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

Undermining Our Constitution- The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)

We hear a variety of opinions about this thingy called the Trans Pacific Partnership. Let me save you some time, in the following paragraphs, I will tell any American concerned with their freedom, everything you really need to know about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Follow along and see.

What is the TPP?

The Trans Pacific Partnership is a “trade agreement” between 12 countries. (US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru) UN LogoOstensibly, it’s main purpose is to deepen economic ties between these nations by slashing tariffs and encouraging more trade. In all, approximately 18,000 tariffs will be slashed.

It is also supposed to harmonize economic policies and regulations. According to the BBC, the agreement could also “create a new single market something like that of the EU”.

Now that the full text of the agreement is available we can read it online.

Inside This Agreement

According to the TTP’s Preamble, the parties to the agreement resolve to:

Establish a comprehensive regional agreement that promotes economic integration to liberalise trade and investment, bring economic growth and social benefits, create new opportunities for workers and businesses, contribute to raising living standards, benefit consumers, reduce poverty and promote sustainable growth

The First Red Flag- Economic Integration

The TPP claims that it promotes economic integration? How does trade alone promote economic integration? This phrase points to something important about the trade agreement itself.

Economic integration means bringing the economies together in terms of their models so that they are no longer independent economies but rather singular economic entities. One indistinguishable from the other.

Do we Americans want our economy integrated with that of Communist oriented nations like Vietnam and Chile or a tiny nation like Brunei, a largely Muslim nation of about 420,000 total population which began to introduce sharia law in 2014? I know that the globalist New World Order elites are pushing for that, but this means global tyranny not American freedom.

Malaysia is another nation facing severe economic strain. Do we wish to integrate with the economy of a nation suffering from severe economic strain? After all, economic integration tends to equalize doesn’t it? Meaning that we will get pulled down as they get raised up. How helpful is this to our nation and its citizens?

Bear in mind that phrase “sustainable growth” is a direct buzzword of the UN globalist crowd and it’s Agenda 21 plan to control the land globally which is now called The 2030 Agenda.

More Red Flags

Red FlagsFurther along in the TPP Preamble is suggested that another purpose of the agreement is to:

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

Legal framework for trade and investment through mutually advantageous rules? Why should a trade agreement have any bearing on the legal structure of any participating nation? Is that not the domain of each nation rather than that of an agreement? Is there perhaps something else going on here?

Additionally,

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.

A trade agreement having impact on public welfare objectives like public health, safety, the environment, natural resources, public morals and the integrity and stability of the financial system? Really? In a “trade agreement”?

Gee, wonder if that is why it is 30 chapters long?

Does a trade agreement need to have an impact on public health? Is that not a function of local governments at best? The environment? What does a trade agreement have to do with the environment?

Public morals? Really in a trade agreement. This is a responsibility of the individual in the first and secondarily the legal system that one’s government endorses. Certainly, it should have nothing to do with a trade agreement.

The integrity and stability of the financial system? Really now, a trade agreement being intertwined with the integrity or stability of the financial system. Again, why would we expect a simple trade agreement to have anything to do with the integrity and stability of the financial system?

But Wait, There’s More…

Affirm that state-owned enterprises can play a legitimate role in the diverse economies of the Parties, while recognizing that the provision of unfair advantages to state-owned enterprises undermines fair and open trade and investment, and resolve to establish rules for state-owned enterprises that promote a level playing field with privately owned businesses, transparency and sound business practices;

This Preamble statement tells us two things:

1. The economies we are doing business with in this agreement are not free market economies. Free market economies do not foster “state owned enterprises”. Communist or Socialist economies upon which Communism is framed do. Hence, we are quite obviously doing business with Communist and/or Socialist nations in this agreement. Why should we be concerned with doing business with Communist states and furthering their aims? Such as Red China for example, where the majority of our domestic manufacturing has been transferred to at the expensive of our citizens ability to earn a good living. Trading good pay for our citizens for the slave labor of Red China.

2. This is more than a simple trade agreement. This is a means of transferring the authority for governance to another entity. However, the TPP does not just stop here, it also notes that it is designed to help “protect and enforce labor rights, improve working conditions and living standards

Additionally,

protect high levels of environmental protection, including through effective enforcement of environmental laws.

And

Contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and provide a catalyst to broader regional and international cooperation;

Like through a world government perhaps?

Obviously, this is far more than a trade agreement that is being posed as nothing more than a trade agreement designed to help all of us to prosperity. To paraphrase, Patrick Henry. I smell a RatPic rat!

So What is This Rat?

Well, if you look inside the very first Chapter- Initial Provisions and General Definitions, you will discover who that rat exactly is.

The first full sentence of this first chapter states:

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 1994 is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 which is a part of the World Trade Agreement (WTO) which is under the authority of the United Nations (UN).

An article that ends with: “Each contracting party shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure observance of the provisions of this Agreement by the regional and local governments and authorities within its territories.”

In other words, the TPP is a mechanism to transfer our national sovereignty to the UN through the WTO.

And there is your rat! The TPP is simply a means of stitching the U.S. into the structure of their planned world government or New World Order as they like to put it.

That is all you really need to know about the TPP. (If you are an American who is concerned about their freedom that is.)

Does one really have to take the time to go inside and examine all of its 30 chapters of provisions? Not unless you like wasting your time. You can, of course, but why bother. The end of it all is to place our nation into the world government structure under the authority the UN.

Now, I ask you. How effective is our Constitution if it allows agreements like this to be intiated?

