern states would by legislative restrictions strip the newly freed Negro of most of the ordinary rights and immunities of free citizens. To place the civil rights of the Negro upon a firm basis Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment authorizing the national government to step in and protect the Negro against actions by his own state government. The states were forbidden to take life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or to deny anyone the equal protection of the laws. The amendment defined United States citizenship in terms which included the Negro, and the states were forbidden to make laws abridging the privileges and immunities of that citizenship.
Exactly what the framers of the amendment intended to include in the phrase "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" is not altogether clear, and there is evidence to indicate that it was not clear even to the framers. Some apparently believed that the clause would include within its protection those basic rights enjoyed by all persons--such as the right to marry, to own property, to do business, and to move about freely. Others thought that it would include all or part of the protections listed in the federal Bill of Rights. In the Slaughter-House Cases the Court held that the privileges and immunities clauseprotected none of these rights, and from this decision the Court has never retreated.
The Slaughter-House Cases were the first cases brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, and they had nothing whatever to do with the rights of freedmen. The case arose on the following facts: the Reconstruction or "carpetbag,' government in Louisiana, unquestionably under corrupt influence, had granted a monopoly of the slaughterhouse business to a single concern, thus preventing over one thousand other persons and firms from continuing in that business. The validity of the law was attacked under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was argued before the Supreme Court twice and was decided by a majority of five to four.
The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national citizenship, and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights generally. Nor has the Court been willing to expand the scope of the privileges and immunities clause beyond this early, limited interpretation. Five years before the Slaughter-House Cases the Supreme Court had held void, in Crandall v. Nevada (1868), a state tax on transporting persons out of the state, on the ground that such a tax would obstruct the citizen in his inherent federal right to come to the seat of his government. Two members of the Court, while concurring in the judgment, held the tax to be a violation of the commerce clause. In his opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Mr. Justice Miller cites this freedom of movement as an example of theprivileges and immunities of United States citizens, and in 1941 in Edwards v. California, four members of the Court strongly urged that the California "anti-Okie" law should be held invalid on this ground. The majority had rested their decision, as had the minority in the Crandall case, upon the commerce power.
Had the Slaughter-House Cases been decided 25 years later, the Louisiana statute would in all probability have been invalidated as a deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the laws. But the majority of the Court disposed rather summarily of these clauses by holding in substance that the due process of law clause was not a limitation on the state's police power and that the equal protection of the laws clause, equally inapplicable, would probably never be invoked except for the protection of the Negro. It is important to bear in mind that Mr. Justice Miller's comments about the due process and equal protection clauses no longer state the law. The Court has long since given those clauses the broadest possible applicability. There have, in fact, been more cases interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment than on any other phase of constitutional law.
It looked for a time (1935-1940) as though the Court might also broaden the scope and applicability of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Colgate v. Harvey (1935) the Court held void a provision of a Vermont income tax law which taxed income from money loaned outside the state at a higher rate than that loaned inside the state. Besides denying the equal protection of the laws, this act was held to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. The right to carry on business freely across state lines was declared to be a privilege or immunity of federal citizenship, a doctrine sharply differing from the rule of Slaughter-House Cases. In 1939, in Hague v. CIO, involving the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of various repressions of free speech, assembly, etc., in Jersey City, two justices of the Supreme Court from the majority held that the right of citizens to assemble and discuss their rights under the National Labor Relations Act was a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. There was also speculation as to whether protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was also a privilege and immunity of federal citizenship, but no decision was made on that point. There was sharp dissent in both cases against this tendency to enlarge the scope of the privileges and immunities clause; and in Madden v. Kentucky (1940), in a case similar to Colgate v. Harvey, the Court specifically overruled that case and returned to the timeworn narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause embodied in the Slaughter-House Cases.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in part:
The plaintiffs in error accepting this issue, allege that the statute is a violation of the Constitution of the United States in these several particulars:
Informer's comment: The Plaintiffs lost because the constitution of the United States did not apply to them and the amendments did not apply to the states. The part of the decision of Miller states, "But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, AND WITHOUT that of the federal government." Emphasis mine.
Now I hope all you understand that the Bill of Rights, as originally adopted, DID NOT belong to the people that lived in the states and they did not, contrary to the big lie they are led to believe, create the Bill of Rights, just like they did not create the Constitutions of the United States, much less the state constitution where they live. The common man never ratified any constitution.
Now in Nebbia v New York 291 U.S. 502, Justice Roberts stated, "So far as the requirement of due process is concerned, and in the absence of other constitution restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adopted to its purpose. The courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. . . .
