Warning: mysql_num_fields() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home4/terryf/public_html/deceptionbyomission.com/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 3096

Why British Politicians and Non-Profits Like the EU- No Brexit for Them.

Why British Politicians and Non-Profits Like the EU- No Brexit for Them.

Big Banks, financial markets and even politicians and non-profits are getting more and more nervous. Every passing day is increasing their anxiety. The people are getting a chance to voice their concerns with a vote.

If all remains on course, the British people will vote on a national referendum to either remain in or exit the European Union (EU) on June 23rd.

The “too big to fails” are even calling for 24 hour work days on the day of the vote. The Bank of England has been concerned for a while now over the exit vote. Last year an inadvertent email sent to The Guardian revealed a secret task force set up to study the impact of the exit on the financial markets in Britain called Project Bookend.

The concerns are continuing and growing as the day of the vote- Thursday, June 23rd approaches. It would be wise to keep your eyes peeled to this issue.

Why the Anxiety?

The EU was morphed out of a trade deal after WWII ostensibly to help rebuild coal and steel industries called the Common Market. Over time it was transformed into a regional government with its own currency (the Euro), courts and reams of rules over larger areas of its member nations lives. It is no longer just a trade deal to say the least holding sway over 28 nations and impacting over 500 million citizens.

For the elite who wish to create a New World Order, the EU is a way of eliminating national governments and transferring their sovereignty to a regional central government headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. A British exit would mean that the 2nd largest economy in the EU would be leaving. Not a good turn of events for them.

For the politicians and non-profits, it means a gravy train which sucks away public money and generously redistributes it to them, would be cut off from British politicians and selected non-profits. It’s never comforting to see a source of income dissolve for anyone, especially one this lucrative. In the bureaucracy of the EU over 10,000 employees earn more than the Prime Minister of Britain. They are not subject to elections. The do not need to be concerned about public response since they have power without accountability and not subject to a vote.

See the snippet from Brexit, the Movie below for details:

 Brexit – The Movie

A crowd funded movie- Brexit, the Movie was put together to provide an overview of the facts about the British exit from the EU. Either way markets will be impacted but especially with a vote to exit. If you don’t know about this issue, watch the full film for free on YouTube or below:

The impact of this vote could have a domino effect and encourage other EU members to do the same. Already the EU economy is teetering. As with quite a few others, including the U.S., it has been built from fiat central bank currencies which require deficit spending since central bank currency is based on debt. It is not redeemable with gold and silver as money once was. It is all backed by government decree or fiat and well…..faith really.

The Brexit vote could be the domino they don’t want to fall which they once feared Greece was. A house built on sand is never on sound footing and neither is a banking system based strictly on debtin place of real production based wealth and a redeemable, measurable and limited standard of tangible value like precious metals.

Take some time and study this issue. At the very least, from Brexit, the movie you will learn something about the dangers of these regional governments and “free trade” pacts, government regulatory strangling of markets and politically based greed and power. Well worth your time and education and potentially quite important.

A Preview of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) – Brexit the Movie

A Preview of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) – Brexit the Movie

Brexit the Movie targets the British population with facts about how the European Union (EU) has had a damaging impact on the British economy. Now, you may at first think that a film targeting the British population has nothing to do with the U.S. However, you would be wrong. The EU is about massive regulatory control, something that has been growing here in the U.S. for decades, not “free trade”. This free YouTube video demonstrates how dangerous an agreement like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) would be for our remaining liberties.

The EU is the model used to create the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which connects our economy directly to the European Union.

In fact, this free YouTube video actually functions as a preview of what is to come should we initiate the TPP here. You can watch Brexit the Movie below:

Here is what you will learn in the movie:

  • Why politicians in Britain and in general want the EU (Think: Pigs feeding at a trough and complete self interest)
  • How the EU destroyed Britain’s fishing industry (Taking it from a trading center exchange of 12,000 boxes a day to 200 boxes a day now.)
  • How government regulatory controls suffocate an economy with a comparison of Britain and Germany. (Germany lost the war but soared economically while Britain continued to ration its population long after the war ended.)
  • Why low regulation Switzerland is the most prosperous European nation with the lowest unemployment and high wages (Hint: Switzerland refuses to join the EU.)
  • How politically motivated trade deals destroy trade
  • How the EU works. (Think: Power without Accountability)
  • Why multi-national Corporations want regulations and how it helps them

There is more in this film which is surprisingly candid. This could be due to the fact that it is not funded by Corporations. I alertly skimmed the long list of contributors during the credits, but did not see any Corporate names on the contributor list.

The full movie is one hour and 11 minutes long but moves along quickly and keeps your interest making it an easy watch. More importantly as noted in a previous post about the TPP, this demonstrates what the end result of an agreement with the EU will ultimately bring.

Watch this movie for free on YouTube and you will see how dangerous the TPP is for what is left of our freedoms and prosperity.

We don’t want to end up under the thumb of the globalists with agreements like the TPP and this film shows you why.

The Public School Agenda – Indoctrination Not Education- Obama’s Transgender Decree

The Public School Agenda – Indoctrination Not Education- Obama’s Transgender Decree

Obama issued a transgender decree to the public schools essentially ordering them to accept transgender choices for any bathroom they choose. Yet another example of how public schools have become an instrument of indoctrination rather than education which is an indication of why scores have been falling in math and science. Instead of placing emphasis on developing practical life skills like the three R’s (reading, riting and rithmatic), the emphasis is on enforcing political doctrines and fashioning world views rather than usable work skills.

Now, apart from the fact that the population of transgender students has got to be pretty low, all students and teachers are forced to accept the concession to this tiny minority whether they want to or not. Let’s suppose you are a normal human being who is attracted to the opposite sex as necessary for the continuation of the population and you think people who are transgender are a bit strange. According to the Marxist de-emphasis on family which Obama’s focus on what is important to pay attention to forcibly encourages, your point of view doesn’t count. What counts is thatTransgender Bathroom Sign- Aliens you bend to the will of the Federal government and most particularly his majesty the President.

Legally Enforceable?

The fact is this letter/decree is not legally enforceable.  Critics condemn this as Christian bigotry. The answer to that statement reflecting anti-Christian bigotry is, “So What?” The fact is, this is fully within the jurisdiction of their local and State authorities. In case anyone is still using our Constitution, which all elected representatives including the President take an oath of office to defend and uphold, the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights clearly states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This, in turn is preceded by the 9th amendment which also clearly states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly then from a Constitutional point of view, this is a State and local issue. It is fully within the jurisdiction of the NC State government or any local government to decide upon.

Additionally, being a social and cultural matter, this is a matter to be settled by the citizenry themselves and clearly NOT the Federal government.

In short, Obama has no authority under the Constitution he took an oath of office to uphold to involve himself in this social issue.

Nothing confusing here. It is plainly stated in our Bill of Rights.

So, despite the development of the Presidency into a Kingship, there is clearly no direct Constitutional authority which allows the executive to create laws (even on obscure issues like transgender bathrooms) through a letter.

However, there is a trump card which is quickly flashed in the letter to the schools, which also points to the danger of having the Federal government involved in our educational system btw:

Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, schools receiving federal money may not discriminate based on a student’s sex, including a student’s transgender status.

Reading between the lines, if you take public money, we own you and your students.

The interesting mechanics of how this works is that the Federal government forcibly takes money the citizens work for through the legalized theft of the Federal income tax.

A person works and earns income through their labor. However, before they even receive compensation for their time and efforts, it is taken out of their pocket by our magnanimous Federal government. Then, they take money which citizens rightfully earned through their labor, and use it as leverage to exert control over how our youth, and adults for that matter, should think and behave. If this smacks of tyranny, it should because this is how tyranny is exercised by tyrannical regimes.

This is not only is this a misuse of the legalized theft of the citizens earnings which the Federal income tax amounts to, it is additionally illegal under our Constitutional rule of law. As usual, the executive and Federal government is doing nothing more than overstepping its Constitutionally defined boundaries and should quite simply- butt out!

This is also known as cultural Marxism which is a form of control our developing Federal tyranny has been expressing more frequently as its controls grow. See the video below on details for the history and mechanics of how this insidious philosophy is being applied:

Confusing Not Clarifying

Transgender Symbol

Trans what?

Reality dictates that men and women hook up as they say and have children in order for a society to provide for its continuation. A human being with normal impulses responds to this reality. That is not strange nor abnormal, rather quite expected of a young person. It is a quite natural way for society to assure its continued presence.

It’s also quite normal for a child to be raised by a mother and father of the opposite sex as well. It may not be perfect with the abnormal emphasis in today’s world on immorality, but it is an expected arrangement that tends to lend stability to a moral society.

These are natural points of view that are supported by the plumbing of each individual as expressed in nature. Males and females are attracted to each other. They choose to couple. They have children. They raise them hopefully as respectful and moral human beings in a stable family unit.

Nothing confusing here it would seem. Very much in line with the biblical Christian view from which the concept of marriage and family in our early history developed. Now however, there is another point of view. One that you will not find in the Christian bible but rather in another bible- the Communist Manifesto:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

Quite a different emphasis than that of the biblically based Christian isn’t it? As stated in Matthew 19:4-6

4 Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The Real Battle

The Obama letter emphasizing transgender bathrooms in public schools betrays where Obama’s heart really resides. The contrast is obvious. Transgender emphasis is not an emphasis encouraging a biblical union of man and woman but rather an emphasis that engenders confusion of what would develop, if not interfered with, in the normal course of a stable human being.

Males couple with females, have children and raise families. Societies, cultures and nations are the result.

However, the real battle revealed in the Obama letter is not one emphasizing Christian normalcy but rather, the Marxist dismantling of the family unit with the replacement by the State as mother-father and final authority.

The real battle here is between the Christian point of view validated by biological normalcy and the Marxist world view unsupported by natural biological states. More plainly expressed, it is in reality a battle between the God of the bible and normal biological development and the Godless view of Marxism based on human imagination.

All the rest of this issue is in reality just window dressing obscuring the real intent. Of course, it is wrapped up with a little guilt to make students feel deficient because they are being “socially biased”. However, is it really biased to find transgender bathrooms a bit alien? Methinks not.

Like I stated in the title, public schools- indoctrination not education.

As for the transgender choice, is that not their own self selected problem? They chose to confuse their sexual identity. Why is it necessary to force everyone else to see it their way now?

And let’s not mention that you have to be legally 18 to choose to have a transgender operation anyway, unless the parents make the choice for their offspring. This means that the issue will probably not arise in our schools to begin with. It is simply another way to influence the thinking of youth through the mechanisms of cultural Marxism.

Meanwhile, as we mire in debt with ongoing wars continuously draining our society of its wealth, this is the battle our so-called “leader” chooses to fight?

Indoctrination not education into the Marxist in Chief’s world view and a battle for the mind of our youth is the real target in this move. Another move for control over the masses by the Fed.

It should be ignored regardless of funding. Nevertheless, teachers fearing for their continued incomes will unfortunately likely bend in deference to their Lord and Master. Why, after all, bite the hand that feeds you even if it is culturally odd and unnatural? Aliens have rights too don’t they? However, under the view of Marxist liberalism, those citizens who choose to disagree do not. That is, if it transgresses the dictates of the Feds.

Subjects are not permitted to have opinions. They are provided to them upon the approval of their owners.