Agreements which clearly disable any sovereignty we have over our trade. Wasn’t a combined trading power in the States one of the primary motives for a Convention to discuss the Articles of Convention in the first place? That doesn’t seem to be working out as planned. Another way our Constitution has been undermined and is failing us.

An Action Step You Can (and likely should) Take Right Now

Obama just signed the TPP. He is now calling on the GOP controlled Congress to hurry up and approve this direct attack on the remaining vestiges of American Constitutional sovereignty. The trade representative, Michael Froman (a member of the globalist Rockefeller as Honorary Chairman Council on Foreign Relations of course) was confident that the Republican’s would comply with the White House demand in the month’s ahead which tells you how many parties really exist.

One action step one can take is to write directly to your Congressional Representatives on this issue immediately. Our representatives are ultimately voted into office (at least that’s what they tell us publicly).

If enough voters contact them on an issue, it provides leverage that can sway an issue simply because it threatens your representative’s job security. (Not because it helps the citizenry. That’s a secondary motivation. Once in the pressing issue becomes re-election. Giving up this cash cow is not a preference in most cases for these people.)

This is an election year for all of the House and a third of the Senate. Leverage for re-election is high now. Thus, your contact now, as a voter, on this critical issue can have more impact simply based on re-election timing.

This link will take you to a page whereby you can construct a letter to your Senators and House Representative. You can adjust it as you see fit and email a copy immediately or print it out and mail it. You can also use this post and the information provided on the link above and call your representatives or set up a face to face meeting if you feel more comfortable with these more powerful methods.

At any rate, making your voice heard is pretty important if you have accepted the Constitution as your authority.

One last thing, all of those other so-called “free trade agreements” that have already been completed have already done the same thing, transferred our trading authority under Article 1, Section 8 on the powers of Congress which is “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”.

Now, you have been made aware of this. What will you choose to do about it? If it is action, better get to it. Calls are best. Letters and emails next. Otherwise, this will be nothing more than a done deal which will not be good for this nation’s future unless you feel you might enjoy being under the authority of the UN through the UN Charter.

P.S.- If you want to know why our Constitution is failing, you have just seen a direct example of one of the ways this is being done in front of our eyes- in this present time! If you believe in it, you better do something to preserve it. Otherwise, say bye bye to more of our nation’s independence.

If the Constitution Was the Solution, Why Hasn’t It Worked?- Part Seven

If we are truly honest with ourselves, it is difficult not to recognize that our society is in moral decline.

Television shows have become increasingly crude and deal with topics that sometimes make you cringe if you are in the presence of mixed company or watching with your children. I can cite specific examples as I was forced to watch mid-afternoon shows when I was reassigned to a satellite location for 9 months. The TV was on, loudly, all during lunch. The guests on Steve Harvey spoke openly at times about matters that should be at best private and even then, questionable as a topic.

Consequently, it is almost in desperation it seems that moral Christian people grasp at straws to convince themselves and others that our Constitutional framers (or Founders as is often commonly and incorrectly used) were Christians or that our Constitution was founded on Christian principles.

Clearly they were not. Clearly, as we shall see, neither was the Constitution itself.

The Franklin Prayer

Ben Franklin_Appeal for PrayerOne commonly cited event that is often referred to is the Franklin prayer speech. Did it happen? According to Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, the answer is that “Yes, it did.” on June 28, 1787.

According to the notes, when the delegates were at an impasse in the proceedings, Franklin rose to make a motion that the proceedings begin with a prayer. After acknowledging the lack of progress, Franklin then offered:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth–that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.”

I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move–that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service—

Sounds pretty Christian doesn’t it? (Coming from Franklin however based on his background as a lifetime Mason and profession to Deism it is about as genuine as Obama offering a prayer before his State of the Union Address. See the fifth post in this series for more details on Franklin’s background.)

So What Happened Next?

According to the notes:

From Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention
Mr. Sharman seconded the motion.

Mr. Hamilton & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissentions within the convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. Sherman & others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission–that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within. would at least be as likely to do good as ill.

Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.

Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye. measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence,–& thenceforward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning. Dr. Franklin. 2ded. this motion. After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. The adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.

So then, what happened? Well, in actuality………nothing!

A few delegates supported the motion. Hamilton said that it might bring about unfavorable or censorious comments leading to public questions. Roger Sherman of Connecticut (a regular attendee who later helped draft the New Jersey plan which broke the deadlock that Franklin was suggesting prayer for with The Great Compromise) also suggested it would bring on criticism and public attention that would “likely to good as ill.”

Hugh Williamson of North Carolina (another active member who served on 5 committees) suggested “The Convention had no funds.”

Edmund Randolph of Virginia (who introduced the Virginia Plan and later became Attorney General and later Secretary of State under Washington) suggested that a sermon be preached at the request of the Convention at the July 4th celebration and thereafter prayers be used every morning thereafter.

The next entry in the notes? “After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. The adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.”

A further note clearly states:

“The Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary.”

That is from Madison’s notes and words, not mine!

The issue was never brought up again. Nor was a sermon preached on the 4th of July celebration for that matter. So much for the Christian character of the delegates.

So let’s please dispense with this myth that is over played as a demonstration of the Christian impulses of our framers. When it arose there was, for all intents and purposes, no support for the motion.

As the notes clearly state: The Convention…thought Prayers unnecessary.

Well….It Was Adopted Later Wasn’t It?