Informer's Comment: People, "public welfare" means government welfare, NOT your welfare. How many believe when they say "public," that it means you and me? Probably 95 percent of you think this way. Not so, the government is termed public. Ever hear the term "public office?" That is easy to understand it means government office. Why is it so difficult to understand the "public welfare clause "means government welfare and not your welfare? Therefore, as stated by the Nebbia court, the federal courts are without authority to override the state's domain.
BUT, the problem has completely gone away and with the advent of the War Powers the Congress and the President now control all states and actually throws out all these court arguments because "Public Policy" (Government AKA Congress's Policy) over rules all law except what they drafted after the Reconstruction Acts. The enemy, that is the common man, has no rights, State or otherwise under emergency power control. And, even if we were to revert back to peace time and be under no emergency rule, the Constitution would still not protect you nor the Bill of Rights against State control. Now that blows the 2nd Amendment right out of the water because it only applies to the People of the United States and NOT to the people of the States. Go an Pull the entire John Barron case to see where they addressed every item in the Bill of Rights and how they do not pertain to the people in the states, with the exception of one.
further archives- Wayback.archive.org
Blog repost with new links- Patriotgamesblog.wordpress.com
Destruction always comes first from within - as soon as someone in power demands that immigration (especially from third world, africa or middle-east) is needed to fix somekind of problem. Basically the more diversity there is in a country the less trust, lower civic life, less engagement in the community or socially, more anxiety there is and finally when the cultures are radically different to one another than once the population rises above 35% then native students & ethnicities begin to move to a ethnically-homogeneous location similar to what their own was. Thus rather than improve things it creates greater division and conflict - creating largely more coherent form of tribalism, nativism or nationalism in the group being displaced or replaced, even if someone ignores the obvious economic problems that result of large groups of third world people becoming integrated into the welfare state, lower wages and more jobs being taken by migrants - the culture and nation is overtaken by another which may precipitate war.
Interesting simulation on ethno-centrism, showing its in-group preference works far more effectively and defeats its competitor humanitarianism by exploiting its out-group preference without giving anything in return - Jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk
The problems of multiculturalism in terms of social dynamic and political patterns are essential to understanding race. Two of the most fundamental issues with 'diversity' as I see it is the disintegration of American law & way of life. We can observe from numerous studies that non-whites have fundamentally different voting patterns. Where Whites vote mostly for individuality, freedom and independence, we can see that blacks & latinos overwhelmingly vote to enlargen State power and diminish personal freedom. PEW studies have shown that Blacks vote around 90% democrat, and Latin-Americans Vote around 75% Democrat. This is a direct concern to ALL republicans, rightwingers and libertarians especially considering the rate at which the non-white population grows. It's only reasonable to assume that Freedom of Speech, Gun Rights and small government philosophy will erode together with the White majority demographic - its inevitable given these patterns. Also social patterns, theres hundreds of studies showing that diversity erodes social cohesion - take for example the Robert Putnam study: “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century” [PDF]
Humanities.manchester.ac.uk is the title of Putnam`s five-year study, which completely dismantles the politically correct cliché, “Our diversity is our strength.” We are more divided and driven apart by diversity of race/ethnicity than anything else.
more references here: Plus.google.com (third video on diversity)
A report has found that German Chancellor Merkel and Dutch PM Rutte agreed a refugee quota with Turkey in 2016 without informing other EU leaders. They reportedly pledged to accept up to 250,000 Syrian refugees per year.
German Chancellor Merkel (R) and then-Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu (L) at the EU-Turkey summit in March 2016
When the EU-Turkey deal was struck last March, it was hailed by some in western Europe as a breakthrough for resolving the refugee crisis, regarded with skepticism by some eastern European nations, and sharply criticized by human rights groups.
Although the Turkish proposals came as a surprise at the time, a new report published on Monday found that many of the details were solidified ahead of the summit by German, Dutch and Turkish leaders.
The latest report from German daily "Die Welt" found that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte met with then-Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (above left) on March 6, 2016 - the night before the EU-Turkey summit.
Rutte - who held the rotating EU presidency at the time - and Merkel committed to a legal refugee quota with Turkey without telling other members of the European Union about the exact figures. The three leaders also agreed to present the details of their agreed-upon deal as a surprise proposal from the Turkish delegation the next day.
