Search Blog Posts

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Washington is in Revolt Against Obama

The crisis gripping the US state apparatus is directly threatening the survival of the Empire. This is no longer merely the opinion of Thierry Meyssan, but the subject that is shaking the ruling class in Washington to the point that the honorary president of the Council on Foreign Relations is demanding the resignation of the chief advisers of President Obama and the appointment of a new team. This clash has nothing to do with a typical opposition of Democrats and Republicans, nor even with that of the doves / hawks. What is at stake is leadership in the United States and NATO.

| Damascus (Syria)
JPEG - 34.6 kb
Editores, 2008).
Barack Obama’s Cabinet.
Thierry Meyssan  Thierry Meyssan Intelectual francês, presidente-fundador da Rede Voltaire e da conferência Axis for Peace. As suas análises sobre política externa publicam-se na imprensa árabe, latino-americana e russa. Última obra em francês: L’Effroyable imposture: Tome 2, Manipulations et désinformations (ed. JP Bertrand, 2007). Última obra publicada em Castelhano (espanhol): La gran impostura II. Manipulación y desinformación en los medios de comunicación (Monte Ávila
For several months now, I’ve been noting that there is no foreign policy in Washington, but two factions that oppose each other in all things and separately conduct contradictory and inconsistent policies. [1]

The climax of this situation has been reached in Syria, where the White House first organized the moult of Daesh and sent it to ethnically cleanse Iraq, then fought it even though the CIA continues to support it. This inconsistency has gradually spread to the Allies. Thus, France joined the anti-Daesh coalition while some of its legionaries are part of the Daesh cadre [2].

When the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, requested written clarification, he not only received no answer, but he was fired. [3]

The disorder soon spread to NATO, an alliance created to fight the USSR and maintained against Russia, when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan signed gigantic economic agreements with Vladimir Putin. [4]

Coming out of his silence, the honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations [5], Leslie H. Gelb, sounded the alarm. [6] He said that "the Obama team lacked basic instincts and judgment to lead the national security policy in the next two years." And he continued, on behalf of the US ruling class as a whole: "President Obama needs to replace his team with strong personalities and experienced strategists. He should also place new people as Senior Advisors to the Secretaries of Defense and State. And he must finally implement regular consultations with Bob Corker, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and John McCain [7], the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. »

Never, since its creation in 1921, has the Council on Foreign Relations taken such a position. This is because the divisions within the state apparatus are leading the United States directly to doom.

Listing the main advisers, which, according to him, must leave, Mr. Gelb cites four people very close intellectually and emotionally to the President: Susan Rice (National Security Advisor), Dennis McDonough (Chief of Staff of the White House), Benjamin Rhodes (Communications) and Valerie Jarrett (Foreign Policy Advisor). The ruling class in Washington accuses them of never submitting original proposals to the president, much less contradicting him, but always humouring him in his prejudices.

The only personality to find favor in the eyes of the Council on Foreign Relations, Anthony Blinken, new No. 2 at the State Department, is a "liberal hawk".

The Council on Foreign Relations being a bipartisan body, Mr. Gelb proposes that President Obama surround himself by four Democrats and four Republicans corresponding to the profile he described. First the Democrats: Thomas Pickering (former ambassador to the United Nations), Winston Lord (former assistant to Henry Kissinger), Frank Wisner (unofficially one of the bosses of the CIA and incidentally Nicolas Sarkozy’s stepfather) and Michèle Flournoy (the President of the Center for a New American Security) [8]. Then, Republicans Robert Zoellick (former head of the World Bank) [9], Richard Armitage (former assistant to Colin Powell) [10], Robert Kimmitt (probable next boss of the World Bank), and Richard Burt (former negotiator on the reduction of nuclear weapons).

For Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gelb offers Rabbi Dov Zakheim to manage budget cuts [11], Admiral Mike Mullen (former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and General Jack Keane (former Chief of Staff of the Army).