While it is true that Congress later adopted prayer to open every session. This custom did not get adopted without detractors. One such detractor was the so-called “Father of the Constitution”, James Madison.

Madison’s Memoranda was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, one of Madison’s biographers. Scholars date these observations between 1817 and 1832. They offer insight into Madison’s genuine opinions on key topics and persons.

This is what Madison had to say about the appointment of Chaplin’s to Congress:

From Madison's Memoranda Discovered in 1946
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov.

Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality!”

It is quite obvious that Madison was opposed to the practice of Chaplin’s in Congress as well as prayer to open sessions. While he protested on the grounds of spending public money, he also noted that it shut the door to the “other sects” like those of the Quakers and Catholics, arguing that they should be included as well. Plurality and separation of church and state were obvious motives. This certainly reflects no act of a devoted Christian. Additionally, note his reference at the end of this commentary: “Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality!”

Even in those times Madison notes, the practice was already degenerating into a mere formality with scant attendance. Madison goes on further about the inclusion of religious (Christian actually) practices in the government. He was obviously defending his model of the secular state. Certainly, not the writings of a dedicated Christian.

And keep in mind that these are the words of the man attributed as “The Father of the Constitution”. If this man is the Father, what does this say about the children of the Constitution? That is, the other delegates and their intentions. After all, the apple does not fall far from the tree as the saying goes does it not?

Unless you are solidly fixated in your point of view with no other possibilities permitted, one has to recognize that the intent of this Constitution was certainly not grounded in the Christian faith.

Additionally, the practice eventually was watered down to include Rabbi’s (Rabbi Morris Raphall in 1860) In 1991, it invited a Muslim imam. In 2000, it invited a Hindu priest. In 2003, it invited an openly gay clergy person. I wonder if this is what the initiator’s of this custom expected when it was introduced?

I would seriously question that assumption.

Next Up

In the next post, we’ll move into the Constitution itself for more insight and evidence of the nature and intent of this document which will further point to why it has failed to keep its intended purposes.

Start at the beginning of this series.

If the Constitution Was the Solution, Why Hasn’t It Worked?- Part Six

If you sincerely want to understand how our government has become the monster it has grown into, you have to learn to recognize where you’ve been had, bamboozled, took etc. as Malcolm X put it, or in common terms just plain flat-out been lied to.

If you have been following along from the beginning. you have a more truthful background of how the Constitution was put together and the background of the framers. If not, it would pay to catch up from the beginning here as there is some important background information you’ve missed.

Goddess of Reason Parade

1793 French Revolution Parade of the Goddess of Reason (actually a prostitute) Through the Streets of Paris to Notre Dame Cathedral

We’ve previously covered some facts and demographics developing a context of where the framers of our Constitution actually were coming from. Clearly, you should be able to understand that they were not the dyed in wool Christian’s we have all been led to believe they were. Rather they were more secular. Many were oriented towards the popular movement of their time which was the enlightenment emphasis inspired by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense book (a hot seller at the time) and the driving ideology of the French Revolution, the Cult of Reason.

However, there are those that insist that our framers were dedicated Christians and therefore produced a Christian inspired document which was focused on Christian principles. Let’s take a look at the evidence to support that conclusion to see if it, in fact, is actually true.

Red Pill or Blue Pill

“What Truth?” “That you are a slave Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison that you cannot smell, or taste, or touch…..A prison for your mind.”

At this point, you can not read on, take the blue pill and believe whatever it is you want. Or, you can take the red pill, follow me down the rabbit hole and see how deep it goes. “Remember, all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.”

Our Nation’s Christian Beginnings- Mayflower Compact

When the pilgrims first came to this nation, they were devout Christians. There is no question about that. For example, the Mayflower Compact signed in November 1620 was intended to establish the basis for a cooperative government. It was a short one page piece of paper that was signed by 41 participants. The authority for that government of these then English citizens was clearly stated as follows (transformed to more current English but otherwise intact. Read the original here.):

“In the name of God Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord King James by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc. Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia do by those present solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and of one another, covenant, and combine our selves together into a civil body politic……”

One can see clearly an acknowledgement of what the basis for authority in their community was.

  1. Their loyalty to King James
  2. Their loyalty to the Christian God.

You can also see the intent or purpose of their endeavor which was to:

  1. Advance the Christian faith
  2. Advance the honor of their king and country (and in that order I may add)

This deference to the Christian God was also common among the Compacts and Agreements that made up the first colonies by in the 17th Century. For example, in the Portsmouth, RI Compact we find that it begins with:

The 7th Day of the First Month, 1638 We whose names are underwritten do hereby solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given us in His Holy Word of Truth, to be guided and judged thereby.

Not only do they defer authority to God, but specifically designate “our Lord Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords and all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given us in His Holy Word of Truth” as their guide and judge.

Also, as noted in the Highlights of History article linked above: “The inhabitants cleared land, constructed dwellings, dug wells, and established orchards. The little colony seemed to thrive and quickly grew as other families joined.”

One is left to wonder that had that community continued to defer to Christ and God’s “perfect and most absolute laws” of the Bible (“His Holy Word of Truth”) whether that initial prosperity would have continued as the God of Abraham promised to the Hebrew people of the Old Testament as long as they kept His commandments. Obviously, there have been some changes in the community: damaging fires, DUI’s, child molesters and more. Just another sign of the times now.