According to "Welt," Merkel and Rutte agreed that Europe would accept 150,000 to 200,000 Syrian refugees from Turkey per year. In the final document of the summit, the EU and Turkish leaders agreed to a "credible voluntary humanitarian admission program with Turkey."
The information in the report came from multiple sources who were involved in the negotiations.
The deal reached between the EU and Turkey outlined a seemingly simple exchange where one migrant would be repatriated from the EU to Turkey in exchange for every Syrian refugee the bloc accepted from Turkish camps.
At the time, the EU states and Turkey agreed to implement resettlement quotas that were agreed upon in 2015. Originally, 22,500 available places were promised for refugees to be resettled in Europe from Turkey.
The summit's final statement advises that the deal "does not establish any new commitments on Member States as far as relocation and resettlement is concerned."
The report is part of research conducted by "Welt" journalist Robin Alexander for his upcoming book - "Die Getriebenen - Merkel und die Flüchtlingspolitik" - about the decisions made by Merkel and her government that formed her refugee policies.
by Lew Rockwell
To make a constitutional republic abide by the consent of the governed as written in the constitution there has to be not only a checks and balances, a "fourth estate" like a media that isn't monopolized in a couple of zionists, but also a watchful aware people willing to fight for something beyond wealth. 'War on terror', 'War on drugs', Women vs men (systematically destroying the cohesive family unit - the very basis of a thriving society and the one thing men will fight like hell to protect), black/brown against whites, everyone against Christians while simultaneously bending over for Islam, all these things are tools/methods of elites who really run things.
"There is the enemy -- be afraid, be very afraid! But we can save you from the boogeymen -- we just need more authority and control" as they infiltrated and embedded themselves throughout all facets of finance, education, politics, media and political bureaucracy & demolishing anything the constitution originally stood for.
The relationship between conservatives and libertarians is sometimes a confrontational one.
A reader recently forwarded to me a response to one of my articles critical of conservatism. To paraphrase, simplify, and summarize: “How dare Mr. Vance compare conservative Republicans to Hillary Clinton! There are plenty of differences between them. Doesn’t he know that they like chocolate ice cream and she likes vanilla?” That is the extent of the guy’s argument. I’m sure he could come up with a hundred differences between Republicans and Clinton. And so could I. But when the two are compared on issues of substance—foreign aid, trade, welfare, foreign policy, Social Security, health care, education, victimless crimes, the drug war, the military, taxes—their views are basically identical.
Sometimes it is conservatives who initiate the criticism. Conservative icon Russell Kirk famously called libertarians “chirping sectaries.” Other conservatives have not been so kind. And this is aside from the epithets that deem libertarianism to be irreligious, libertine, licentious, hedonistic, materialistic, antinomian, selfish, utopian, immoral, and/or naïve and the canards that libertarianism discounts human nature, is inimical to tradition, is indifferent to the plight of the poor, considers greed a virtue, is all about alternative lifestyles, and can be reduced to “survival of the fittest.”
Although there are some serious issues that we libertarians have with conservatives, I want to focus on just one—and it is a big one. One of the major problems with conservatives is that they don’t follow the Constitution they claim to admire, revere, and hold sacred.
Now, libertarians are not generally big fans of the Constitution. They believe that the fears the Anti-federalists had about the Constitution allowing the national government to become too centralized and too powerful were correct. The power the Constitution grants to the federal government to tax and take property is troubling. The ambiguous clauses in the Constitution such as the “general welfare” clause, the “commerce” clause, and the “necessary and proper” clause have been abused almost from the very beginning. The Constitution means only what the Supreme Court interprets it to mean. The Constitution has utterly failed to limit the size and scope of the federal government. In fact, the Constitution was designed to expand government power, not to limit it. And as Lew Rockwell reminds us in Against the State: “The Constitution creates a government that is the judge of its own powers.”
Yet, in spite of the issues libertarians have with the Constitution, they would generally agree with the sentiment, “Although the Constitution isn’t perfect, following it would be a lot better than the situation we have now.” If conservatives would just follow their own Constitution, libertarians might just leave them alone. If Republicans would stop talking about how they are the “party of the Constitution” and act like it, we could almost get along.
Under the Constitution, the United States was set up with a federal system of government where the states granted a limited number of powers to a central government. As James Madison succinctly explained in Federalist No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
In article I, section 8, of the Constitution, there are eighteen paragraphs that enumerate the limited powers granted to Congress. Four of them concern taxes and money. One concerns commerce. One concerns naturalization and bankruptcies. One concerns post offices and post roads. One concerns copyrights and patents. One concerns the federal courts. One concerns maritime crimes. Six concern the military and the militia. Once concerns the governance of the District of Columbia. And the last one gives Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” That’s it. Everything else is reserved to the states. And just in case anyone had any doubt, the Tenth Amendment confirms this.