Finally, Mr. Gelb proposes that the national security strategy be developed in consultation with the four "wise men": Henry Kissinger [12] Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, [13] and James Baker. [14]

Looking more closely at this list, we understand that the Council on Foreign Relations did not want to decide between the two opposing groups within the Obama administration, but it intends to restore order in the system from above. In this regard, it is not irrelevant in a country thus far led by WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) that two counsellors whose dismissals are required are black women, while fourteen of the fifteen incoming names are white males, either Protestant or Ashkenazi. The political housekeeping is also therefore an ethnic and religious takeover.
Roger Lagassé

[1] For instance : “Does Obama still have a military policy?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 1 December 2014.
[2] “French « ex-military » operatives with Daesh jihadists”, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 24 January 2015.
[3] “Who is the Pentagon fighting against in Syria?”, Voltaire Network, 4 November 2014.
[4] “How Vladimir Putin Upset NATO’s Strategy”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 13 December 2014.
[5] « Comment le Conseil des relations étrangères détermine la diplomatie US », Réseau Voltaire, 25 juin 2004.
[6] « This Is Obama’s Last Foreign Policy Chance », Leslie Gelb, The Daily Beast, January 14, 2015.
[7] “John McCain, Conductor of the "Arab Spring" and the Caliph”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 18 August 2014.
[8] “CNAS, the democratic version of conquest imperialism”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Al-Watan (Syria), Voltaire Network, 6 January 2015.
[9] « Robert B. Zoellick, maître d’œuvre de la globalisation », Réseau Voltaire, 10 mars 2005.
[10] « Richard Armitage, le baroudeur qui rêvait d’être diplomate », Réseau Voltaire, 8 octobre 2004.
[11] « Dov Zakheim, la caution du Pentagone », par Paul Labarique, Réseau Voltaire, 9 septembre 2004.
[12] « Le retour d’Henry Kissinger », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 28 novembre 2002.
[13] “The outrageous strategy to destroy Russia”, by Arthur Lepic, Voltaire Network, 22 October 2004.
[14] « James A. Baker III, un ami fidèle », Réseau Voltaire, 16 décembre 2003.

Know Your Enemy: How Federal Programs are Carried Out

There are two main ways that most major federal programs are put into effect. Understanding this will help determine the best way to stop them.


Some new way to violate your rights comes on the scene. The feds start giving the tools to effectuate this idea – either through grant money to buy specific things, or giveaways of specific equipment – to the states. The states start using them – widely. Eventually, the feds tap into the program, essentially making it a national program.  
This is done via “information sharing” that was expanded after 9-11, or Memoranda of understanding (MOUs), which are essentially partnerships with state funds attached to them. These agreements are not necessarily legally binding, but usually offer some privacy between state, private enterprises (contractors), and federal partnerships. Much of this kind of information usually remains hidden from the general public.

Examples: Parallel Construction, using NSA data without warrant in regular criminal investigations on a state and local level. Pentagon’s 1033 program of giving military equipment to local police, turning them into an army. This equipment is often used to help in Process 2 – direct enforcement.  Drones, where the DHS is giving mass amounts of grant money to the states to put surveillance systems in the sky. Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs),  where the Wall Street Journal broke the story that the DEA has been working with local law enforcement to track people through their license plates for over 7 years. The ACLU obtained numerous documents revealing how local and state agencies build license plate reader systems using federal grant money. In other words, they buy the local agencies the equipment, which in essence makes a national system for the feds to tap in to.


The feds pass a new law or program violating your rights.  The states handle either handle the front-line enforcement, or they provide significant resources to the operation of the program. This is pretty straightforward, the local agencies are, again, doing the bulk of the heavy lifting.

Examples: The EPA has just over 200 enforcement agents for the entire country. Most enforcement is done by state agencies. Federal drug prohibition is primarily effectuated by state prohibition, and the same goes for federal gun control.  In other areas, states operate critical infrastructure for the feds, such as exchanges or medicaid expansion for the Affordable Care Act – or water and power NSA spying facilities.


The fact of the matter is this – the feds simply don’t have the manpower or resources to do what they’ve been doing. It’s the states that have been doing most of it for them.

Understanding this – the #1 most effective way to stop federal programs is to simply withdraw participation or support for them on a state level.

This is exactly what Hans-Hermann Hoppe recommended in his speech What Must Be done.  In it, he said:

“Without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central government is not much more than hot air.”

This mirrors the advice of James Madison in Federalist #46, which prominently recommended, among other things, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”

The short message is this: Refuse to comply, Nullify!