Agreement or Constitution of the Colony of New Haven

In another example, Fundamental Agreement, or Original Constitution of the Colony of New Haven, June 4, 1639, all the free planters gathered “to consult about setting civil government, according to GOD” (Caps in the original document, not added)

When a vote was put forth on the first question, the recorder of the proceedings, Robert Newman wrote:

Query I. WHETHER the scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to GOD and men, as well in families and commonwealth, as in matters of the church ? This was assented unto by all, no man dissenting, as was expressed by holding up of hands. Afterwards it was read over to them, that they might see in what words their vote was expressed. They again expressed their consent by holding up their hands, no man dissenting.

Clearly, once again it was to the God of the scriptures they deferred authority and for its “rules for the direction and government of all men in all duties”. No deference to the authority of the King of England was included in this Fundamental Agreement

First Charter of Virginia

The First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606:

We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government: DO, by these our Letters Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires

Again, deference to the authority of the Christian God and “propagating of Christian religion” were directly referenced as authority for the purpose of establishing “a settled and quiet Government”.

Charter of Delaware

Or how about this Charter of Delaware made even as late as March 4, 1701:

BECAUSE no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare, That no Person or Persons, inhabiting In this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge One almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and professes him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their conscientious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or suffer any other Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion.

AND that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively, he or they solemnly promising, when lawfully required, Allegiance to the King as Sovereign, and Fidelity to the Proprietary and Governor, and taking the Attests as now established by the Law made at Newcastle, in the Year One Thousand and Seven Hundred, entitled,

Clearly, the early colonists were not only Christian in nature assigning authority to the Christian God for their actions but also considered the law of the Bible as a valid authority in governing themselves.

Now, let’s fast forward to the time period just after the Constitution was passed.

Barbary Pirates and Tripoli

The Islamic Barbary States of Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco had little agriculture or industry to sustain themselves with. Since they were nested on the edge of the Mediterranean, many trade routes passed close to them. Such booty was tempting to a hungry Islamic people not governed by the ten commandments (Thou shalt not steal.). So, they turned to piracy for their livelihoods. Justified by their war against Christian nations. (Yes, even that long ago.)

Their victims became the merchant vessels that used the Mediterranean ports to ply their wares. Captured vessels were looted and their crew and/or passengers transported back to the mainland to be sold into slavery, put to hard labor or killed if they resisted.

After the Revolutionary War loss, Britain (which could have snuffed out these pirates if it chose to) let it be known that American merchant vessels were no longer under the protection of the British Empire. In July of 1785 two American ships, the Maria and the Dauphin, were seized by Algerian Corsairs (small armed ships):

Barbary Pirates of Tripoli

After the Treaty of Tripoli, We Got a Navy.

”Twenty-two crewmen were transported to Algiers and thrown into dungeons among the slaves of other nations. They were dressed in coarse cloths, given a single dirty blanket each and fed a daily ration of 15 ounces of bread.” (From Six Frigates by Ian Toll)

They were placed into hard labor crews, set to work on the wharves, manacled, beaten and whipped and always in fear of their lives.

Jefferson was written about this while in Paris from the prisoners who begged him to raise funds to ransom them. With no Navy, the U.S. could only negotiate a payment of ransom. A treaty and offer was the prisoners only hope.

The preliminary treaty began at the end of George Washington’s last term as President with a signing on 4 November, 1796. Joel Barlow, former chaplain in Washington’s army now diplomat served as counsel to Algiers, was responsible for the treaty negotiations. Barlow became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. He eventually abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli

It was Joel Barlow who wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Article 11 which read:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it. John Adams, now President, concurred. The document went to the Senate who approved the treaty on June 7, 1797. It was officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797.

Treaty of Tripoli_Article 11a

Original text of Article 11

During the entire review and approval process, the wording of Article 11 was never met with opposition or raised the slightest concern, even after the treaty became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797. It was published in full in all 13 states with no record of complaint or dissent.

So what exactly happened here? Colonial sentiments expressed through their governments changed from an acknowledgement of the Christian God, Jesus Christ and even biblically based laws to the complacent acceptance of a blatant statement that America was not “in any sense, founded on the Christian religion“, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen (an obsolete term meaning Muslims or Islamic people) or hostile to any Mehomitan (based on the prophet Mohammed or Islamic) nation.

This was a direct acknowledgement that the spiritual fiber of our nation had changed. This was reflected through both the framers, the Constitution itself and, in fact, “We the People”.

A Closer Look at the Article 11 Statement

First of all, this treaty was not outside of the public eye like treaty’s passed today. The public was keenly aware of what was going on with the captured sailors in Algiers. Reports in the newspapers like the Pa. Gazette, with inflammatory and biased language, aided the public focus on this issue. In our nascent nation, the people were keenly involved in issues impacting their citizens.

Consequently, both the President and the Senate were under pressure to make a decision. The monetary cost of the treaty was steep (without a Federal Reserve to generate monopoly money) and citizens were being humiliated and abused. So this was not a low profile treaty slipped through like the legislation of our apathetic times.

Many citizens had an active interest in the Tripoli situation. Yet, no one batted an eye about the declaration in Article 11.

The Devil is in the Details

The leading words which define the principal focus of the treaty referred specifically to “the Government of the United States”.

At that time, what was that government founded upon? After the ratification of the Constitution in June 1788 and adoption March 4, 1789 by all of the 13 colonies this statement could only refer to that government framed under the Constitution of the United States. Not the people, but the government.

Additionally, the initial words state “in any sense”. Not “a” sense, but in “any” sense.

In short, this clearly affirms that this constitutionally framed government was not based upon any Christian principles. Their words from that time NOT mine.