So why don’t conservatives follow their own Constitution? It doesn’t seem like a difficult thing to do. Consider the following twenty things:
Conservative support for the federal government doing these twenty things shows that they don’t follow their own Constitution. Oh, some of them may complain about the amount of money the federal government spends on these things, how inefficient some program is, how some particular program is operated, or how much waste and fraud is in some program. But they have no philosophical objection to the federal government doing any of these things even though they are not authorized by the Constitution. Not convinced yet? Here are twenty more:
So why do conservatives support these things? And why do conservatives in Congress vote for these things? Why don’t conservatives follow their own Constitution? How hard can it be? The federal government is either authorized to do these things or it isn’t.
It’s time to answer the question: Why don’t conservatives follow their own Constitution? The simple and terrible truth is that most conservatives never met a federal program they didn’t like as long as it furthered their conservative agenda. Their idea of a limited government is a government limited to one controlled by conservatives.
Trudeau's Cultural Crackdown On Anglo-Canada
see also: Yournewswire.com
by Brad Salzberg, Cultural Action Party
With the election of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada is presently a nation undergoing unprecedented social transformation. From a cultural perspective, this transformation comes in a subtle but effective form. The end result may well be something unimaginable even one generation ago.
Based upon Trudeau's fervent dedication to globalist political ideology, one would assume he, along with his cabinet, are the primary driving forces behind our Liberal government's agenda to "internationalize" our nation.
Is this really the case? After following the antics of the Liberals during their first year in office, additional thoughts begin to percolate. Was there a long term plan to engineer Trudeau into office well before — meaning a decade or more before — our most recent federal election? Is it a coincidence that Trudeau is our ruling prime minister at the time of the 150th anniversary? Was he, in fact, specifically groomed for the position for the purpose of entrenching a globalist agenda within Canadian society?
The more these ideas are considered, the more they begin to make sense. In fact, one could surmise it is not the Trudeau government which controls our national destiny, but rather a combination of powerful international forces. The specific entities which come to mind include the United Nations, globalist billionaire George Soros, as well as the government of China and the House of Islam. Indeed, their every wish and desire pertaining to Canada have thus far been accommodated by Mr. Trudeau. Massive deficit accumulation, voluminous refugee intake, billions provided to foreign governments, and the entrenchment of Islam within Canadian society provide our most tangible indications.
Based upon the signals coming from the PMO regarding the 150th anniversary of Canada, the celebration is very much a two-sided coin. On one side, we have the multicultural platitudes of the globalist agenda. On the flip-side — the component the general public do not witness — we find a corresponding erosion of traditional Canadian culture and historical identity. Within Justin's Canada it is not "cool" to identify with, or display any element of pride, in our Anglo-Canadian heritage. Indeed, for Trudeau and his gang of globalists, English Canada is so very out-of-style. As a result, the opposite side of the coin suggests the dissolution and eventual demise of English Canada as it existed for the past one hundred and fifty years.
Justin Trudeau is not a great statesman, saviour of the people, or even the true leader of our nation. He is, in fact, a great destroyer — and his target is the identity, heritage, and culture of English Canada. Yes, despite our diversity naysayers, Canada has its very own cultural identity — or at least it did until the Trudeau Dynasty seized control of our country.
There has never been a greater chasm between government and its people in the entire history of our nation In the spirit of the socialist governments Trudeau so admires, the cultural transformation we speak of is perpetuated in a most subliminal form. Incrementally, one law at a time, our Liberal government is divesting Canada of its values of freedom and democracy. Freedom of speech is under attack by way of government "Islamophobia" legislation. The Liberals have established political lockdown, while a silent majority are straight-jacketed into silence by way of rampant political correctness. As a result, there has never been a greater chasm between government and its people in the entire history of our nation.
The Liberals are a new form of government intent upon the formation of a new Canada. They have no interest in pleasing those of us old enough to remember our country as a sovereign and independent nation. Our post-war, baby-boomer generation is being forced into political retirement. The Liberals are about fresh blood — specifically, the blood of new arrivals from the third world, as well as millennials who have never known a Canada based upon bi-cultural English and French identity.