UN Paris Climate Accord is About People Control Not Climate Change

UN Paris Climate Accord is About People Control Not Climate Change

Friday was Earth Day. The first one was in 1970. It was garbage science then with apocalyptic predictions that failed, not barely, but with spectacularity.

18 Spectacularly Wrong Earth Day Predictions and the UN’s Paris Climate Accord

American Enterprise Institute’s Mark Perry a professor of economics and finance at Univ. of Michigan’s
Mark Perry

Mark Perry- Univ. of Michigan Professor of Economics and Finance

Flint campus noted 18 very wrong predictions from the first Earth Day. (This has been done over the years by other writers and sites but the list has been increasing in numbers as time has gone on.)

 Some predictions of note:
 
Atheist Paul Ehrlich: Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle:
The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.
 
Hmmm…that hasn’t happened yet, has it?
 
How about this one?
 
Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.
 
Or this from Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day:
 
It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
 
 

UN Paris Climate Accord Signed by the U.S. on Earth Day

Of course, it was hailed as a planet saver by the media. Obama in December of 2015 represented it as the “best chance to save the planet we’ve got”.

But….Is It Really?

Presidents, prime ministers, dictators, and potentates from 175 countries gathered at the United Nations in New York in our nation Friday (Earth Day) to sign the UN’s Paris climate accord. Supporters all say it is aimed at slowing as an article in the New American put it: “the (fictitious) crisis of global warming by

Kerry Signing Paris Climate Accord

John Kerry (with grandchild) Signing Paris Accord on Earth Day and American Sovereignty to the UN

reducing man-made greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2).”

 John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel with more than 60 years as a meteorologist notes:
 
When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate,” says the Weather Channel founder.” And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone,” said Coleman.”

I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.

 Coleman points to UN climate chief Christiana Figueres statements calling for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat.

Coleman asks, “How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?”

 Coleman quotes another top UN IPCC official, Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, who admits that it is the UN’s policy “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.
 
Dr. Edenhofer has further admitted that all the panic over climate “has almost nothing to do with environmental policy”; it’s all about redistributing the world’s wealth.
 
Guess who gets to do the redistributing in this scheme of things.
 
Here’s what Edenhofer said:
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

It’s Not About Climate Control

 It’s not about climate control, as with gun control, it is about people control. The fact is, if you control the energy resources, you de facto actually control people’s lives.

Bernie and Hillary, of course applaud this and play it to the hilt. Like the political parasites that they are they will feed off of the media hype and the people’s naivete on facts around this issue (aside from the disproven UN IPCC “science” which they falsely claim has consensus validation)  to garner votes. I’ve already seen a Hillary ad playing up the Paris Accord as a victory for the people.

However, despite the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), there is no real consensus among scientists on the issue. In fact, there are some strong and informed opinions opposed to the claims.

For example, qualified scientists and climate experts like Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author, environmentalist, and professor of political science and philosophy, who accepts climate change as real doesn’t buy the claims.

On the accord signing, Lomberg stated:
“Politicians will vaunt U.N. treaty, but its costs far outweigh its meager benefits.”
In an op-ed today for USA Today, entitled Climate change is real, but Paris treaty won’t fix it Lomberg wrote:
“My own research and the only peer-reviewed published assessment of the Paris agreement used the United Nation’s favorite climate model to measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every major carbon-cutting promise in the treaty between now and 2030. I found that the total temperature reduction will be just 0.086 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.”
This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world,” writes Lomborg. U.S. promises alone — to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 — would reduce gross domestic product more than $150 billion annually.

More Shackles, Not Real Help

Meanwhile, our wonderful politicians have just traded even more of our national sovereignty over to the UN through another treaty.

Foolish and naive “progressives” think we are saving the earth when in fact the elite who call the shots are simply fashioning our shackles. Like gun control prevented the Paris massacre, climate change accords like this will resolve nothing and be yet another way to reel in our disappearing freedoms and our Constitutional rights, whatever is left of them.

Yet another example of how the American experiment has failed and why we need to stop relying on politicians to resolve our lives.

Obama Delivers a Confused Message to Cubans

Obama Delivers a Confused Message to Cubans

This dude is supposed to be our “leader” and he doesn’t even know what form of government our Constitution framed.

Describing our current campaign to his Cuban audience during his recent visit, he calls the fact that there are:
 
“Two Cuban Americans in the Republican Party running against the legacy of a black man who is President while arguing that their the best person to beat the Democratic nominee who’ll either be a woman or a Democratic socialist. Who would have believed that back in 1959? That’s a measure of our progress as a Democracy.”
 
Democracy? President Obama apparently doesn’t know what form of government we are supposed to be- a Constitutional Republic.
 
Democracy is never mentioned in the Constitution because we were never intended to be one. See Federalist #10 by Madison for why.
 

Instead Obama calls our Presidential campaign a measure of our progress as a Democracy. Perhaps, it also betrays where he is leading us. After all, according to the Communist Manifesto, the triumph of Democracy is Communism.

No problem when speaking to an audience of Communist Cubans, but it should be a problem for Americans here. The operative words there are “should be”.

The Ideals That Drive Every Revolution?

After his mischaracterization of our form of government, he goes to note that the ideals that drive every revolution are found in Democracy.  As noted above the Communist Manifesto calls Communism “the triumph of Democracy”. It figures that a dude with a Marxist background, who has instituted Marxist moves like Obamacare during his term, speaking in front of a Communist audience would choose to describe us as a Democracy and feel that the “ideals that drive every revolution” are found in that form of government. He and his handlers would like that to be so you can count on that. The problem is that it pretty much is already.

Tragically, too few have taken notice while it has progressed to where it is today. Unfortunately, the dude has been permitted to get away with just about everything he does and says for the most part, regardless of its permissibility or applicability under what used to be our “rule of law”. Nowadays, our so called rule of law is paid only lip service at best, if even that.

Our penalty for this ignorance? Over 77,600 pages of regulations in the Federal Register and a government that has run up a bill of over $19.2 Trillion or $60,000 per man, woman and child. Complacency does have a price. We are all paying for it whether you acknowledge it or not.

15 Things You Must Do to Survive 2016 and Beyond

15 Things You Must Do to Survive 2016 and Beyond

Concerned about the possibility of a serious financial crisis? Historically excessive national debt leads to that and ours is pretty darn high and ain’t going down anytime soon with continued entitlement spending and wars.

So whatcha gonna do? Well, some people have thought that issue out.

Here’s an audio on YouTube from Mike Adams of Natural News which delivers a powerful preparedness and survival seminar to help you make it through 2016 and beyond.

In this audio, you’ll learn the 15 most critical steps you need to take NOW to get prepared for the chaos that’s coming.

You’ll learn what you need to do to protect your home and property, diversify your financial assets, get out of the city before chaos ensues, grow some of your own food (and store what you can’t grow), acquire physical reference books in case the power grid fails, identify people who will become a threat to your safety and much more.

For educational intent only on my part. Give it a listen and get some ideas that may be of important benefit to you in the coming year.

What’s that saying about the freight train? You know, if a train coming and you are sitting in the middle of the tracks and just sit there…….

So, ya gonna just sit there? Might want to give that a second thought.

The Bernie Sanders Deception – Feel the Burn- Part 3

The Bernie Sanders Deception – Feel the Burn- Part 3

As previously pointed out, Sanders propagates the myth that he is a democratic socialist who wants the kinder, gentler version of socialism that operates in Scandinavian nations. The problem is it is a mythology that doesn’t really exist.  As pointed out, in an article appearing on federalist.com Why So Many Millennials Are Socialists, Sanders promotes the image that nations like Denmark, Sweden and Norway offer a far more generous social safety net (with appreciably higher taxes however) but doesn’t interfere with businesses or people’s consciences because they are based on what he calls democratic socialism.

As noted in the last post, by the Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen stated:

Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

As noted in the aforementioned article, these countries actually are not socialist, but “socialistic”:

To accommodate their massive social welfare spending, these countries opened their economies to free-market forces in the 1990s, sold off state-owned companies, eased restrictions on business start-ups, reduced barriers to trade and business regulation, and introduced more competition into health care and public services.

In fact, today these countries outrank the United States on business freedom, investment freedom, and property rights, according to the Heritage Economic Freedom Index. So, if anything, the lesson from Scandinavian countries is that market reforms, not socialist ones, explain their prosperity.

So keeping in mind that Sanders lures with mythology let’s take a look at some other Sanders proposals in light of the real world.

Tax the Rich- Make Them Pay Their “Fair Share”

According to Sanders website:

If we are serious about reforming the tax code and rebuilding the middle class, we have got to demand that the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

As noted in the first article in this series, 84% of all the taxes collected are already paid by the top 20%. The top 10% pay 53.3% of all taxes. The top 1% pay 24% of all taxes. Should we kill the gooseGolden Egg that laid the golden egg and gut it to see if we can get all those golden eggs out instead of waiting for them? (I wonder if guys like Sanders ever consider who hires all those poor and middle class people anyway? Does he think it is poor people?)

France – Tax the Rich 75% Supertax

Nevertheless, let’s take a look at how this has worked recently in France with its socialist President, Francois Hollande. With France’s high deficit, Hollande promised a super tax of 75% on individual incomes of over 1 million pounds a year during his 2012 campaign. It was opposed by the Constitutional Council, made up of 9 judges and 3 former Presidents (les sages- the wise), because it failed to recognize equality before public burdens saying 2 individuals from the same household could be taxed differently. It was passed anyway.

Hey, they’re socialists. They know what is best right? French Actor Gerard Depardieu (film Green Card) provoked attack as being unpatriotic by saying his was moving over the border to Belgium. Depardieu pointed out he was not alone. The newspaper Le Parisien produced an interactive map which revealed Switzerland as the country of choice for fiscal refugees including many entertainers and sports stars.

Supertax Dropped After Meagre Returns

After two years, the tax was dropped, Why? It was supposed to produce 500 million euros per year. The first year, 2013, it produced half that much 260 million euros. In 2014, it dropped to 160 million euros.

The reform clearly damaged France’s reputation and competitiveness, said Jorg Stegemann, the head of the executive search firm Kennedy Executive. It clearly has become harder to attract international senior managers to come to France than it was.

France was not only losing actors like Depardieu but also business leaders like France’s richest man Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of luxury group LVMH who also took out Belgium nationality. In short, the measure failed.

Why Tax the Rich Will Always Fail

In the French example, the reality was that the rich had the means to simply vacate the building. That is, to leave the country. However, there is no need to leave for the more established wealthy. They have prepared other responses to the problem of taxation.

Bear in mind that all of these techniques are completely legal according to our laws. After all, who creates laws but high powered lawyers who write the legislation and politicians? Who has the money for high powered lawyers and to buy off politicians by funding their way into office? Didn’t take you too long to figure out those answers did it?

If you change the laws, they change the legislation to accommodate the changed laws. That’s one of the biggest reasons we have such an enormous tax code of over 77,600 pages of regs btw.

If all else fails, they can always relocate to a more favorable tax environment as they did in France in 2013 and 2014. There are always nations willing to accept wealthy people to their economies because they know they will bring their money along with them and ultimately enrich the economy.

In answer to the taxation issue, the ultra rich have several additional one-word answers. The first of those is the word- foundations. The graduated income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto– a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

While this form of taxation was being approved in state after state, the wealthy were preparing their own one word answer- foundations.