More specifically, this Constitution did not refer to the Christian religion when it framed or founded this U.S. government.

Now, one can argue and quote all the supposed or assumed evidence they want about the Christian inspired Constitution, but Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli should not be taken lightly as a minor misstatement. This was a high profile issue at the time and the treaty itself was well examined, framed by Washington, ratified by President John Adams, the Senate and a keenly interested public and yet not a whisper of protest was raised against the language of Article 11.

One can safely conclude this wording speaks a lot to the mind-set of the framers, the nature of the Constitution they crafted and the changing character of our nation.

What’s Up Next?

What I’d like to do next is back up just a little. Take a quick look at a key event during the Convention that points to the mindset of the delegates. Then, possibly look at the Preamble as a means of determining the nature of our Constitution. If you missed any of the beginning segments, go back to Part One and get up to speed as there will be some references in the next segment that the earlier segments will fill in.

Go on to Part 7.

Since the Fed Rate Rise Things Are Already Getting Dicey

Frog_Boiling

Ok, It’s Just a Saying But It Makes the Point

Since the Federal Reserve rate increase (as modest as it was) the economy has been getting more tenuous. I posted a warning about this just before Christmas. Just today Walmart announced it will close 269 stores in 2016 impacting 16,000 workers (10,000 in the U.S.). Despite the hype Obama pushed at his State of the Union address when he announced that, “Anyone saying our economy is getting worse is peddling nonsense.” Walmart’s layoff’s confirm that, in fact, it is.

CNN noted in it’s article on the Walmart layoffs:

The retail sector struggled mightily, and shares of Walmart fell 30%, last year.

I guess they are peddling nonsense too. Of course, 16,000 workers won’t think so in the coming year.

China Market Struggling

On CNN today another headline announced that: China posts slowest annual economic growth in 25 years

Walmart and China are of course closely tied together economically. Walmart is the biggest buyer of Chinese goods. So, it is no surprise that China and Walmart are struggling together.

Peter Schiff Interview

Peter Schiff of his own firm Euro Pacific Capital and author of The Real Crash and How An Economy Grows and Why It Crashes did an interview on Alex Jones today. It is worth a careful look. Could we be on the edge of another 2008 collapse? Peter thinks so and gives his reasons why affirming that it will be far worse than 2008 because of all of the Fed Quantitative Easing (QE) juicing.

QE- A Very Brief Overview

QE is an artificial stimulation of the market with dollars from nothing. The Fed generates more debt and more FRN’s (Federal Reserve Notes) into the market. The problem? Real wealth doesn’t expand to meet those dollars. It is an artificial stimulus with no real tangible growth to match. In other words, the Fed is creating another even larger bubble of debt. When the bubble pops as all bubbles must eventually, it has that much farther to decline before we reach a normal market again.

The bottom line: QE is doing nothing in the long run but making recovery after collapse way worse. Don’t tell Keynesians (deficit spending freaks) that though. They ain’t listening- just like Obama and our politicians in general.

The Markets

Since the rate increase, the markets have dropped as well. The Dow dropped over 300 points today along with the Nasdaq. Since the beginning of the year, U.S. stocks have posted their worst 10 day start to a year ever. Global markets are weakening as well. Not surprising since we have a “global market” now. Not surprising since we also have a global banking cartel ensconced in all the key markets building their New World Order from the inside out.

All in All

Keep a watch on things. Don’t get caught up in anything risky right now. You may want to do some prepping even if you have thought of it as weird. Go on amazon and check out the books on the topic. Many inexpensive Kindle books cover this. If you don’t have a Kindle don’t sweat it. Download the books if they look good and read them on your pc with the Kindle pc app. You don’t need the Kindle to read the books.

Ant_workingI think it’s time to be the ant right now rather than the grasshopper. Grasshopping can wait. A word to the wise is sufficient as they say.

 

 

If the Constitution Was the Solution, Why Hasn’t It Worked?- Part Five

Thomas Jefferson said, “Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.” Sounds great right? Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think our politicians and government have been bound down with theConstitution chains of the Constitution? Unless you are brain dead or walking around oblivious to your surroundings bathed in apathy, I think you have to honestly answer that question with a resounding- NO!

So, let me ask you another question, What do you really know about the men who framed our Constitution? Are you simply operating from the standard assumptions and stories we’ve all been taught? Do you believe you been given the whole picture and full truth?

The fact is, if you have any awareness of the state of our nation and where it is headed, you have to admit that the Constitutional promise of limited government is a HUGE disappointment. So, something has gone wrong as we have headed on down the trail of the Constitution. Let me suggest that the seeds of that track may be traced back to the framers themselves.

So, as buried as “we the people” are in debt and regulations, let’s dig a bit below the surface to see if we can uncover a few less highlighted facts about these framers to determine where we may have gone off track.

If we can move past the myths, we will get a more truthful picture of who these guys really were. In turn, we will have a more realistic understanding of the kind of emphasis you would expect from any document they produced. We can also gain some insight as to why this so-called limited government Constitution has dramatically failed to achieve its publicly accepted promise and purpose.

In the last post, I emphasized George Washington’s background because he was probably the most influential figure associated with the Constitution. Some historians even contend that he may have been the biggest reason the Constitution was ratified since he was so widely revered and favorably looked upon by the majority of the people at that time. If you missed that post go back and read it to capture a more realistic picture of who George Washington was beyond the myths.