I discussed this in more detail, along with some current applications of it in the states, on the Tom Woods show today.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

▶ SHOCKING Report Reveals Government STEALING Pension Funds! - YouTube

"Is Your Pension Courting Catastrophe? - Bloomberg View"
"Detroit attorney says pension cuts actually close to 50 percent - World Socialist Web Site"
"Public service unions not entitled to $28B pension surplus, says Supreme Court | Toronto Star"
"Portugal raids pension funds to meet deficit targets - Telegraph"
"Hungarian savers say government is stealing their pensions | Reuters"
"Russia Seized Citizens Pension Funds. Could That Happen in the U.S.? - Businessweek"
"UPDATE 2-Poland reduces public debt through pension funds overhaul | Reuters"
"Argentina seizes pension funds to pay debts. Who's next? – Telegraph Blogs"
"How the West Was Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly - And the Stark Choices ... - Dambisa Moyo - Google Books"

Nile Bowie: AFRICOM Report: Combating Chinese Economic Encroachment in Central Africa

If you can't recognize betrayal when it's spitting in your face, you need to look in a mirror it may be yourself. By putting 'boots on the ground' on all continents with our tax money and never-be-paid-back debt, Americans will be multi-generational losers. As Ron Paul has warned, blowback from our bullying for corporate interests will be horrific. That's right. America's grip of tyranny is ours to solve, not our neighbors.

CV 1st. published this on 25 March 2012
Nile Bowie is an independent writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; he regularly contributes to Tony Cartalucci's Land Destroyer Report and Professor Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research Twitter: @NileBowie

’AFRICOM des Etats-Unis et la militarisation du continent Africain (Version Française)

非洲司令部的报告:打击中国在中部非洲的经济侵略 (中國語文)

Since the time of the British Empire and the manifesto of Cecil Rhodes, the pursuit of treasures on the hopeless continent has demonstrated the expendability of human life. 

Despite decades of apathy among the primary resource consumers, the increasing reach of social media propaganda has ignited public interest in Africa’s long overlooked social issues. In the wake of celebrity endorsed pro-intervention publicity stunts, public opinion in the United States is now being mobilized in favor of a greater military presence on the African continent. Following the deployment of one hundred US military personnel to Uganda in 2011, a new bill has been introduced to the Congress calling for the further expansion of regional military forces in pursuit of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), an ailing rebel group allegedly responsible for recruiting child soldiers and conducting crimes against humanity.

As the Obama administration claims to welcome the peaceful rise of China on the world stage, recent policy shifts toward an American Pacific Century indicate a desire to maintain the capacity to project military force toward the emerging superpower. In addition to maintaining a permanent military presence in Northern Australia, the construction of an expansive military base on South Korea’s Jeju Island has indicated growing antagonism towards Beijing. The base maintains the capacity to host up to twenty American and South Korean warships, including submarines, aircraft carriers and destroyers once completed in 2014 – in addition to the presence of Aegis anti-ballistic systems. In response, Chinese leadership has referred to the increasing militarization in the region as an open provocation.

On the economic front, China has been excluded from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), a trade agreement intended to administer US-designed international trading regulations throughout Asia, to the benefit of American corporations. As further fundamental policy divisions emerge subsequent to China and Russia’s UNSC veto mandating intervention in Syria, the Obama administration has begun utilizing alternative measures to exert new economic pressure towards Beijing. The United States, along with the EU and Japan have called on the World Trade Organization to block Chinese-funded mining projects in the US, in addition to a freeze on World Bank financing for China’s extensive mining projects.

In a move to counteract Chinese economic ascendancy, Washington is crusading against China's export restrictions on minerals that are crucial components in the production of consumer electronics such as flat-screen televisions, smart phones, laptop batteries, and a host of other products. In a 2010 white paper entitled “Critical Raw Materials for the EU,” the European Commission cites the immediate need for reserve supplies of tantalum, cobalt, niobium, and tungsten among others; the US Department of Energy 2010 white paper “Critical Mineral Strategy” also acknowledged the strategic importance of these key components.  Coincidently, the US military is now attempting to increase its presence in what is widely considered the world’s most resource rich nation, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The DRC has suffered immensely during its history of foreign plunder and colonial occupation; it maintains the second lowest GDP per capita despite having an estimated $24 trillion in untapped raw minerals deposits. During the Congo Wars of the 1996 to 2003, the United States provided training and arms to Rwandan and Ugandan militias who later invaded the eastern provinces of the DRC in proxy. In addition to benefiting various multinational corporations, the regimes of Paul Kagame in Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni in Uganda both profited immensely from the plunder of Congolese conflict minerals such as cassiterite, wolframite, coltan (from which niobium and tantalum are derived) and gold. The DRC holds more than 30% of the world's diamond reserves and 80% of the world's coltan, the majority of which is exported to China for processing into electronic-grade tantalum powder and wiring.