As noted in The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen:

By 1910, state after state was approving the 16th amendment, which provided for a graduated income tax, John D. [Rockefeller] read the handwriting on the Congressional wall and, using his “deeply conspiratorial nature,” began making plans to avoid the consequences of the tax by hiding his wealth in the Rockefeller Foundation

Contrary to the income tax being opposed by the wealthy Allen notes, “The fact is that many of the wealthiest Americans supported it.”

You may wonder how that could be. Let’s take a closer look.

One of the best ways for the Rockefeller-Morgan insiders to eliminate growing competition was to impose controls on their income while providing an escape hatch for themselves. It is easier to control or eliminate competition by not having to battle them in the marketplace but rather to use the coercion of government to exclude them from the marketplace. As Allen notes: “according to many sources, the Rockefellers have as many as 200 trusts and foundations, and it is possible they have hundreds, even thousands more.”

As noted by Ferdinand Lundberg in The Rich and the Super Rich:

What it [the income tax] became, finally was a siphon gradually inserted into the pocketbooks of the general public. Imposed to popular huzzas as a class tax, the income tax was gradually turned into a mass tax in a jujitsu turnaround…

When the income tax was being considered in congress, the powerful Senate leader and maternal Grandfather of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, formerly opposing it as “communist and socialistic” reversed his stance and threw his support towards it.

The escape hatch was ready. By the time the amendment had been approved by the states, the Rockefeller Foundation was up and running. Exempting themselves from the burden of taxation, the ultra-rich forced the burden on their competitors. Larger wealthy families followed suit- The Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation and soon many others.

Foundations Today

Today foundations still isolate the wealth of the ultra rich- George Soros with his Open Society Foundation provides funding a gaggle of leftist oriented organizations including racist organizations like La Raza.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation had assets of over $247 million in 2013 and donated to organizations like Acorn while receiving money from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and even donors connected to organizations like the terrorist group Hezbollah.

Not all is bad of course but according to a review of IRS documents by the Federalist of the $500 million raised from 2009 to 2012 by the Clinton Foundation, only 15% ($75 million) went to programs. The rest?

“More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp Foundation finances Republican activities but leftist oriented foundations supporting Democrats are much more prolific. Meanwhile, Democrats pose as representing the poor and lower classes.

Other Single Word Solutions to Taxation

There are other single word aids to the ultra-wealthy which serve to isolate them from taxes: lawyers and legislation.

When John D. Rockefeller Jr. died in 1960, it was expected that his wealth then estimated by Fortune magazine to be between $400 and $700 million. When his estate was probated it added up to approximately $150 million. It turns out that John D. Jr. was busy allocating his fortune to the foundations controlled by the family and trust funds.

As noted by Lundberg in The Rich and Super Rich:

Rockefeller Brothers

The Rockefeller Brothers (from left to right) David C., Winthrop, John D. Jr., Nelson and Laurence

The JDR, Jr., estate paid virtually no inheritance taxes because it was left half to the widow (inheritance tax law) and half to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a foundation.

Thanks to the lawyers they hire and the politicians they own through campaign contributions.

When last checked Bernie Sanders has raised about $140 million. Hillary about $220 million. Ted Cruz about $120 million. That nasty capitalist Trump about $37 million, most of it his own money.

Could this be why all those wonderful sounding campaign promises disappear after the election? By the time they reach office, they owe and are owned.

Tax the Rich?

Mainly an illusion. The rich through foundations and legislation armed with high powered lawyers and politicians they have bought are well protected from taxation.

As the French experiment demonstrated, they can also simply up and move to more favorable tax environments as well taking their wealth and perhaps even jobs for the middle class along with them.

So Bernie’s taxation rhetoric is nothing more than pomp and circumstance that while sounding good on the campaign trail will end up biting the hands of the voters who feed into it. The ultra-rich will protect themselves from taxation as they always have done. The middle class without the armor of protection wealth affords will end up fleeced- as always.

Next we’ll take a look at another Sanders proposal – a mandatory minimum wage hike.

Missed Part 1? Click here Part 2? Click here

The Bernie Sanders Deception – Feel the Burn – Part 2

The Bernie Sanders Deception – Feel the Burn – Part 2

Now that we have a sense of who Sanders is by assessing his background, let’s look at what he proposes as a solution- Socialism.

Now, personally, I find it interesting that all of these young people who fawn over Sanders and look to him as their savior fumble around with electronic devices day and night to communicate with their world, so whole heartedly accept his Socialist proposals which condemn “capitalism”.

First of all, who do they think created all of those devices? Do they suppose they arose out of the mind of a socialist?

Hardly, the fact is, entrepreneurial capitalists created all of them. In fact, capitalism created everything they rely upon today for their convenience and well….existence.

What Does Socialism Contribute?

If all these Sanders supporters (Bernites) are going to support a candidate who calls himself a socialist, we should take a look at what Socialism has actually contributed to humanity?Socialism-Lenin

If you look at nations based on socialism as the Chinese, North Korean, Russian and Cuban society’s are (as noted in their Constitutions), their track record for civil rights as well as innovation is not very attractive. All of these society’s have deeply stratified gaps between the wealthy and the poorer working classes with few in between as Marxism predicts. Civil rights are stringently controlled by the State and sparse for the most part while being violently enforced when you attempt to oppose the State. Innovation and invention are nearly absent.

In fact, without billions of dollars of aid from the West Soviet Marxism would have experienced an economic collapse much sooner. China has been given through U.S. Corporate transfers most of its manufacturing capacities from the United States as was Russia.

In truth, the Socialist model of government has never contributed anything of note innovative or invented anything of consequence. No, in fact if we are to intellectually honest, all Socialists seem to contribute is complaints. As far as innovation and invention goes, Socialists let the capitalists do all that stuff.

Like Bernie’s fruitless attempts at business, Socialists contribute nothing to the technological advancement of society. They simply claim that society can’t work unless they are in charge. Then they sweep in and arrogantly claim they know better than the market on how the wealth created by capitalists should be distributed, as long as they are in charge of the distribution.

So, in reality, the main contribution of Socialists is to complain about inequality and the claim that they have the idyllic answers to all of society’s ills. As Bastiat points out in his book The Law, Socialists practice legalized plunder. That is, they feel entitled to the wealth produced by others which they believe they best know how to divvy up. Or as Marx and Engels put it, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Don’t look too closely Bernites but that’s called Communism.

Free Market Capitalism– A Bane or Boon?

John Mackey, founder of the successful Whole Foods chain, didn’t start out as a free market capitalist. He was a member of a co-op and did not like the way it was run. He thought he could do better and decided to open Safer Way, a health food store in Austin, Texas, to sell healthy food to people, earn a decent living and have fun doing both.

At the time he was a vegetarian who described himself as having a “progressive political philosophy” which believed that both business and capitalism were fundamentally based on greed, selfishness and exploitation. (Sound like a familiar refrain Bernites?)

Well, along the way he came to realize that what he thought about business and capitalism was all wrong. As he puts it, “becoming an entrepreneur and starting a business completely changed my life. Almost everything I had believed about business was proven to be wrong.” Funny how reality tends to wake us up to our self-deceptions sometimes isn’t it?

He cites economist Deirdre McCloskey (author of Bourgeoisie Dignity) as arguing that

“the most important factors in free-enterprise capitalism’s success has been entrepreneurship and innovation combined with freedom and dignity for business people.”

Their inventions have changed the world- cars, phones, gasoline, computers, antibiotics even the massive spread of the internet have all not been the result of government decree but “required massive amounts of innovation. Human creativity, partly individual but mostly collaborative and cumulative, is at the root of all economic progress.”

Mackey goes on to cite how the growth of free market capitalism completely revolutionized living standards for those nations who embraced it.

Just 200 years ago, 85% of humanity lived in extreme poverty (less than $1 a day). Now, it is only 16%.

In modern times, South Korea’s GDP has grown 260 fold since 1960.

How about its Northern neighbor under the tyranny of Communist Socialism? Of the two nations the South is a free market oriented economy and the North is based on Marxist socialism. Which one would you rather live in?

There is more of course which you can discover by picking up a copy of Mackey’s book Conscious Capitalism. The bottom line is that socialism is not responsible for the material progress of humanity, free market capitalism is.

The fact is, Marxist socialism has caused far more damage to humanity than any other form of government. Look at the freedoms in nations like North Korea, China, Russia and Cuba. As noted previously, their track record of civil liberty is far from stellar. The masses in those nations live pretty much hand to mouth while those at the top live with massive excess.

China is Red- What About Them?

What about socialist nations like China? Where do you think they got their manufacturing equipment and systems from? Who is their biggest product consumer? In reality, before the West stepped in, Mao had starved more than 35 million of his own people to death under the failed socialist agricultural ideas of the 5 year planned economy Great Leap forward beginning in 1958. Took less than 5 years too. Not exactly a badge of honor for the planned economy socialist movement to say the least.

China is known for its slave labor which is highlighted in this documentary:

As noted in the Chinese Constitution:

Chapter I General Principles

Article 1 The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.

The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.

We learn a few basic facts in those initial principles:

  1. China is a socialist system.
  2. Hooked together with a democratic dictatorship
  3. Dissent is prohibited (aka Police State)

So Bernie recommends…what was it again? Oh yes, democratic socialism. Interesting parallels of philosophy one can note with the Chinese police state of oppression.

Sanders Claims Denmark is a Socialist Success- Another Leftist Myth

Sanders would like us to model ourselves after Denmark. The problem is his romanticized version of Denmark doesn’t exist.

While speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware “that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism.”

“Therefore,” Lars said, “I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

Rasmussen acknowledged that “the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens,” but he also noted that it is “a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.”

Additionally, as Michel Kelly-Gagnon- President of the Montreal Economic Institute notes:

Denmark’s welfare state is more of a rickety derelict than a solid structure. Successive governments have had to repeatedly reform the system, scaling back its benefits.

British journalist Michael Booth, who has lived in Scandinavia for over a decade and written a book about his experience there, The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian UtopiaHe says that the quality of the free education and health care Danes receive is far from great. Their PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) educational rankings are just average, they have the lowest life expectancy in the EU aside from former communist countries, and the highest rates of death from cancer in the world.

Facts About the Scandinavian Socialist Miracle

And Then There’s Taxes

On top of this and more, guess which nation has the highest marginal tax rate in the world at 60.2%? Hint: It begins with a D and ends with a K and has the letter “enmar” in between.

Michael Booth also says there is a broad consensus that the Danish welfare state remains unsustainable, despite the many reforms of recent decades. “The Danes’ dirty secret is that its public sector has been propped up by–now dwindling–oil revenues.”

Bernie’s Never Been in Business

Bernie Sanders is typical example of the socialist who condemns capitalism never having worked as a part of it.

Unlike John Mackey who reverted from being a progressive because of his involvement in starting his own entrepreneurial business, Sanders background has no business to speak of. He’s never really owned a business or even run a business successfully or for any appreciable length of time.

Around 1976, Sanders left LUP and spent about two years as an amateur historian and film-maker, attempting to sell educational film strips to schools in New England. “His main project,” says the Guardian, “was a short documentary about his hero, Eugene Debs (who was inspired by Marx’s Das Kapital while in prison of course a hero for Bernie), an early 20th-century union leader who was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist party.”