In this post, I’d like to take a brief view of other important framers and a general summary of who these constructors of our current government actually were.

Let’s begin with the second most influential and known attendee at that time in the colonies, Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin- Printer, Scientist and Deist Mason

Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston, Massachusetts on January 17, 1706.While Franklin was brought up as a Christian by his parents, his inquisitive nature forced him to rebel against what heFranklin_Benjamin eventually decided were the irrational ideas of his Christian parents.

In his Autobiography, he discusses his skepticism:

“My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself….Some books against Deism fell into my hands. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Franklin’s deist beliefs stayed with him for the remainder of his life. He never returned to Christianity. (Deists believe in a God created universe. They do not believe in Christ’s divinity nor the God of the bible and other accepted Christian beliefs. They tend to emphasize reason and works over faith as well.)

More clarity on Franklin’s hostility towards Christianity is revealed in his essay on “Toleration,”:

“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.”

Dr. Priestley, an close personal friend of Franklin, had this to say about Franklin’s beliefs about Christianity in his autobiography:

“It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin’s general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers” (Priestley’s Autobiography)

Ben’s Masonic Background

No one is certain about when Franklin was initiated into the St. John’s lodge in Philadelphia but it was likely around 1730 or 31 when he was in his mid 20’s in age. He remained a Mason for the rest of his life.

According to Freemason Information, a web based Masonic magazine:

Franklin was in no way a simple and ordinary member of the Masonic lodge. He was appointed as the Junior Grand Warden of the Provincial Grand Lodge in Pennsylvania in the year 1732 and as the Grand Master on June 24, 1734. In 1734, he also printed the first Masonic book in the United States. His Mason book was the publication of Anderson’s Constitutions. Franklin was quickly elected as secretary of St. Johns’ Lodge, and he held the position from 1735 until 1738. Franklin continued to be an active member of the fraternity, and he continued to be elected and appointed for many positions. In March of 1752, Benjamin Franklin was put onto a committee for the first Masonic building in the United States. The lodge was to be in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The European Masonry of Franklin- England

Since he traveled abroad, Franklin carried his Masonic activities along with him specifically to England and France. In November of 1760 in London, he was entered into the Minutes during the Grand Lodge of England’s meeting in Crown & Anchor, London as the Provincial Grand Master. He was elected to this position in June of 1760.Franklin__as_Mason2

Then France

In France, he was affiliated with the La Loge des Neufs Soeurs or The Lodge of the Nine Sisters. He, in fact, assisted in its opening serving as the Grand Master of this lodge for 2 years. He also initiated the enlightenment leader Voltaire into Masonry in 1778 four months before Voltaire died at the age of 84. Voltaire had a great admiration for Franklin as they had much in common.

According to the Cyclopaedia of Universal History:

The aged Voltaire who in the last year of his life came in triumph to Paris grappled Franklin to himself as with hooks of steel. He placed his withered hands in benediction on the head of Franklin’s grandson as if to confer the philosophy and inspiration of the epoch on the third generation. The two great thinkers were taken together to the theater and at the close of the play were called upon the stage while the excited thousands cried out “Solon and Socrates.

In December 27, 1786, less than a year before the Philadelphia convention, Rev. Joseph Pilmore in St. Paul’s Church, Philadelphia referred to Franklin as “An illustrious Brother whose distinguished merit among Masons entitles him to their highest veneration” in the dedication of a sermon delivered at the request of the R. W. Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.

Franklin died on April 17, 1790 a convicted Mason and Deist.

James Madison- The So-Labeled Father

James Madison1James Madison has been dubbed the “Father of the Constitution. A title he rejected (perhaps rightfully so) but others insist on hanging on him because of his active engagement in its creation and ratification, as a delegate, speaker and writer promoting it.

Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
(Point 7)

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
(Point 8)

Historian Robert Allen Rutland who wrote “James Madison: The Founding Father” points out that Madison had a dream of the creation of a secular republic and explicitly not a Christian republic.

Not long after the Annapolis Convention (pre-cursor to the Philadelphia convention) adjourned, Madison received a letter from George Washington on 11/5/1786 pleading for a new and stronger government, “The consequences of a lax, or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on.-Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other and all tugging the federal head, will soon bring ruin on the whole.”

Thomas Paine- Author of Common Sense

It is said by some that Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense influenced more early Americans than any other writer in providing the basis for the thinking expressed towards a Revolution Thomas Paineagainst England and in government.

John Adams (Unitarian and anti-Christian reflected in his letters to Thomas Jefferson) quote appears on Paine’s gravestone: “Without the pen of Paine the sword ofThomas Paines Grave Marker Washington would have been in vain.”

Paine, like Jefferson, Franklin and Washington, was a Deist. In his popular book, The Age of Reason he wrote:

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “

On the Bible Paine wrote:

“it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the will of visionary doctrine raised therein against which I contend…What is it the Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married…and the belief in this debauchery is all faith.”
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. “

As an enlightenment thinker, Paine’s idol was reason. This philosophy is shared by all enlightenment thinkers and nearly the entire contingent of delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

In Summary

The delegates to the technically illegal meeting which covertly became a Constitutional convention were pretty much career politicians. They were in public office before the Convention. They pursued public office afterwards.

Few of them returned to a non-public life. Twenty seven of the 55 were future members of Congress. Two were future Presidents. One was a future Vice President. One became a Speaker of the House. Four became U.S. District Court judges and four were future Supreme Court judges. Virtually all of the rest who did not hold office after the Convention simply passed on to the great beyond, i.e. died.