China’s unprecedented economic transformation has relied not only on consumer markets in the United States, Australia and the EU – but also on Africa, as a source for a vast array of raw materials. As Chinese economic and cultural influence in Africa expands exponentially with the symbolic construction of the new $200 million African Union headquarters funded solely by Beijing, the ailing United States and its leadership have expressed dissatisfaction toward its diminishing role in the region. During a diplomatic tour of Africa in 2011, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton herself has irresponsibly insinuated China’s guilt in perpetuating a creeping “new colonialism.

At a time when China holds an estimated $1.5 trillion in American government debt, Clinton’s comments remain dangerously provocative. As China, backed by the world’s largest foreign currency reserves, begins to offer loans to its BRICS counterparts in RMB, the prospect of emerging nations resisting the New American Century appear to be increasingly assured. While the success of Anglo-American imperialism relies on its capacity to militarily drive target nations into submission, today’s African leaders are not obliged to do business with China – although doing so may be to their benefit. China annually invests an estimated $5.5 billion in Africa, with only 29 percent of direct investment in the mining sector in 2009 – while more than half was directed toward domestic manufacturing, finance, and construction industries, which largely benefit Africans themselves – despite reports of worker mistreatment.

China has further committed $10 billion in concessional loans to Africa between 2009 and 2012 and made significant investments in manufacturing zones in non-resource-rich economies such as Zambia and Tanzania. As Africa’s largest trading partner, China imports 1.5 million barrels of oil from Africa per day, approximately accounting for 30 percent of its total imports. Over the past decade, 750,000 Chinese nationals have settled in Africa, while Chinese state-funded cultural centers in rural parts of the continent conduct language classes in Mandarin and Cantonese. As China is predicted to formally emerge as the world’s largest economy in 2016, the recent materialization of plans for a BRICS Bank have the potential to restructure the global financial climate and directly challenge the hegemonic conduct of the International Monetary Fund in Africa’s strategic emerging economies.

China’s deepening economic engagement in Africa and its crucial role in developing the mineral sector, telecommunications industry and much needed infrastructural projects is creating "deep nervousness" in the West, according to David Shinn, the former US ambassador to Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. In a 2011 Department of Defense whitepaper entitled “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China”, the US acknowledges the maturity of China’s modern hardware and military technology, and the likelihood of Beijing finding hostility with further military alliances between the United States and Taiwan. The document further indicates that “China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as a defining feature of the strategic landscape of the early 21st century. Furthermore, the Department of Defense concedes to the uncertainty of how China’s growing capabilities will be administered on the world stage.

Although a US military presence in Africa (under the guise of fighting terrorism and protecting human rights) specifically to counter Chinese regional economic authority may not incite tension in the same way that a US presence in North Korea or Taiwan would, the potential for brinksmanship exists and will persist. China maintains the largest standing army in the world with 2,285,000 personnel and is working to challenge the regional military hegemony of America’s Pacific Century with its expanding naval and conventional capabilities, including an effort to develop the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile. Furthermore, China has moved to begin testing advanced anti-satellite (ASAT) and Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) weapons systems in an effort to bring the US-China rivalry into Space warfare.

The concept of US intervention into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Central African Republic and Uganda under the pretext of disarming the Lord’s Resistance Army is an ultimately fraudulent purpose. The LRA has been in operation for over two decades, and presently remains at an extremely weakened state, with approximately 400 soldiers. According the LRA Crisis Tracker, a digital crisis mapping software launched by the Invisible Children group, not a single case of LRA activity has been reported in Uganda since 2006. The vast majority of reported attacks are presently taking place in the northeastern Bangadi region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, located on the foot of a tri-border expanse between the Central African Republic and South Sudan. READ MORE

Experts to Scrutinize Israel Lobby During April 10 Conference at National Press Club

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Register online for "The Israel Lobby: Is It Good for the US?" today at

"The Israel Lobby: Is It Good for the US?" is an all-day conference which will take place April 10 in the National Press Club ballroom in Washington, DC.  Questions will be addressed by experts of all ages and backgrounds from academia, government, independent research organizations and alternative news media shut out of public discourse.  The conference is co-sponsored by the American Educational Trust's publication Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc (IRmep).