After that, it was all public money jobs or politics.

Not a Model Family Man Either Apparently

In 1964 he married a young woman named Deborah Sanders; the marriage only lasted two years ending in divorce.

Over the next few years, Sanders worked variously as a psychiatric-hospital aide and a Head Start preschool teacher in New York; as a Department of Taxes employee in Vermont; and as a staffer for a nonprofit organization called the Bread and Law Task Force, where he registered people for food stamps.

In 1969 he fathered a child out-of-wedlock. Levi Noah Sanders had a mother named Susan Campbell Mott, according to his birth certificate. His resume for the Burlington Mayoral campaign simply read: Divorced, one child

So What Does Bernie Really Bring to the Table?

So, what actual expertise does Bernie actually bring to the bear? Certainly, not his success as a family man, nor a businessman.

All he really has to offer are the tired, idyllic, tyranny producing ideas of Karl Marx repackaged as Progressive or Democratic Socialism. (Democracy according to the Communist Manifesto is the first step to Communism btw.)

What Do Socialists Offer Anyway?

Socialism needs the very thing they blame for all the problems in the world- free market capitalism.

What new invention has been credited to a socialist? In reality, socialists produce nothing. Capitalism is the producer. Socialism is nothing more than a re-distributor.

What socialist actually do is take the products of labor others have produced and assume they know better than anyone else (including God) where it should be directed.

They don’t produce. They take the efforts of others and redistribute them. (Remember- From each according to his abilities….yada, yada, yada)

They appeal to a basic human flaw- getting the greatest benefit from the least amount of effort, aka being lazy. That sounds very appealing when you are struggling to make a living or to survive.

Then, socialists promote themselves by endorsing the theft of someone else’s labor and efforts. “We’re going to get all those exploitative, greedy capitalists. This is unfair and unequal.” they cry. However, as Frederic Bastiat put it in his book the Law, their solution does nothing more than perform immoral legalized plunder.

Young people are fooled by the labels and subsequent promises. They think they are being forward thinking. However, they ignore a Leviathan government gone wild which has distorted a free market with huge regulatory control and interference while producing massive debt with a welfare/warfare state- funded by taxes and Federal Reserve Notes. Politicians like Bernie and Obama (both socialist oriented) are happy to blame it all on “greedy rich capitalists”. After all, it gets them off the hook and keeps them in office. Parasitic politicians thrive off of this misdirection.

Nevertheless, if you take an objective look at the results in nations based on socialism ideas such as Russia, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, even Chavez’s Venezuela. In every case, redirecting the products of capitalism, all of these systems have ultimately only produced poverty and tyranny for the majority.

Misleading the Public- Blaming Capitalism

Bernie, like all good Marxists, rails against capitalism and the wealthy. He blames greed and wealth for all of our societies ills. He never mentions that capitalism is an economic system and socialism is a political system. Comparing the two is like comparing humans to trees. They are completely different entities operating under completely different laws.

Capitalism is subject to the laws of economics and wealth. It manages the flow of products and money. It is simply a cooperative means of producing wealth. Capitalism used accurately produces wealth and products which people desire. Capitalism is nothing more than the cooperative use of the means of production to meet needs people have for useful products (real wealth) or services.

Socialism on the other hand is a political animal. It is subject to political laws. It administrates services to the people who are participants in it, either by choice but oftentimes by force.

Socialism imposes the coercive force of government on all activities of people and arrogantly and forcibly redistributes wealth produced by the economic activity of capitalism.

Blaming capitalism for the problems of wealth distribution is like blaming the wood used to construct a house for the final product. The wood is the material needed by laborers to construct the house. However, the laborers who use the wood are responsible for how that material is used and its final product.

Blaming the wood for how the house turned out is what Bernie does when he, like most brain washed (Or is that brain damaged?) Marxist socialists, blames the tools of production for how capitalism has been used.

Capitalism can exist without socialism but socialism cannot exist without capitalism.

If there were no capitalism, there would be no wealth for socialists to redistribute.

(And please don’t make a fool of yourself and fall for the mislabeling of social services such fire and police et al as socialism. They are completely different factors. Fire and police are voluntary services taxpayers agree to fund. Socialism is a coercive political system that enforces itself (like the Chinese system) without tolerance for dissent. There is nothing voluntary about it, once it is in place, as the citizens of Nazi (National Socialism) Germany discovered.

It is therefore deceptive to blame the very thing which produces all of the wealth socialists need in order to have anything to base their system upon. Unless capitalism produces wealth, there would be no need for any political system, socialist or otherwise.

Socialism Promotes an Immoral Culture of Plunder

What socialism actually does is to take the products or services produced by capitalism and re-distributes them by force.

As all rational people agree, theft is an immoral activity. “Thou shalt not steal.” as the Bible puts it. In fact, if we take someone else’s property we can be prosecuted as a criminal.

This is so because we all know that if someone works for something by trading his labor for money, they are entitled to spend or save that money as they determine. It is, after all, the product of their efforts. How they spend what they have freely earned should be their own choice in a free society.

What they purchase with that earned income becomes their property in a civilized and orderly society.

Socialism distorts the cooperative order of society. In a socialist system you don’t get to keep what you work for. The more socialist the system, the less you get to keep. In a truly socialist system, there are no private property rights. The State owns everything allegedly cooperatively with the people, but that ideal is only permitted under the approval of the State. This is because Socialists basically don’t trust human beings (nor do those in charge want to give up their piece of the pie).

In fact, it is even questionable whether they even like them because the most brutal societies have come from socialist oriented leaders who have also promoted societies of extreme violence in order to achieve their idyllic goals. Think conscienceless psychopaths like Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Il Jung etc.

Socialists believe themselves to be Gods or gifts to human kind. The more power they get. The more they want for as Lord Acton noted:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority;

They feel entitled to the authority they use to take wealth from those which they determine have too much of it through legalized theft and give it to those who never did anything to earn it. They justify this by claiming they are helping society to be more fair. Fair, of course, is completely defined according to their determinations. They decide who gets what and how much of it.

Consequently, the basis of socialism is actually the immoral theft of the products of the capitalist efforts of others which has become legalized through the force and threats of punishment from authority or government. Nevertheless, even if legalized, it still does not change the immoral basis of taking income rightfully earned and giving it to another who has done nothing to earn it. It still remains theft- legalized or not.

In short, socialists are thieves promoting an immoral system of theft made legal by force. Socialism 0511-0701-3114-5755_Big_Nosed_Businessman_Carrying_a_Big_Bag_of_Moneytherefore as its basis promotes immorality and aggression. In the extreme of its application comes violence as socialists like Mao, Hitler, Stalin and other socialists have demonstrated.

Now, let’s see how the immoral coercion of government using socialist principles has distorted the economic system of capitalism. In understanding this, we can therefore also understand how deceptive and misleading it is to blame capitalism for the disorder and maldistribution of wealth in our society.

In fact, it is too much government which is the problem not the economic system. Remember capitalism can exist without government but government cannot exist without capitalism. Economics necessitates government to protect people’s earned private property.

Socialism is Force

Whenever you try to do good with other people’s money, you are committed to force. If people don’t volunteer their earnings, the only way you can get it from them is to use some method of force, penalty of law; police or denial of earned income before they receive it (payroll deductions for example).

In the following video, the late well respected economist Milton Friedman, discusses Socialism as force. Friedman notes: “The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of their intentions.”

This is because as Lord Acton pointed out, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

As Friedman notes,

Heaven preserve us from the sincere reformer who knows what’s good for you and, by heaven, will make you do it whether you like it or not. That’s when you get the most harm done.

Tyrants like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot were all persuaded that they were right and were willing to use any method at all to install their idea of the “ultimate good”. As history witnessed, all of their intentions resulted in devastation to the people and societies that were supposed to benefit from their good. All, by the way, subscribed to some form of a socialist government.

Types of Capitalism

There are different types of capitalism which are determined largely by the political system that the products of capitalism enter.

Free Market Capitalism

Free markets produce free market capitalism whereby innovation arises spontaneously to satisfy societal needs. Technology tends to develop more rapidly when the market is allowed to develop without interference as history has demonstrated.

And yes, the innovators or sometimes the best marketers rather than the inventors, do become rich. Risk in a free market can result in failure or bankruptcy or reward. That is life in the fast lane and those who appreciate challenges in life accept the consequences of their risk- like adults.

Crony Capitalism

Capitalism transforms however, when government becomes overly involved in capitalist efforts through excessive regulatory efforts, or even worse ownership. The free market transforms from a risk/reward market to an authority driven/regulated market. It becomes a controlled market where risk is not necessarily rewarded accordingly but rather how much influence you have with the regulatory bodies so that their regulations can benefit your business. A once freely operating capitalist market place becomes distorted.

Now, free market capitalism becomes what is today referred to as crony capitalism.

The door has now been opened for “back room” deals so to speak. Deception has been introduced into what should be a freely operating market of exchange under free market capitalism. (Crony means a powerful friend.)

An Example of Government Regulation

While we may have never have had a market totally free of government influence since the advent of our Constitution, markets with less regulation operate more freely. However, as regulation grows, so too does market congestion. Markets tend to stagnate under heavy regulatory burdens and artificial government stimulus. Stagnated markets and artificially stimulated markets also reflect stagnation in profits and employment. Of course, government officials always suggest more government controls once they get their hands in the pot ignoring the fact that they know little to nothing about how real markets actually work.

The media credits FDR’s New Deal with ending the depression. What they fail to report is the reality. Despite three New Deals during the decade of the 1930’s, according to the Bureau of Labor and Management figures, unemployment averaged 18.23%. Instead of declining, it rose from 14.3% in 1937 to 19% in 1938. It dropped to 4.7% in 1942 only after we entered WWII in December of 1941.

All told, FDR’s government intervention had no lasting impact on the economy. Yet politicians worship him as a hero even though his legacy social security program is one of our largest government debts today. I don’t think it is hard to figure out why.

Maybe government intervention is not all it is cracked up to be. Maybe all it really helps are politicians who use it to buy votes so they can return to their cushy, highly paid jobs.

The Take Away

What is important to understand is that crony capitalism is not free market capitalism. Crony capitalism is the marriage of government and Corporations through regulatory controls. The government is directing what should operate as a free cooperative agreement between employers/employers and producers/consumers. Government regulation imposes an artificial interference which distorts a free market of cooperative exchange creating more fascist and socialist oriented forms of government in its wake.

In our nation, we presently have a Federal Register of over 77,687 pages of regulations which forcibly directs the market under penalty of law. Businesses are forced to operated between regulations. Decisions are made based on regulatory controls to avoid penalties. The assumption of the State, of course, is that Big Brother knows what is best.

The impact of this coercive force is estimated to by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in their Ten Thousand Commandment Report of 2015 to be $1.88 Trillion for businesses and consumers or $14,000 annual impact on the average family budget in additional costs.

This regulatory interference on the free market , in fact, is what Communism, Nazism, Facism and all socialist based systems produce which they call a “planned economy”. It doesn’t work as has been demonstrated repeatedly in socialist based systems as in Russia, China (who exploits the heck out of its workers) and North Korea.

Comparisons Already Exist – Side by Side In Fact

Entrepreneurship dies out as regulations grow and a shared monopoly between business and the State takes its place.