Question: Do you think they may be inclined to emphasize a document that empowers government based on their backgrounds?

Additionally, as previously noted there was a goodly amount of former military officers and lawyers at the time of the convention.

Question: Do you think they might emphasize control of our decision to go to war through government with no input from the people?

Virtually all of them were considered very wealthy, wealthy or on their way back to wealth from having been formerly wealthy.

Question: Do you think there may be some trap doors to protect wealth built into this document?

With regards to religion, there was only one solid Christian, Richard Bassett of Maryland. The remainder were either Masons (non-Christian for reasons stated in my Washington post) Unitarians (like John Adams, our 2nd President), Deists (like Jefferson and Paine) or enlightenment inspired rationalists. In other words, pretty much a group of secularists and religious pluralists holding to the enlightenment focus on reason over faith and Christian beliefs.

Most certainly not the Christians we have been led to believe put together the Constitution. If anything, there was a decidedly anti-Christian bias in this group. In later posts, we’ll define how this was expressed in the Constitution itself.

Question: Do you think there may be an anti-Christian, pluralistic (all religions, beliefs are acceptable) emphasis when it comes to religion built into the Constitution?

All of these characteristics, i.e., committed politicians of wealth, legally oriented, non-Christian secularists and militarists had an impact on the document that emerged from these meetings held on the 2nd floor out of the public eye and without public input.

A Miracle or Great Experiment?

Revered as a miracle or Great Experiment with an intent to limit government, our Constitution has been transformed through the Supreme Court and our elected representatives to become a monster that intrudes into every part of our lives these days.

So, if the Constitution is the solution as “Constitutionalists” claim that it is, this Great Experiment has certainly massively failed to accomplish that goal.

The Federal Register is now 77,687 pages, not exactly a model of small government. We now have a regulatory climate that imposes an estimated $1.88 Trillion in lost economic productivity and higher prices according to the 2015 Ten Thousand Commandments report. This costs an average of $14,976 per household or around 29% of the family budget.

The Federal debt now stands at $18.9 Trillion, or over $58.000 per citizen and over $158,000 per taxpayer. Historically higher than any other nation in the history of the world prior to economic collapse. Hence, I still hold to my title for this series, the Constitution has proven not to be the solution. If it was it has failed to keeps its promises.

Next Up- A Christian Document?

Next, we look at the Christian nature of the Constitution. Many insist it is, but based on what? It isn’t in the Constitution nor reflected as we’ve seen in the framers who attended the convention in Philadelphia. Are there any indications that it was the opposite? Stay with me and we’ll take a look.

A little warm up however. Ask yourself do you think that the Christian nature of our society has grown or retreated since the Constitution was ratified? Being honest, I think you will find the answer to that question is already clear. We’ll take a closer look at this issue next in Part Six.

New to the Series? Start at Part One.

Hillary Clinton, Planned Parenthood – Abortion and Black Genocide

OK, does this woman have any pride? Really, Planned Parenthood? If you know anything about the largest abortion provider in the world, this speaks volumes about Hillary’s morality. This is the what Planned Parenthood had to say in their endorsement about Hillary.

Planned Parenthood will make unprecedented primary endorsement of Hillary Clinton
Washington Post- 1/7/16

PASADENA, CALIF. — The political arm of Planned Parenthood will endorse Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Sunday, a Clinton campaign official confirmed.

The endorsement marks the first time in the organization’s 100-year history that Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed a candidate in a primary. The endorsement was first reported by

You Sure of That?

You Sure of That?

CBS News.

“Let’s be clear — reproductive rights and health are on the ballot in 2016,” said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. “We’re proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

No other candidate in our nation’s history has demonstrated such a strong commitment to women or such a clear record on behalf of women’s health and rights,” she added. “This is about so much more than Planned Parenthood. Health care for an entire generation is at stake.”

Planned Parenthood is one of the nation’s leading providers of abortions and reproductive health services. Its early endorsement of Clinton will effectively mobilize supporters – and millions of dollars – nationwide for her candidacy.

Disclaimer

Ok, I admit to being ProLife. Actually got me a son when I put my foot down after my ex brought up her intent to have an abortion when she was pregnant with our 4th. Rocky time in the marriage but still could not get myself to endorse killing a potential child. Glad I didn’t and so is my ex and her mother who was supporting the move. Guess who the apple of Grandmom’s eye is today? Had my son been aborted, she would have lost a really good friend to her now.

Anyway, I think abortion is murder. It’s not as dramatic as stabbing or shooting someone but has essentially the same effect. It terminates a life. Yeah, I know, some people shouldn’t have kids. Inconvenience for woman. Bad timing. Out of wedlock. It’s only a fetus and more.

First of all, fetus is a word used to pretty up the facts, make things appear scientific and depersonalize the actuality of the event.

It is a little baby person in that womb. The genetic makeup is present at conception which is the essence of the person who emerges.

After 30 days, the baby has a heartbeat and brain waves. Doesn’t a heartbeat and brain waves constitute a living person? Most abortions occur after at least 30 days btw.

So in my mind how can Hillary be so proud to have them endorse her to get their blood money? Kind of tells you a bit about the moral character of Hillary in my book.

Let’s forget about her for a minute (or lifetime might be better) however and take a closer look at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood’s Historical Roots

The International Committee on Planned Parenthood began in 1946, eventually morphing into the Planned Parenthood we know today. Actually though, it proudly traces its roots back to 1916 when its founder Margaret Sanger opened the nation’s first birth-control clinic in Brooklyn, NY.