Hundreds of organizations lobbying for Israel behind the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) continue to push for U.S. economic warfare and military actions against Iran. Most Americans support negotiations to resolve questions over Iran's civilian nuclear program and oppose efforts to torpedo diplomacy.  Americans also overwhelmingly (63.9%) believe Israel is a Middle East nation with nuclear weapons.

Recent passage of the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 gives Israel expanded rights to U.S. weapons stockpiles, diplomatic support, additional foreign aid and future visa-free entry, despite Israel's long history of espionage against the United States.  Yet six in ten Americans, advised that the U.S. gives Israel over $3 billion annually (9% of the foreign aid budget and more than any other country), believe such aid is "too much."

Pro-Israel donors and political action committees are working hard to ensure that when Americans head to the polls to choose a president in 2016, both candidates will be Zionists.  Delegates who oppose special pro-Israel planks in conventions are shut down by rigged votes.

How did Israel lobbying organizations become so influential in America? Are U.S. and Israeli interests, as claimed by the lobby, truly "the same"? Does Israel's strategic value drive massive U.S. aid, or is it mostly the influence of Israel's lobby in this country? What laws govern lobbying for a foreign government, and are they enforced? Why is ongoing economic, military, industrial and nuclear espionage by Israeli spies working with American supporters almost never punished? 

How big, in terms of revenue, activists and organizations, is the lobby today? How are lobby operatives targeting critics and pro-Palestinian activists on campus? Are qualified government appointees blacklisted if they do not espouse sufficiently pro-Israel views? How can Americans who do not believe in massive aid, pro-Israel slogans, activities and policies become enfranchised?

The conference includes luncheon and is open to members of the public and news media who register in advance.

Register online today at  and follow us on Twitter @IsraelLobbyUS

WRMEA is a magazine published 8 times yearly by the American Educational Trust which focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in the region.

IRmep is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit researching U.S. Middle East policy formulation and how warranted law enforcement and civil action can improve outcomes.

SOURCE Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

Shock: CNN Editorial Calls for a North American Union

CV readers aren’t shocked at this resurrection of establishing the NAU. CNN just moves it forward on the shelf positioning it for a closer reach, now imminent, for CNN’s corporatist slavemasters. 

And… Heidi of Goldman Sachs, and coincidentally the wife of Ted Cruz, might just be the foundress chosen to shackle our ankles into the advancing NWO!

You can now begin to see why it's vital to our survival as sovereign nations (Mexico, US, Canada) to nullify un-Constitutional elements within the US states before this NAU wave sweeps in, adding another layer of distant government and buttressing the Treason in DC. Be brave - dare call it a Conspiracy.

 Shock: CNN Editorial Calls for a North American Union

January 27, 2015

Why we need a North American Passport ... The future success of North America depends partly on how the U.S., Canada and Mexico work together ... The future of the United States lies in North America. This is not a geographic truism, but a strategic imperative. Generations of Americans, distracted by far-flung crises, have long taken our own region for granted. This must change if the 21st century is to be an American century. – CNN

Dominant Social Theme: It is very important for everyone to get together everywhere all the time.
Free-Market Analysis: Is the campaign for a North American Union officially underway with this editorial appearing in CNN?
Certainly conspiracy theorists might be justified in thinking so.

For years, more than a decade, some have suspected that powerful bureaucracies in North America – especially in Washington – might seek to combine Mexico, the US and Canada into a single super-state.

This was always greeted with howls of contempt by those in the mainstream media, especially in the liberal congregation, who knew better. There was no need, no possibility, that Canada, Mexico and the US would ever form a single trading – and perhaps political – union in the manner of the EU.

But here we go. Those derisive hoots are now drowned out by the reality of what this editorial proposes.


The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny. How we move forward together is key to our success.

In recognition of our shared destiny, the three countries should create a North American passport that would, over time, allow their citizens to travel, work, invest, learn and innovate anywhere in North America.

Work, tourist and student visas are necessities in the modern world to regulate the flow of people between sovereign states. In the North American context, much like within the European Union, our economies and societies are far more integrated than our immigration system recognizes – and a North American passport, much like the EU passport, would align our laws with reality.

Such a move would provide a dramatic break from Washington's historical negligence of its "near abroad," which stems from a rare luxury. In contrast to other major continental powers through the centuries, the United States has not had to worry much about its neighbors and devote the bulk of its military resources to protecting its borders.

... A North American passport would reflect the unique relationship and shared interests among our nations. In the face of growing competition from rising powers elsewhere in the world, simply taking our geography for granted and focusing our attention elsewhere is no longer a viable option.