For example, compare the systems of North Korea which is Marxist based socialism versus South Korea which is more of free market based capitalist system. South Korea’s GDP has grown 260 times the size of what it was in 1960. North Korea is basically dying on the vine.

One can also go back and compare Marxist East Germany vs. free market West Germany. Which of the two pairs nations would you rather live in?

Sanders Misleads

Of course, Sanders points to the results of our system of heavily regulated crony capitalism and places the blame on the economic system rather than the political system which has become increasingly socialist with its immoral theft and redistribution of capitalist produced wealth creating a malformed capitalism simply and misleadingly lumping into all into the label of capitalism.

He ignores the impact of socialist interference in what used to be a free market and the distortions and massive debts that government interference and growth have caused.

His proposed solution is to impose even more regulatory interference and steal more wealth from producers that he arbitrarily decides have too much money. He arrogantly assumes (even though he has no real experience in the realm of business and economics) he knows what is best for all of us. He fashions himself as God who as a politician is able to determine what is best for our economy which is already collapsing under the weight of debt caused primarily by government.

The Sanders Solution

In short, the Sanders solution is more government theft of people’s earned incomes. And if the richTheft don’t provide enough (which they will not) then he will take more from others (the bourgeoisie or middle class) until we are all equally poor and there is no middle class- the way of Karl Marx.

Now isn’t that just like a politician? They create the problem by distorting the economic marketplace with with over regulation and debt stimulus creating an artificially stifled marketplace. Then, they propose more government to resolve the problems which they created in the first place.

As David Horowitz puts it in Vol. 2- Progressives:

The belief in a perfect future inevitably inspires a passionate (and otherwise inexplicable) hatred towards the imperfect present. The first agenda of social redeemers is to dismantle the existing social order, which means their intellectual and political energies are focused on the work of destruction.

In short, socialists like Sanders take what others create through the force of government and play God. You feeling the burn yet? I hope so, for your families sake.

Next we’ll take a look at some present day examples of Sanders proposals and see how they work in reality.

Missed part 1? Read it here

Go on to Part 3

The Bernie Sanders Deception – Feel the Burn- Part 1

The Bernie Sanders Deception – Feel the Burn- Part 1

In some ways, it is mystifying how a professed socialist like Bernie Sanders can get any traction in a culture that we are conditioned to believe is a free market, freedom based society. One would expect that the dissonance with a Socialist philosophy, which uses the force of government to make participation in its agenda mandatory, being advanced in the “land of the free and home of the brave” would encounter strong resistance.

Au contraire, Mon ami. Instead, this old leftist has become a bit of a pop star particularly with the young who have even engendered him with his own pop culture slogan: “Feel the Bern”. Kind of reminds me of the current deceiver in chief with his “Change We Can Believe In” motto. The left are exceptional at contriving misleading propaganda. It is a key component of the game of deception.

Sanders 2016

Yeah, Scares Me Too Bernie.

First, let’s flesh Bernie out a bit and see what we have here character and philosophy wise- something the public failed to do with Obama. To save space, I will let that can of worms unopened for the time being. Read The Manchurian President by Aaron Klein for important details on Obama missed by our media during the campaigns.

A Progressive or Democratic Socialist?

Sanders does not describe himself as simply a socialist. No, instead…….he is a “Progressive Socialist” or “Democratic Socialist“. Apparently, that is a big whoop. The difference? Semantics really? As socialism grows it all leads to the same place, the tyranny of the State over the citizens. The labels Sanders pushes are simply sales pitches designed to engender support and buy votes with idyllic promises to get those greedy people who are causing your problems- the capitalists.

In fact, I really wonder if these young people actually know what, a “Progressive” or “Democractic” socialist actually is. Could it be that they are simply parroting Bernie because it makes him sound somehow more authentic and unique.

Democracy is Not Found in Any of Our Framing Documents

The word Democracy is never used in any of America’s founding documents. That is, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence or Articles of Confederation. It is, however, used in The Communist Manifesto as follows:

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.

In other words, the first step towards Communism is to first create a Democracy. Then agitate towards an overthrow of the existing disorder that the majority rule of Democracy leads to as Madison noted in The Federalist Papers #10, and install Communism in its place.

That is, the supposed triumph of the worker proletariat to replace the bourgeoisie middle class. It has never worked that way because the ruling class becomes very rich while the workers struggle to survive, but that’s the Communist fairy tale nevertheless. Bernie’s connection of that word with socialism betrays his connection to that legacy as does his background as we shall see.

Connecting Democracy to Socialism is really not all that good of an idea since according to the Communist Manifesto the triumph of Democracy is an important stepping stone to Communism. Hmmm….don’t think that’s really that good of an idea myself.

What About Progressive Socialism?

Let’s take a look at the word progressive which both Hillary and Bernie connect with. Where did this word arise and how is it used in the context of socialism? What does it embrace in its meaning?

David Horowitz, author, was a dyed in the wool leftist who looked upon himself “as a soldier in an international class-struggle that would one day liberate all humanity from poverty, oppression, racism and war.” The loss of a female friend, Betty Van Patter, by murder which he attributed to the Black Panthers (never fully investigated) caused him to review his connections and eventually discard his identity as a Marxist oriented leftist to become a conservative.

Horowitz with his up close and personal connection to the internal workings of the Marxist inspired left in this nation beginning with his parents, has written a series of books he titled- The Black Book of the American Left. Volume II of this series (nine in all) is simply titled: Progressives. He begins this volume by defining the term “progressive” as applied by the left.

What are Progressives?

First of all, the label was chosen as a means of replacing the word Marxist or Communist which obviously wouldn’t fly too well in the U.S. It was also chosen because it identifies those selecting this label as forward-looking, apostles of hope and change, social redeemers who are enlightened and modern.

The basic premise of the label is that forward is necessarily a good direction. They, as progressives, are on the right side of history as though history was steadily moving towards beneficent ends.

However, the unstated fact is that these so-called progressives, while not openly acknowledged, owe their intellectual traditions to the likes of Marx, Hegel, and Antonio Gramsci (19th century leader of the Communist Party) whose philosophies have produced totalitarian results.

Progressives however as Horowitz notes, “have an understandable interest in separating themselves from the destructive consequences of their past behaviors.”
Progressives - Trick or Treat

Horowitz also warns: “Conservatives should not contribute to their efforts by referring to them as “liberals,” or regarding their own differences as merely policy matters that can be compromised and adjusted, rather than as the result of a philosophical divide that leads to consequences both predictable and tragic.”

So with these ideas in mind, let’s take a look at Bernie Sanders background to see if he has any connections to some of these idyllic leftist groups and philosophies which may support the implications laid out by former progressive Horowitz and Bernie’s use of the term.

Bernie’s Background

Is Sanders really just a nice old man who has the interests of “We the People” in mind? You won’t find out from Bernie. His site skips over wide swaths of his background white washing his background through omission of facts.

Perhaps is there a bit more to the story than meets the media eye? He’s never been too open about his background with the media despite his activist beginnings and involvement in political campaigns. Nevertheless, there are a few facts about Sanders that are known.

We know he admits to being a socialist. Whether it be the Democratic or the Progressive variety which are loaded words as we have just seen, he is still at his core an admitted socialist.

Unfortunately, many of his followers don’t seem to understand what this actually means. It seems they have adopted an inaccurate and twisted version and has conflated socialism (a political modal) with social services (a municipal service) which is quite naive and embarrassingly uninformed. I guess math and science scores are not the only ones dropping these days. Apparently, plain common sense and study is dropping off as well.

Now, one claiming to be a socialist should normally raise a red flag in a nation that is called “the land of the free and home of the brave” which was framed as a Constitutional Republic. An informed citizenry would quickly dismiss such a candidate.

However, as pointed out above, most of his followers really don’t know what socialism is. Many of them naively believe its about helping the poor and getting all those nasty rich capitalist people who made them that way. In reality, it seems millennial youth are generally more in tune with Kim Kardashian than real politics missing the implications of real life socialism and its history of failure ending in tyranny.

Sanders is also a long term politician.  He first gained traction in 1981 when he was elected Mayor of Burlington, Vermont which also lead to his first real paycheck. He then won a seat to the House of Representatives in 1991 which he held until 2007. In 2008, he was elected to the U.S. Senate for Vermont a position which he holds today.

Sanders, like Cuba, Russia, China and North Korea, favors a single-payer, government-run healthcare system and other socialist ideas like taxing the rich to the hilt so they can ostensibly “pay their fair share”. Of course, he never mentions that 84% of all taxes are already paid by the top 20% and the 1%’rs pay 24% of all taxes and the top 10% pay 53.3% of all taxes. They still need to pay more. We’ll take a look at some of these proposals a bit later on.

So What Else?

He was born in Brooklyn to Polish immigrants of Jewish descent in 1941. He earned his B.A. in Political Science from the University of Chicago (UC) in 1964. While at UC he joined the Young Peoples Socialist League (youth wing of the Socialist Party USA) as well as the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Peace Union. He also worked briefly (as an organizer) for the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which, like all the CIO unions, had a number of influential Communists among its ranks.

In 1963, Sanders lived and worked for a number of months in an Israeli kibbutz known as Kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakim (KSH), which was co-founded by Aharon Cohen. Cohen was an Arabist who was a harsh critic of Israeli policy. He was arrested for spying for the Soviet Union in the 1950s. The founders of KSH referred to Joseph Stalin as the “Sun of the Nations”. A red flag was flown at outdoor events held at the kibbutz. I assume Bernie felt comfortable with that.

Sanders stayed at KSH as a guest of the Zionist-Marxist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair (HH), which pledged its allegiance to the Soviet Union. Some left-wing groups described HH as Leninist and even Stalinist.

So we see there is a bit of pink there in Bernie’s background. The “progressive” part of the socialist label I suppose.

Sanders on Government

In 1971 Sanders joined the anti-war Liberty Union Party (LUP), on whose ticket he made unsuccessful runs for the U.S. Senate in 1972 and 1974, and for Governor of Vermont inSocialism 1976.

Sanders’s LUP platform called for the nationalization of all U.S. banks, public ownership of all utilities, and the establishment of a worker-controlled federal government.

According to the Guardian, a press release from his 1974 campaign stated that as a means of addressing the problem of rising energy prices, Sanders advocated “the public takeover of all privately owned electric companies in Vermont.”

Obviously, big brother government is something Bernie is comfortable with as well.

Sanders- Nicaragua and Cuba

While Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1985 Sanders traveled to Managua, Nicaragua to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the rise to power of Daniel Ortega and his Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government.

In a letter which he addressed to the people of Nicaragua, Sanders denounced the anti-Communist activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the control of corporate interests. Assuring the Nicaraguans that Americans were “fair minded people” who had more to offer “than the bombs and economic sabotage” promoted by Reagan. He declared:

“In the long run, I am certain that you will win, and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.”

Sanders’s trip to Nicaragua was not his only foray to a Communist country. He also visited Fidel Castro’s Cuba in the 1980s to have a friendly meeting with the mayor of Havana.

The clip below is from a 1985 interview after his return from Cuba fawning over Fidel. Of course, he fails to mention that the reason for the uprising never coming in Cuba was due to the execution of the opposition by Fidel and Che Guevara and the continued oppressive police state imprisoning or executing any opposition.