In order to facilitate this new society, Prime Minister Trudeau has formed a cabinet based not upon experience and qualification, but rather one which serves as a blueprint for his vision of our future as a nation. Incompetents such as Maryam Monsef and Bardish Chagger have landed their portfolios not as a reward for competency, but for the purpose of advancing our prime minister's post-nationalist model. No surprise here, as Trudeau himself lacks the qualifications for his role as prime minister — unless one considers snow-board instruction as essential to good governance.
As year two of our Liberal government unfolds, the good people of Canada will remain on the receiving end of a continuous program of cultural socialism. Within this framework, historical revisionism in the form of Canada's so-called "multicultural" heritage will be front and centre. Never mind the fact that Canada existed as a bi-cultural English and French nation for the bulk of its history.
The Liberal government of Canada is little more than a shadow-government for major globalist entities. Justin Trudeau was groomed for his role, and it is no coincidence he is prime minister at the pivotal moment of our 150th anniversary. All necessary relationships — including connections with various dictators and socialist governments — were in place decades ago under the rule of father Pierre.
Rather than employ an authentic dedication to the health and welfare of Canadian citizens, Justin Trudeau is working to become multicultural ambassador of the world. Judging by his behaviour thus far, he is fulfilling his role in a most effective manner.
see the interview with Russ Tice that Reveals the Truth About NSA Spying: Corbettreport.com
Wikileaks hold press conference at Vault 7 - Zerohedge.com
Next News Network report on Trump being vindicated by this news: Youtube.com
by James Corbett
May 28, 2013
In recent weeks we have been told to focus on a series of scandals which, we are told, are rocking the Obama Administration. Has the media finally found outrage over the Obama regime’s use of drone strikes to kill scores of innocent women and children in countries that are not even at war with the United States? Or the DOJ’s recent admission that the strikes had indeed killed American citizens? Or John Kerry’s recent attempts to once again lead the American public into supporting military intervention in the Middle East based on provably false claims of WMD?
Of course not. No, the media’s sudden discovery of outrage is directed at an entirely different scandal: the fact that reporters have now allegedly found themselves in the government’s crosshairs.
To add fuel to the fire of this current controversy, it has recently been revealed that Fox News reporter James Rosen has been under investigation by the Justice Department as a possible co-conspirator in a case involving leaked State Department information on North Korean nuclear tests. Particularly galling is the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the investigation and is now being charged with leading the investigation into the investigation.
The story has given the media a chance to mention a point that we have been painstakingly documenting for years here at BoilingFrogsPost.com, namely that the Obama administration is the worst in the history of the United States when it comes to pursuing investigations into government whistleblowers, with more whistleblower prosecutions under the Obama DOJ’s belt than all other presidencies in the history of the country combined. Sadly, though, most of the media’s faux outrage over these scandals has been used to shift the debate once again to how special journalists are, and how this scandal is worthy of outrage, more so than all of the other atrocious abuses of civil liberties that have taken place in the Obama era, apparently.
It is especially ironic, then, that at almost the exact same time that the media was wringing their hands over their own privileged status as special citizens of the United States who deserve extra protections from governmental intrusion, a story millions of times wider in scope was accidentally broken during a live CNN interview with former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente, and then almost immediately forgotten.
Where is the outrage over this admission? Where are the scores of journalists lining up to demand answers and calling for the heads of the government officials who are clearly involved in the complete abrogation of the 4th Amendment right to freedom from unlawful search and seizure of all Americans’ information, not just the special journalist class?
Of course there is no outrage over an admission like this. Partially, this is because this story comes as a surprise to absolutely no one who has been following the actual story of government electronic survellance over the last 19 years. Not only has the admission that the American intelligence establishment is spying on all communications of all citizens in the US been documented for years—including here at the Eyeopener where we specifically covered this very topic last month—but in fact this very level of surveillance has been hardwired into law since the passage of the Communications Assistance for Law Enfocement Act of 1994, or CALEA. That this level of surveillance has been mandated by statute for 19 years is not conjecture or “conspiracy theory.” When contacted by The Huffington Post about Clemente’s recent admission, FBI Public Affairs spokesman Christopher M. Allen specifically referred to the Congressional testimony of FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni citing the act as the legal framework for such surveillance.
Again, there is nothing essentially new in this recent testimony of Clemente, which only further affirms what NSA whistleblowers have been telling us for years about the capabilities of government agencies to spy on the public.
When faced with this blatant double standard—collection of reporters’ phone records is national news worthy of 24/7 coverage while the collection of all communications of every single citizen barely rates a mention in the news cycle—there is only one possible conclusion: the “outrage” over the AP spying and Fox News spying scandals is contrived, and is designed only to hardwire the wholesale surveillance of the public even further into law.