One can see many dominant social themes in this editorial – and these are evident from the beginning: "The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny."

Wait a minute. The United States, Canada and Mexico are lines on a map. These geographical regions are not bound by anything, let alone cultural destiny. Having stated this fallacious assumption, the editorial proclaims, "How we move forward is key to our success."

Why should lines on a map move "forward"? And why is moving forward the key to success for arbitrary geographical regions? This is simply language jumbled together to sound like a logical argument.

The editorial gets even worse, building on this nonsensical rhetoric to rewrite history in order to make a closing argument that the three governments in question ought to offer a single passport.

In making this argument, the editorial cites NAFTA, which it claims has been "a boon to our growth and competitiveness ..."

It continues: "But the promise of NAFTA has fallen short in a critical respect; while trade and investment have grown, the barriers to movement have remained too high for the people who help drive and stand to benefit from that growth.

Now we begin to understand the importance of NAFTA. Those who wanted a North American Union understood they would need a treaty, a series of treaties, to rationalize industrialization between Mexico and the US. Once this evening-out had been accomplished, the next argument could be made, which is that regulation must follow growth.

This is a tremendously cynical way of utilizing treaties and government. One creates the conditions one wants and then moves to regulate the new reality. 

US workers have remained angry over NAFTA and CAFTA, but these treaties were intended to provide the necessary justification to proclaim a larger NAU.

There are other manipulations that have taken place recently. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration have attempted to undermine US border security and to allow in as many Mexicans as possible.
US intel agencies have seemingly fueled an already violent drug war in Mexico, thus increasing pressure on Mexicans to seek employment in the US. Guns have been shipped to Mexico with US governmental complicity, apparently to heighten the violence. 

The "conspiracy" lies not with those (ourselves included) who have continually pointed out the surreptitious groundwork that has been laid to build the NAU. The conspiracy lies with those internationalists that continually push to expand and unite whole continents and more.

All around the world, "unions" are being proclaimed, often with the potential for new currencies. Surely, those who have as their goal a kind of hyper-globalism are the real conspirators here.

Directed history, anyone?

Monday, January 26, 2015

The IRS is a Private Collection Agency for the US Federal Reserve

This taxpayer should've had a V8
The Internal Revenue Service is considered to be a Bureau of the Department of the Tresaury; however, like the Federal Reserve, it is not part of the Federal Government (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.; Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law 102-391), and in fact was incorporated in Delaware in 1933. 
It is pointed out that all official Federal Government mail is sent postage-free because of the franking privilege, however, the IRS has to pay their own postage, which indicates that they are not a government entity. [The US Govt is but the enforcement arm for the IRS…Ed]

They are in fact a collection agency for the Federal Reserve, because they do not collect any taxes for the U.S. Treasury. All funds collected are turned over to the Federal Reserve. If you have ever sent a check to the IRS, you will find that it was endorsed over to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, in turn, deposits the money with the International Monetary Fund, an agency of the United Nations (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, pg. 816), where it is filtered down to the International Development Association (see Treasury Delegation Order No. 91), which is part of the "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development", commonly known as the World Bank. Therefore, it is now clear that the American people are unknowingly contributing to the coming World Government.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the "Governor" of the International Monetary Fund (Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942; U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-81; 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(11); Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10). The United States has not had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch. 214, pg. 654) and for all intents and purposes the U.S. Treasury is the IMF (Presidential Documents, Volume 29, No. 4, pg. 113; 22 U.S.C. 285-288).

Chief Justice John Marshall said: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." Alan Keyes, the former ambassador to the U.N., who ran for President in 2000 said: 

"We ought to have realized that the income tax is utterly incompatible with liberty. It is actually a form of slavery. A slave is someone the fruit of whose labor is controlled by somebody else. A slave is not somebody with nothing. Rather, he has only what the master lets him have ...

Under the income tax, the government takes whatever percentage of the earner's income it wants. The income tax, therefore, represents our national surrender to the government of control over all the money we earn. There are, in principle, no restrictions to the preemptive claim the government has." 

The income tax was intended to rob the earnings of the low and middle class; or as the saying goes, "the more you make, the more they take." However, the tax didn't touch the huge fortunes of Illuminati members. The tax was an indication that the U.S. was heading for a planned war, because they couldn't go into a war without money. Since the tax provided less than 5% of total Federal revenues, increases were later made to accommodate World War I, FDR's New Deal, and World War II. In July, 1943, workers in this country were subject to a payroll withholding tax in the form of a "victory tax" that was touted as a temporary tax to boost the economy because of the War, and would later be discontinued. However, the payroll deduction remained because it forced compliance.