The healthcare and education Bernie refers to in this brief clip are totally controlled by the Communist State as in Russia, North Korea and Red China. The people are not “given” anything. It is forced on them whether they want it or like it or not. In Communist States there is no choice of provider. It is the State or nothing. Winner (the State) take all.

Later on television interviews he lauded praise on Daniel Ortega calling him an “impressive guy”. Ortega, who received training in Cuba from Castro, is a Marxist-Leninist whose controversial program of nationalization included land reform and wealth distribution of course. He like Castro was never very cordial to the U.S. because of their support for his rival Somoza prior to the Nicaraguan revolution.

CPC Founder

Sanders founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) in 1991 along with other “progressives”. The caucus of course endorses wealth redistribution. The CPC was endorsed by the Communist Party USA who stated that the Progressive Caucus “provides an important lever that can be used to advance workers’ issues and move the debate to the left in every Congressional District in the country.”

Birds of a feather…….as the saying goes.

In a 2010 CPUSA report, Party member David Bell identified Progressive Caucus members as his organization’s “allies in Congress.”

When Sanders ran for the Senate in 2006, then Senator, Barack Obama, whom Sanders described as “one of the great leaders” of that legislative body, campaigned enthusiastically on Sanders’s behalf.

When a Washington Post reporter asked Sanders just prior to the Senatorial election: “Are you now or have you ever been a Socialist?” Sanders replied, “Yeah. I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic Socialist.”

I guess he’s made progress since then and earned his wings. He now labels himself a full-fledged “progressive” socialist. Remember what that term is a buzzword for.

Occupy Wall Street et al

In September 2011, Sanders was the first U.S. Senator to support the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement, lauding its activists for focusing a “spotlight” on the need for “real Wall Street reform.” Sanders would probably like to occupy Wall Street himself I would guess.

In 2013 Sanders introduced a bill to tax Wall Street speculators blaming the greed, recklessness and illegal activities on Wall Street for the economic and deficit crisis in the U.S.

Somehow Bernie forgot to mention the enormous impact that government deficit entitlement spending has had in creating our national debt that is currently sitting at $19.2 Trillion or over $159,000 per man, woman and child. Our two largest expenses are Social Security and Medicare making up nearly 50% of the deficit and going up steadily as boomers retire.

That, of course, is all legal and therefore acceptable and excluded from consideration. In fact, Sanders wants to increase spending in both areas.

Sanders is a strong supporter of the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of environmentalists and big labor that wants the federal government to take over America’s energy industry. Of course, the AFL-CIO strongly supports him along with the Democratic Socialists of America.

For more on Sanders background with links to all of the aforementioned information and much more background information click here.

All in all, I think Mr. Sanders quite adequately meets the standards David Horowitz laid out in his Black Book of the American Left- Vol. II- Progressives. Don’t you?

Next, I’d like to take a look at the reality of the socialist concept and some of Bernie’s proposals. Meanwhile- Starting to get a feel of the Bern are we?

Go on to Part Two of the Bernie Sanders Deception.

Yellen Answers Question on Fed’s Credibility at March FOMC Press Conference

Yellen Answers Question on Fed’s Credibility at March FOMC Press Conference

At the FOMC press conference on March 17th, Steve Liesman (not a bad name for a member of the mainstream media btw) of CNBC asked Federal Reserve Chair and Head of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee):

Does the Fed have a credibility problem in the sense that says it will do one thing under certain conditions but doesn’t end up doing it and then frankly if the current conditions are not sufficient for the Fed to raise rates what would those conditions ever look like?

So Yellen then begins to answer, “Well, let me start, let me start with the question of the Fed’s credibility……..” Now, pay close attention to the answer here. This will clarify any question you ever had, or ever will have, about the Fed’s credibility. I guarantee it……(call outs are added to the video to enhance your comprehension of the answer)

So, are you clear now on the question of the Fed’s credibility? Unfortunately, shovels were not provided to the media present at the Q and A session. They certainly could have used them.

The Fed’s Best PR Tool

When questions that enter dangerous waters are posed to the Federal Reserve Chairman they invariably resort to their best and only tool- obfuscation! Yellen apparently is a master of the technique. Perhaps that above all is why she was chosen to replace Bernanke.

For an honest history of how the Fed was constructed and for what purpose (beyond the obfuscation) read, “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve” by G. Edward Griffin. Janet will never put one over on you again. Read the book and you will clearly see why misdirection and indirectness are a necessary part of the Federal Reserve public face arsenal.

Without it, they would be in big trouble from a currently deceived public. Then again, with the high level of distraction to entertainment these days…….unfortunately and tragically…….perhaps not. What ever happened to the spirit of ’76?

Marco Rubio: Not a Conservative and Not Constitutional Either. What’s to Like?

Marco Rubio: Not a Conservative and Not Constitutional Either. What’s to Like?

Marco Rubio, poses himself as fiscally responsible conservative, but his political behavior and speech betrays who he really is. He is not what he claims as you will see.

On International Treaties

Since 2013 Rubio has sat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. This committee is generally responsible for funding foreign aid programs. In 2009, during his Senate campaign, Rubio pledged to stand up to Washington’s reckless spending. By 2012, after his election, his tune changed.

At a speech at the Brookings Institute he said,

Foreign Aid is a very cost effective way, not only to export our values and our example, but to advance our security and our economic interests. And I disagree with voices in my own party who argue that we should not engage at all. Who warn that we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

So before the election- conservative language for the voters. Let’s stop Washington spending.

After the election, he promotes the neo-con intent on spending public money promoting the interests of the special interest groups who feed off of the military-industrial complex with the endless “war on terror”. Basically ignoring the Constitution and the words of John Quincy Adams and disregarding his campaign pledge.

Rubio voted no on legislation to stop the aid to Egypt and apply it to infrastructure and roads here in 2013. Obviously, his pledge has taken the back burner to more foreign aid spending.

On Trade

Rubio supported the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA- AKA Fast Track) which essentially gave Obama the authority to by-pass Congress and fast track trade legislation. In short, he limited Congress and promoted more Presidential power.

Rubio supported the U.S.-Korea trade agreement which is similar to NAFTA. If history repeats itself as it has with each of the free trade agreements, it will lead to more trade and more jobs lost.

On Big Government

Rubio voted against the Defense Authorization amendment which would have prohibited the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens. This violates Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which states that the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended except during rebellion or invasion. In other words, the government cannot hold citizens indefinitely without showing just cause.

Apparently, Rubio either thinks we are being invaded or a rebellion is taking place or simply takes the side of the State when it comes to individual rights, not a truly conservative position.

On the Right to Privacy

In 2011, Rubio voted in favor of the Patriot Act and its roving wire taps.

In 2013, Rubio defended the NASA spying saying,

Programs like this have great utility. And later on CNN he stated, Everyone spies on everybody. I mean, that’s just a fact.

Where in the Constitution does the government get its power to spy on the public? I thought the 4th amendment read:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sounds clear to me. Guess Rubio reads between the lines a little.

CFR Director Cheney Likes Him Though

Rubio is supported by former VP and Council on Foreign Relations Director and known neo-con Dick Cheney however who states:

Marco is exactly the kind of strong conservative leader we need in Washington right now. Marco has proven we can trust him to stand strong in his principles regardless of poll numbers and protest…I am proud to stand with Marco Rubio and I urge all Florida Republicans, regardless of who you have been supporting, to unite behind him.

As deceptive neo-con and war monger as Cheney was, this is not exactly the kind of ringing endorsement someone posing himself as a conservative would want.

Rubio is yet another politician who ignores the Constitution after the election but uses it to garner support beforehand. As is typical of Presidential candidates, they say one thing during the campaign and do another after the election. When will the American public actually catch on to this game?

Perhaps their support of a non-politician like Trump indicates that they are more aware than the parties would have us believe. It may be too little too late or simply yet another deception. Time will tell. May actually make this election more interesting than the last half dozen give or take a couple of dozen in fact.

Reactions to the Oregon Standoff and the Shooting of LaVoy Finicum

Reactions to the Oregon Standoff and the Shooting of LaVoy Finicum
LaVoy Finicum2- Oregon

Video of LaVoy Finicum Explaining His Position on the Federal Land Intrusions on His Arizona Ranch. Watch from 10:15 to 20:38.

The Oregon standoff at the Malheur Reserve has ended on very sour notes.  Arizona rancher, LaVoy Finicum, was shot to death by FBI agents. Two eyewitnesses claim he was surrendering with his hands in the air when he was shot.

The FBI claims he was reaching towards his pocket. Critics point out that he may well just have been trying to balance himself in the slippery, deep snow or was grabbing his side involuntarily after having already been shot.

LaVoy Finicum, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp were on U.S. Highway 395 headed for the John Day Senior Center in John Day Oregon in Grant County about a 135 mile distance from the Malheur National Wildlife Preserve (approximately a 2 1/2 hour trip). They were scheduled to speak at the evening community center about the protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in adjoining Harney County at 6:00 p.m. They reached the roadblock at about 4:30 p.m.

Meanwhile, several hundred people had gathered at the John Day Senior Center, waiting in vain for “guest speakers” that would never arrive.

The occupiers were invited to the meeting by law enforcement.

As it turned out, it was a apparently a set up meant to isolate the group in a cell phone dead zone on a road that had been blocked off for 60 miles by law enforcement.

Silent Low-Res FBI Drone Video and Narration

If you take the time to watch the silent FBI drone video of the shooting (so you actually know what you are talking about if you form an opinion on this event), it appears that LaVoy was being hit in the left side before the fatal head shot. He was reaching down instinctively to the area of pain which any normal person would do.

After the shooting, rubber bullets found at the sanitized scene. The vehicle had been removed and relocated which according to Victoria Sharp testified was riddled with over 120 rounds.

I would suggest viewing the shooting video (separately) with the narration of what happened by the veterans running concurrently as the video is completely silent and poor resolution. The analysis of the video is from the viewpoint of trained combat veterans, including one who was a part of the State Department as an Army Liaison Officer of PsyOps etc.

Video Commentary Based on Expert Analysis

1. The agents at the first stop never cleared their vehicles. They maintained positions next to their vehicles and fired on Ryan Payne on the passenger side when he reached out with both hands empty to speak with them. Visible at 2:07 of the unedited video or 27:39 of the video markings (upper left corner of the video). At 29:32 an agent sets up in the snow to get a better shot at the passengers. He is quickly called back to the vehicle because they were still in pursuit mode and was needed to get back into the vehicle quickly.

Note: If it was a felony stop, they would have taken the tires out with fire, and forced the occupants out of the vehicle. Instead, they kept them in the vehicle with 4 weapons trained on the van occupants, not impeding the operation of the van in any way giving the driver no choice of exit but to press forward towards the ambush zone and crumple set up blockade.

2. At 34:47 of the video (or 9:14) the vehicles parked in the road arranged in “crumple zone” formation can be seen. Even if the vehicle was going 100 miles an hour it could not have gotten through the blockade because the two forward vehicles were arranged to take the bulk of the initial impact. Then, fold into the vehicle parked in the back.

There was a slope on the right so he had only one choice to go which was to the left. An agent then jumped in front of the vehicle and took stance and fired into the windshield. LaVoy instead of running over the agent to get around the blockade (which he could have done) swerved further into the snow to avoid the agent, stopping the van.