To see precisely how this is accomplished, one need only look at a recent conversation on “Morning Joe” where Carl Bernstein—the revered reporter who, along with his ex-Naval Intelligence partner Bob Woodward, was allowed to break the Watergate scandal—goes out of his way to stress that there is “statutory authority” for this type of spying.
And with that rhetorical sleight of hand, the issue of constitutional authority has been sidestepped and “statutory authority” has now been inserted into the debate. The next step is simply to provide another statutory solution to the scandal, one that, while appearing to solve the problem, can in fact be booby-trapped to specifically allow the types of abuses that it was designed to “prevent” in the first place.
This is how the scandal game works between the federal government and the lapdog media. The media tells us what to be outraged about, and sets the ball in motion for a political solution that will be provided by the very criminals who caused the outrage in the first place. Once the task of moving the ball further down the court has been accomplished, the media can safely move back to breathlessly reporting on the latest antics of Justin Bieber or the latest gossip about Amanda Bynes, content in the knowledge that the public will have forgotten what they were supposed to be angry about in the first place. After all, it never directly affected them anyway, did it?
It is only when we stop allowing the media to direct our outrage at pre-arranged targets, and stop allowing the Washington criminals to provide their phoney solutions, that we will ever have a chance at moving toward the delegitimization—and, ultimately, the dismantling—of the criminal agencies of the criminal government that are responsible for all of the real criminal outrages—including the collection of everyone’s electronic communications—that continue to take place.
War in Iraq, free trade deals, immigration is everything pence supported.
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence assured the European Union in Brussels on Monday that the Trump administration will develop their cooperation in trade and security and backs the EU as a partner in its own right.
A month after Donald Trump caused alarm by renewing his endorsement of Brexit and suggesting others may follow Britain out of the EU, Pence told reporters that he had come to "the home of the European Union" with a message from the president.
Speaking of a "strong commitment ... to continue cooperation and partnership with the European Union", Pence added: "Whatever our differences, our two continents share the same heritage, the same values and above all, the same purpose to promote peace and prosperity through freedom, democracy and the rule of law."
At a later meeting at NATO across town, he made clear that U.S. support for the Transatlantic defense alliance had a price, though; Trump, he said, "expects real progress" from European governments by the end of the year in increasing their spending on military budgets closer to a NATO target of 2 percent of GDP.
Donald Tusk, who chairs the European Council of EU leaders, told reporters that Pence had given him affirmative answers to three questions on Trump's support for: the current system of international law, NATO and "the idea of a united Europe".
"Reports of the death of the West have been greatly exaggerated," Tusk said, in a nod to American writer Mark Twain.
EU officials said they were encouraged by what they called Pence's clear assurances, including on U.S. backing for holding the European Union together after Brexit, though they will watch closely to see how far Trump's actions match his deputy's words.
"We got everything we were looking for," one official said.
Pence noted the building of common European institutions after World War Two and said: "With this union and in cooperation with the United States, history will attest that when the United States and Europe are peaceful and prosperous, we do advance the peace and prosperity of all the world."
COLD WAR HISTORY
Echoing comments he made over the weekend in Germany, Pence also addressed worries in Europe over Trump's suggestion that the NATO defense pact was "obsolete"; Washington, he said, was committed to defending the sovereignty and territory of European states and holding Russia to account for its actions in Ukraine.
Pence also repeated Trump's belief that "common ground" could be established with Russia after years of confrontation.
Tusk, a former Polish premier who was jailed in the 1980s for opposing Soviet control, seized on Pence's personal memories of a youthful visit to divided Berlin to remind the new administration of the value that Europeans attach to Cold War support from an earlier Republican president, Ronald Reagan.
Europeans are concerned that Trump may prefer bilateral ties with European powers rather than working with the Union. Pence spoke of cooperation, including against Islamist violence: "The safety and security of your union and our people depends on that increased collaboration on the global fight against terrorism."
EU officials said Pence, the former governor of Indiana, had seemed confident in his new role. One said he sought to assure them Trump's "very American", direct style should not be taken as hostile or reflect a push to isolate the United States.
(Additional reporting by Philip Blenkinsop, Gabriela Baczynska and Waverly Colville; Writing By Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Ralph Boulton)
No blogs were found matching the criteria specified. We suggest you try the blog list with no filter applied, to browse all available. Join now to share your own content, we welcome creators and consumers alike and look forward to your comments.