Now come on, pssst... admit you didn't know this.

37 States Allow Corporations To Get Rich Off Prison Labor

Posted by CV on 12 Nov 2013  
Source classwarfareexists
As you do your holiday shopping this year, chances are you’ll be surrounded by products that were made using prison labor.

Corporations are realizing that they don’t need to send jobs overseas to turn a profit any more. No, they didn’t have a change of heart and a new found willingness to share their hard earned profits with their workers. Instead, they’ve found a class of people that they can basically use for free. Even better, these people have almost no rights. No protections. No voice. They are numerous and growing every year. What corporations have realized is that they are sitting on the largest population of prisoners in the world.

One out of every 100 American adults is behind bars. That’s more than 2.4 million people who have been taken out of the workforce and had their rights legally stripped away. That’s a lot of potential exploitable workers for a corporation to use.

The United States has a long history of forcing its prison population to work as part of their punishment, although by no means is it the only country to do so. The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude for everyone but prisoners. In 1871, Virginia declared prisoners “slaves of the state.” In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners couldn’t form unions or make work demands [source]. This all led up to the 1980s and 90s where under both a republican president and a democrat, the prison population skyrocketed. Locking up people for lengthy minimum sentences is truly one of the last remaining bipartisan agreements.
That set the stage for 1980s legislation that was passed to encourage workers to work as part of their restitution for court-ordered fines, victim restitution, child support, and other monetary judgments. In 1985, the federal government instituted the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, meant to insure that victims got their money and the inmates learned financial responsibility. In theory it sounds reasonable. The thinking went that instead of just having prisoners sit around all day while the government picked up their bill, they could work menial jobs in order to earn their keep. In the meantime, they would learn valuable trade skills that would help them when they got out of prison.

But with any easily disenfranchised group (and prisoners might be the most disenfranchised in the country, almost by definition), the opportunity for exploitation and abuse is extremely high. The probability of abuse becomes even higher for a group of people typically perceived as “deserving” of it. Prisoners fit that bill nicely.
Given the substantial profits that could be made by moving your labor away from legally protected workers and over to legally unprotected prisoners, it was only a matter of time before states and corporations got busy hashing out the exact business details:

At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more.

All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.” 

At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month. [source]

Prisoners are making roughly $20 per month. To put that in perspective: Bangladesh – a country that pays its workers some of the worst wages in the world – just raised their minimum wage for workers to $66 per month.

That cheap labor is then used to make an impressive assortment of goods:

According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people. [source]

Entire factories can be run by prisoners, and companies would only need to pay them dollars a day. Even better, if you’re a corporation interested in maximizing your profits, your workers can no longer get workers comp, they can’t call off, they are never late, they can’t complain. If one decides he doesn’t like his job he is sent to an isolation unit until he decides that he prefers working for nothing over psychological torture.

Private prisons have taken this idea and ran with it. The idea of a for-profit prison system is already terrible and predictably pockmarked with a steady stream of abuses, but prisoners being farmed out to the highest bidder, with the prison getting paid for their labor is stunningly audacious.

Today’s corporations can lease factories in prisons, as well as lease prisoners out to their factories. In many cases, private corporations are running prisons-for-profit, further incentivizing their stake in locking people up. The government is profiting as well, by running prison factories that operate as “multibillion-dollar industries in every state, and throughout the federal prison system,” where prisoners are contracted out to major corporations by the state.

In the most extreme cases, we are even witnessing the reemergence of the chain gang. In Arizona, the self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America,” Joe Arpaio, requires his Maricopa County inmates to enroll in chain gangs to perform various community services or face lockdown with three other inmates in an 8-by-12-foot cell, for 23 hours a day. In June of this year, Arpaio started a female-only chain gang made up of women convicted of driving under the influence. [source]

We are building an unethical and unhealthy economic system that is further destroying our country’s workforce and shifting it over to underpaid, abused prisoners. That system has a strong incentive to keep jails full and criminals locked away for exorbitant sentences. If we continue to do nothing, the problem will only grow. Unfortunately, the stigma that being in prison means you deserve whatever comes your way has supported of this dangerous system and given politicians and businessmen political cover in further enriching corporate interests at the expense of everyone else.