3. LaVoy exits the Van immediately after it stopped with his hands in the air (34:54 or 9:18 of the video). An agent emerges from the blockade and starts firing on LaVoy from the rear appearing to hit him in the side (35:00 or 9:28 on video).

There is no blood visible in the snow, so it is possible that shots were not from a lethal weapon (rubber bullets were found at the scene afterwards). LaVoy’s hands go to his side, likely as a response to the bullets hitting him in the left side.

Since the video was not clear and from a distance, there is no possible way to determine that he was attempting to draw a weapon. That is simply an assumption. The fact is evident however that he was being fired on from the rear and in a position that would have hit him on the left side of his body which is the location that his hands went to.

4. After LaVoy is turned, at 35:02 or 9:29, another agent emerges from the tree line and begins to fire on LaVoy from the rear. The weapon was strange looking but it drops LaVoy after the head shot. Still no blood in the snow, another oddity. LaVoy is motionless after the head shot.

5. The head shot agent moves to the left and begins to dismantle his weapon. By 35:14 or 10:02, he has no weapon in his hands.

6. Fire is then brought upon the vehicle from the tree line noted by flash fires and snow being kicked up. At 36:20 or 10:47 two bullet holes are notable in the windshield of the vehicle. One on the passenger side and one on the driver side.

7. At 38:55 snow is still being kicked up. LaVoy is motionless and mutiple lasers are trained on his head (6 or more) which continues until he leaves the video view.

8. At 14:08 of the YouTube, there is an sharp jerk in the video and 39:40 stays on the video for two seconds indicating an edit.

9. At 46:44 or 26:28, there is another sharp change in the daylight (darkening as it was twilight) when the agents are gathered around the body of LaVoy indicating another possible edit.

Eyewitness Audio of the Event

Shawna Cox’s eyewitness description of the event notes that when the van first stopped before they reached the “crumple” vehicle set-up road block, the first reaction to any of their actions was a shot fired. No warning, simply a shot fired. In short, the Feds fired upon the van without provocation.

She also noted that she believes LaVoy jumped out of the van to draw away fire from the van. Shawna also notes that laser light dots were all over every one of them. She said that hundreds of bullets were fired, even after LaVoy was down. You can see laser dots trained on Finicum’s head after he was felled. Shawna affirmed that LaVoy Finicum offered no threat or resistance during the event and was “killed in cold blood”.

When the bullets finally paused after Finicum was downed. They told the remaining passengers to send the men out first, then the woman. She guessed over twenty, well equipped shooters then came out from the woods. Obviously, they were not there by coincidence. After they asked the van passengers if anyone else was in the van and were told there were none, they then peppered the van with many more rounds.

LaVoy Finicum ShootingIf you watch the video, you can skip past the 1st nine minutes. The action described does not really begin until about that point since there is no audio. You can’t for example hear the first shots fired when the van stopped the first time.

In short, as noted by the radio interviewer set up person, one could liken this to a “canned hunt” except humans were the prey, not trophy animals.

Was LaVoy Finicum Armed?

According to Blaine Cooper, one of the occupants at the reserve, Finicum (who had been photographed wearing a holstered revolver) had left all of his weapons at the refuge before leaving for the meeting at John Day.

When they left to go over to the other county, all of them left their weapons behind. As far as Ammon wasn’t armed, LaVoy wasn’t armed, all of LaVoys weapons were at the refuge when he left.

This was also corroborated by Shawna Fox during a telephone interview.

Notes on the Video Analysts Observations

  • LaVoy could have run the blockade. He likely did not because he intentionally swerved to avoid hitting an agent.
  • LaVoy was possibly already hit and injured when he exited the van.
  • He exited the van unarmed.
  • He likely left the van, having several daughters of his own, to take fire away from the  female passengers.
  • The shooting was well-coordinated. The end intentional, possibly inevitable.
  • The video was edited at one point and dated a day after the shooting.
  • The fatal shooter removed something from his weapon after the shooting. Then, discarded the rest of the weapon.
  • Both shooters were FBI agents, not Oregon police.

What About Other Video’s or Audio?

All the FBI showed as evidence was a grainy, long distance, overhead shot from a drone. Why a drone view from a distance? This raises the question of other videos. In an operation with this level of public awareness, were there no other video cameras or audio? No dash cams or body cams/mics on the troopers or FBI agents? Highly unlikely if not impossible.

We know that Shawna Cox made a video from the van itself on her smart phone. What happened to Shawna Cox’s (one of two female passengers in Finicum’s pickup truck) video she made of the event on her smart phone? It was confiscated when she was arrested. Obviously, it would be useful in getting a first-hand look at the events that transpired.

There are other questions but these are a few that could stand some answers. After all, if it were the case that an unarmed man surrendering was shot, shouldn’t there be some prosecution of the perpetrator? Justice would demand so.

FBI Claims Transparency

Why is it that government is able do things that would get a normal citizen arrested without a thorough investigation or punishment levied? The media settles for a grainy overhead shot from such a distance that tactically omits the audio. No real substantial evidence is produced to counter eyewitness accounts. What about the truck itself? Like Kennedy’s shooting, it was taken away and has not been used in the examination of evidence.

As the New American pointed out:

In releasing the initial aerial video, Agent Bretzing said “we want to do what we can to lay out an honest and unfiltered view of what happened and how it happened.” He also said that in spite of the graphic details included in the video, “we feel that it is necessary to show the whole thing unedited in the interest of transparency.”

Is a drone shot video with NO audio really the best they can come up with in this age of technology? What happened to Shawna Cox’s smart phone video and other possible videos or audios of the shootings? Surely if a citizen was doing the shooting, they would exhaust all avenues of evidence to uncover the facts of the event. Yet the mainstream media, as they have done with other past events, simply accepts the government story without question based on partial evidence at best- a doctored drone shot with no audio.

Obama’s Response- 1.8 Million More Acres Grabbed

It may seem that the assumed takeover of a Federal Reserve could only end in this way. However, as noted by one of the observers in the video who had visited the site and spoke with LaVoy a few days before he was shot, it was not the takeover described by the media.

Federal Land Ownership Map

Federally Owned Land Marked in Red. Note Where It Is Concentrated.

The public could still visit this sanctuary. The ranchers were not immediately obvious and did not interfere with visitation. The ranchers were using this location intentionally as a means of bringing national attention to a growing problem, the Federal takeover through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of private property.

As pointed out in my previous post on the issue, the Federal government already owns over 28% of the public land. If you factor in State ownership it is over a third now. They have been exceeded the public parks and are continually grabbing more control over more land.

Obama, the Peace President, offered his take on the issue through his actions, not a statement. On February 12 of this year, about three weeks after the shooting. Obama signed an executive order which locked up 1.8 million acres of California land. This is yet another audacious executive action and unconstitutional usurpation of citizen freedoms.

Turns out that Obama has isolated more public land than any previous President, 2.85 million acres. He has used the Antiquities Act of 1906 twenty-two times. Exceeded in number only by FDR but not in area.

The latest order creates three new illegally generated monuments. One is the Mojave Trails National Monument (1.6 million acres). Another is the Sand to Snow National Monument (154,000 acres). The third is the Castle Mountains National Monument (21,000 acres).

Clinton Foundation Profited Millions from Uranium Deal in Wyoming?

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation were implicated in profits of millions from a deal involving the uranium bearing land in Wyoming. As noted by the New York Times, the deal involved a company called Uranium One which eventually through 3 separate deals between 2009 and 2013 gave control of the land over to a Russian company- Rosatom. The New York Times reported:

The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Catch that? The sale was implicated in “donations” to the Clinton Foundation of millions. It ended up giving control of 1/5th of all uranium production capacity to the Russians! This rabbit hole goes deeper and deeper as you begin to see where the government is aiming its land grabs. It ain’t good for the American public. As noted, Hillary was Secretary of State at the time and was involved as one of the agencies signing off on the deal. Nothing like a little conflict of interest huh?

Climate Resiliency? A New Buzzword

Additionally, according to the Obama executive order, these new monuments will support “climate resiliency in the region”. Translated this means the newly “protected” areas will be off limits mining, mineral exploration, oil and gas drilling, grazing, timber harvest or even recreational uses such as camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding and off-hand vehicle usage. As the title of the article on this new order reads: Monumental Audacity. And so it is. Read a full article on this new land grab and its implications here.

So, when will the Federal land grabbing stop by the BLM? When all of us own no private property perhaps? That may be the plan. See Agenda 21 for more details.

Obviously, as Obama’s latest land grab demonstrates, the Federal government isn’t in the process of ratcheting any of their efforts down to take more public land under their control. Almost two million more acres is their response.

So, the Federal Leviathan strengthens its grip. The courage of LaVoy Finicum should not go unnoticed.

Sanders the Socialist- Feel the Burn

Bernie Sanders SS Ad

Such a Nice Smile Too!

Don’t you just love the way socialists are so quick to spend other people’s money. Bernie sure is ready willing and able to, as long as its someone else’s. Of course, he has a sound byte solution for our Socialist Security system- expand it!

Someone posted a Bernie ad on Facebook the other day. Smiling Bernie’s proposition sounds like such a simple and effective solution doesn’t it? Lift the cap and expand it. But let’s go beyond the simplicity of yet another campaign promise and probe a bit deeper.

First Up, Social Security Solvency

“We should be expanding Social Security.” Words Bernie knows the public wants to hear. Easy to say, but somehow there are some facts left out of that easy solution. There is no mention of the fact that we are now $19.1 Trillion in debt or nearly $59,000 per man, woman and child. We need to be focused on ways to reduce that debt, not ways to increase it. Otherwise, the economy will simply collapse into a hyper inflationary destruction of the currency. That will even wipe the smile off Bernie’s face.

Additionally, the Social Security Trustees have already told us that Social Security is running out of money. Baby boomers are retiring in droves now which will continue to grow. This is going to put additional financial strain on both Social Security and Medicare which make up 48% of our national budget already.

Of course, these realities are never mentioned by those courting the vote during campaigns. Facts tend to get in the way of campaign promises.

This excerpt is from the Social Security Trustees Report Summary of 2015 itself:

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period.

The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $76 billion between 2015 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

Eliminating the Cap on Social Security

So that now we have a little background on the present realities of Social Security, what about eliminating the cap entirely as Sanders suggests? Can that be the easy solution that Bernie infers that it is?

In an article entitled Raising the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap: Solving Nothing, Harming Much By Rachel Greszler of the Heritage Foundation, she acknowledges first of all that Social Security (nearly 24% of our Federal budget alone) is insolvent and demands immediate reform. Ok, at least she acknowledges the realities of the program.

She also notes that the present cap of $117,000 covers 83% of all wages and 94% of all workers. Keep in mind that while the cap does not take any income from those above it, it also provides no benefit to those above it either. In other words, they provide their own retirement which is what they were expected to do when the cap was established by the socialist oriented Roosevelt Congress.

Additionally, our cap is significantly larger than the tax cap of all other industrialized nations at 2.5 times the average wage compared to 2 times in Germany, 1.5 in Japan and 1.2 in the U.K. with Canada equal to the average wage.

Who Really Gets Hit with a Cap Increase?Social Security Marginal Rate Rises - No Cap

Raise the cap to cover even 90% of earnings and a single person with $125,000 in earnings would see a combined federal income and payroll tax rate jump from 30.9% to 43.3%. Married couples with 2 children would rise from 36.8% to 49.2% or in more simple terms, they would pay $2,800 more in taxes.

Earn even more and it gets even worse. The marginal tax rate for a married couple with 2 children earning over $400,000 in earnings would rise from 44.2% to 56.6% with a tax liability increase of as much as $35,500!

Essentially, what Bernie’s solution amounts to is nothing more than a penalty for economic success and an incentive to strive for mediocrity which is one of the ways socialist schemes collapse productivity.

You see, there is a very basic reality that most of us fall prey to. Human beings want to do the least amount of work for the greatest amount of benefit. Make it easy for them not to work and still survive at a reasonable level and guess what? They will stop being productive citizens. Why work for something when you can get close to the same thing for nothing? Do some studies of socialist economies and you will find that is what is happening.

More Government Spending

Multiple government studies also show that increased Social Security surpluses have not helped the system but rather have contributed to more government spending. Historically in all governments, the surplus from Social Security have served as a way of financing other forms of government spending. Actually, the the tune of over $1 Trillion in our nation since the inception of Social Security.

A paper on this issue in 2004 suggested that when the crisis occurs in 2017 “when payroll tax receipts are insufficient to finance benefits”. Actually, the crisis started in 2010 suggesting that we may have less time than we think to resolve this issue since government spending has increased quite markedly under Obama.

What If…..

Suppose we eliminated the cap entirely as Sanders suggests? Would that resolve the issue? According to the SS Administration:

Even if the tax cap were eliminated completely and no new benefits were credited to those who pay higher taxes (fundamentally altering the contributory nature of Social Security), this massive tax increase would still fall $2 trillion short of eliminating Social Security’s estimated 75-year actuarial deficit.

But as the Heritage paper points out, these figures represent static revenue projections. The reality is that employers will reduce employees wages which will reduce the revenue projections and likely speed up the deficit building date to a much earlier one than the static projections.

Now, the numbers get a little too much to place here (See the paper for details and references.) but essentially changing the cap would cause a reduction in the work force that would cause a loss in revenue from reduced employee wages and employees choosing to work less. A 90% cap increase would end up with a net gain of only 52 cents per dollar since there would be a 48% reduction due to the changed employer-employee work scenario.

Lower Wages Too?

Additionally, there is something called the direct-incidence effect which is a standard economic assumption that employees bear the full burden of employer-paid taxes through lower wages.Social Security - Taxes to fall (Probably most noticeable in the stagnant mean income for decades now as health insurance rates have risen. In fact, employees are even paying out of earnings now to offset the increased health insurance premiums when they used to be included without payroll cost as an expectation of employee benefit.)

So, when employers are faced with a 6.2% increase on taxes in wages, employee income is reduced by that amount. The lower wages then not only reduce the Social Security tax revenue, but also directly impact tax revenues for Medicare (Another 24% of the Federal budget). In fact, they impact all federal, state and local income taxes as well. A snowball rolling down hill and gaining momentum impacting more and more of our economy as all levels of governments lose tax derived income.

Conclusion

While it sounds good on the campaign trail, reality indicates that Bernie’s cap elimination and expansion is not as simple a solution as it sounds.

Bernie makes it sound so inviting and so simple. Instead, it would reduce incomes, slash other programs tax revenues like Medicare and stunt our economic growth at a time when it really needs to be stimulated.

In short, raising the cap is nothing more than another campaign promise that will not be kept. Or if kept will make things worse not better!

The public who gets suckered in by its simplistic solution will end up, as usual, holding an empty bag.

Hey, like the man’s supporters say- Feel the Burn! (But good!)

 

Another Obama Lie About the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Revealed

When confronted, before it was approved, Obama told us that the ACA (aka Obamacare) was not a tax! In fact in an interview with George Stephanopoulos in September 2009, when he remarked “But your critics say it is a tax increase.” Obama responded with, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

On June 28, 2012, when the Supreme Court, justified the ACA as Constitutional in a 5-4 decision, it justified it as a tax.

So what can we conclude about what Obama said in 2009? He flat out lied.

Returning Once Again to 2009

Obama- You Lie2

Lied? Who Me? Naaaaaaah!

On September 9, 2009, Joe Wilson, Rep. House Representative, shouted at President Barack Obama while Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to outline his proposal for reforming health care.

During his address, Obama said:

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false- the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

In a breach of decorum, Wilson pointed at Obama and shouted, “You lie!” twice. Wilson attracted national and international attention for the incident. He said afterwards that his outburst reflected his view that the bill would provide government-subsidized benefits to illegal immigrants.

Nancy was shocked. Obama wasn’t. Wilson was forced to issue a public apology.

Returning to the Present- Another Obamacare Lie

Why wasn’t Obama shocked? Perhaps that’s because Wilson wasn’t the one lying. He was right. Obama lied. A new report out of the U.S. Senate produced by the Republicans on the Senate Home Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, looked at the ACA tax credits which are meant to offset the cost of insurance premiums.

The review discovered that credits went to 500,000 people who are illegal immigrants or whose legal status was unclear due to insufficient records. That totals up to $750 million in tax credits that went to individuals “who were later determined to be ineligible because they failed to verify their citizenship, status as a national, or legal presence.”

Fox News reported:

The Senate report, based on a review launched by committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., derisively describes this approach as “pay and chase.” In other words, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pays credits and subsidies to the insurance companies on behalf of the applicants – and the feds then “chase” after any overpayments to ineligible people once they are discovered.

“This ‘pay and chase’ model has potentially cost taxpayers approximately $750 million,” the report says. The 500,000 individuals in question have been removed from coverage, according to the findings, as the government seeks to get the money back.

The Senate report notes that it is the role of the IRS to get the money back, but wrote that its subsequent plan to do so is “ineffective and insufficient”.This was after IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen assured Congress in July that the IRS was “committed to identifying and efficiently addressing” improper payments.

Looks like he was lying too. Maybe, it’s simply a contagious morality disease that is inadvertently being passed around the Obama administration.

More evidence that your elected representatives simply do not care about the public. Obamacare was never about the public getting better health care.

What Obamacare is Really About

It was about our political system wresting more control of our lives by a complete takeover of our major health care providers.

It was about rewarding Big Pharma and insurance companies with a guaranteed stream, under penalty of law, customers. The penalty for not having health insurance increases this year to $695 or 2.5% of taxable income, whichever is higher, for individuals. More people are being forced into this healthcare system under the penalty of law.

One of the related articles below is about the Aetna CEO saying it’s too early to give up on the Obamacare marketplace. Aetna said Monday that it has been struggling with customers who sign up for coverage outside the ACA’s annual enrollment window and then use a lot of medical care, the Associated Press reported. This dumps claims on the insurer without providing enough premium revenue to counter those costs, the AP article noted. This was entirely predictable BTW.

Anyone who isn’t getting this by now is simply taking the lies of Obama and the rest of our elected representatives and internalizing them.

In other words, you are lying to yourself. Wake up and stop it please. Awareness of deception is the first step in seeing through it.

Model Letter to Congressman Opposing the TPP

The Trans Pacific Partnership is a means of transferring chunks of American governance over to the United Nations (UN) under the cover of a so-called “free trade agreement” If you have read the previous post on this deceptive trade agreement, major portions of important aspects of American sovereignty are transferred to the UN via this agreement.

If you have educated yourself about this treaty and are concerned about its provisions, below is a modelDeceptions cut and paste letter that you can quickly email as is or modify to your liking and send it off to your specific elected representatives. We can stay silent and do nothing or get active in this election year when elected representatives are more prone to respond, especially if they are up for re-election as in the entire House of Representatives.

To make it easy to contact your Congressional Representatives simply, follow the action steps and links below and get it done in only a few minutes.

Action Made Easy

As mentioned in the aforementioned post on the Trans Pacific Partnership, one action step you can take now is to write your Congressman. Below is a model letter that you can cut and paste as is or modify to your own liking which can be emailed to your Congressman at this link.

This is a quick action step that you can take to voice your opposition to this Constitution and sovereign eroding legislation that transfers chunks of our domestic governance to an international body which includes anti-U.S nations including Communist based ones.

For more on the TPP itself read this post: Undermining Our Constitution- The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and this article: 10 Reasons Why You Should Oppose the TPP and TTIP.

Cut and Paste Model Letter for the Link Above

In the Opening comments (optional) box, cut and paste this opening in:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was signed on February 4th in New Zealand by officials from 12 governments. The 12 member nation TPP is passed off as a “trade agreement” that slashes tariffs but it also harmonizes economic policies by promoting economic integration as noted in its Preamble with Communist/Socialist economies like Vietnam and Chile. However, it actually transfers our Constitutional sovereignty over trade as defined in Article 1, Section 8 to the WTO, an agency of the UN. (Full text of the agreement may be found here: http://bit.ly/1PaFdmA)

Remove the text in the Body box and cut and paste this text in:

The first sentence in Chapter 1 reads: “The Parties, consistent with Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS, hereby establish a free trade area in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.”

GATT is part of the WTO agreement which is under the authority of the United Nations and the UN Charter. This is a direct erosion and transfer of our Constitutional sovereignty.

Further along in the TPP Preamble it states that another purpose of the agreement is to:

“Establish a predictable legal and commercial framework for trade and investment through mutually advantageous rules;”

Why would a trade agreement have any bearing on the legal structure of any participating nation through a legal framework for trade and investment through mutually advantageous rules?

The rules place the U.S. as a signing nation under the WTO and the UN. This amounts to nothing more than a globalist scheme designed to undermine U.S. Constitutional sovereignty hidden behind the label of a trade agreement. A so-called trade agreement that is 30 chapters long because of all of the other areas this “trade agreement” addresses.

Additionally, the TPP Preamble states that it will:

“set legislative and regulatory priorities, safeguard public welfare, and protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment, the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources, the integrity and stability of the financial system and public morals.”

Promote welfare objectives and public health, public morals, the environment and the stability of the financial system? This is little more than the framework of governance under the authority of the WTO and subject to the United Nations Charter NOT the U.S. Constitution.

Globalist corporations which already have representatives working with the TPP/TTIP are Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Dow Chemical, Unilever, Chevron, Caterpillar, UPS, Walmart, Chase, Citi — and a bevy of Big Business coalitions: Global Business Dialogue, Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Transatlantic Policy Network, Atlantic Council, and more.

These are “crony capitalists,” not free enterprise capitalists who are using the power of government rather than innovation, risk, and excellence to prosper.

Cut and Paste this text in the Closing comments (optional) box:

This agreement clearly disables any sovereignty we have over our trade in addition to the aforementioned erosions of U.S. national sovereignty. It also gives advantages to globalist corporations like the aforementioned and promotes “crony capitalism”.

As a member of Congress who has taken an oath of office to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, I strongly urge you to vote Nay on the TPP to preserve U.S. sovereignty rather than trade it over to the UN through the WTO under GATT.

After you cut and paste in the text:

Put your signature in the signature box. Enter your email and zip code and click “continue”.

Enter your information and click the Send Message box. The message will automatically be sent to your specific representatives.

Any text is fully editable before sending. Shorten it or whatever you feel like. If used as is, the process should take no more than 5 minutes.

If you would like a voice, this is one quick way to make it known. Better to do something constructive rather than just sit there and let the train run you over, don’t you think?