Margaret’s Formative Beginnings

The following is excerpted from the article Planned Parenthood, Past and Present, The New American, 11-23-15:

“Born Margaret Higgins in 1879 in Corning, New York, to parents of Irish decent, Sanger was the sixth of 11 children. Despite the closeness of her family and the fond memories they built together, Sanger developed a very dreary perspective of large families.

In her autobiography, Pioneering Advocate for Birth Control, Sanger wrote of the struggles her family and the others around her endured. Growing up, she found herslef relating these hardships to large families and happiness to small ones. “Large families were associated with poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, fighting, jails; the small ones with cleanliness, leisure, freedom, light, space, sunshine,” she remembered. This limited perspective gained in childhood, instead of expanding with adulthood to view life in all its truths and complexities, remained small and biased and grew the germs that only the stagnant mind-set can offer.”

Margaret Sanger_Waldorf_1961

Margaret Sanger Before 1961 Talk at the Waldorf Astoria

She began working as a nurse in 1900 at White Plains Hospital in New York. She developed more negative feelings about large families from the pain and suffering she witnessed in birthing.

In 1902, she married William Sanger, an architect and socialist. It placed her in a hot bed of the radicals of the era. She wrote, “Our living room became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists, and I.WW.’s [Industrial Workers of the World] could meet.” She writes, “My own personal feelings drew me towards the individualist , anarchist philosophy….but it seemed to me necessary to approach the ideal by way of Socialism.”

Her part in the movement, in her mind, was to rid the world of what she considered “the most immoral practice of the day,” according to her manifesto “Woman and the New Race”. This she felt was the “breeding” of too many children. “The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of these families, but in their injury to society” linking large families to oppressed labor, prostitution and even war.

To England and Back

Sanger began a magazine in 1914, The Woman Rebel which led to an indictment for indecency. She abandoned her 3 children and fled to England to escape conviction. Met Havelock Ellis who wrote the first book on homosexuality, Sexual Inversion. Banned as indecent by the British government, Sanger found it clarifying and set sex “on a higher plane”.

She eventually returned home in 1915 and illegally opened the first birth control clinic in 1916 in Brownsville, the poor section of Brooklyn. The clinic was shut down in 9 days. Got her 30 days in prison and a ton of publicity.

American Birth Control League and Rockefeller

In 1921 Sanger started the American Birth Control League. Two years later, in 1923, she started the first legal birth control clinic, the Clinical Research Bureau. A large portion of the funding for this clinic came from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. who continued to support other Sanger causes. Rockefeller was a strong supporter of population control and the eugenic movement.

Sanger’s Rationalization

Sanger began with limiting the number of children but added the prevention of children based on their worth and race. She claimed that, “birth control itself often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”

With regards to race in Woman, Morality and Birth Control she wrote, “Birth control must ultimately lead to a cleaner race.”

Racism Surfaces in Full Bloom

In the winter of 1939, Sanger wrote a letter to Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Foundation (also grandson of James Gamble, co-founder of Procter & Gamble). She was concerned that the Negro population was catching on to her plan to “exterminate” them:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Roman Catholic Opposition

In 1940, Sanger was visiting 11 cities in Massachusetts during a 5 day speaking tour to promote support for amending State laws regarding birth control and finding little resistance until she visited the predominately Catholic city of Holyoke. This hearkened her back to her resistance from Catholics in the 1920’s.

Archbishop Patrick Hayes of New York successfully canceled the lst meeting of the First National Birth Control Conference, “for the benefit of the morals and health of the community” His Christmas pastoral letter stated:

“Even though some little angels in the flesh through moral, mental and physical deformity of parent may appear to human eyes hideous, misshapen, a blot on civilized society, we must not lose sight of this Christian thought that under and within such visible malformation there lives an immortal soul to be saved and glorified for all eternity among the blessed in Heaven.”

Sanger thought the Archbishops view to be “a monstrous doctrine and one abhorrent to every civilized instinct” that the mentally and physically handicapped should continue to be born. She wrote that one must either submit to church control or birth control, independence of “submit to the dictatorship of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.”

Planned Parenthood Emerges with New Agenda

Sanger’s mission has been morphed from its original mission of prevention of life into termination of life. Woman are counseled and assured that the most responsible decision they can make, for themselves and the whole of society, is abortion.

Abby Johnson, former director of Planned Parenthood, had an abortion scare resulting in excessive bleeding while taking a medication abortion on the advice of her own clinic. When she called the clinic the next morning thinking her symptoms were abnormal, she was told they were not. She would continue with the symptoms for another 8 weeks.

When she asked about why woman weren’t told about this, her supervisor replied, “Well, we don’t want to scare them.

After holding a director’s position at her Southeast Texas clinic, Johnson was told to perform more abortions to increase profits. She now claims, “Here’s the truth…Planned Parenthood is not worried about woman being scared…Planned Parenthood is scared. They are scared woman will walk out the door if they get accurate and thorough information. Every woman that walks out is lost revenue…That is Planned Parenthood’s biggest fear.”

Planned Parenthood is now the nation’s largest abortion provider. In 2013 it received $528.4 million in taxpayer funds (41% of their funds) and performed 327, 653 abortions.

Hillary and Planned Parenthood

Hillary has been a big cheerleader for Planned Parenthood over the years. In 2009, Hillary received their biggest award, appropriately named — the Margaret Sanger Award. During the March 27, 2009 speech Clinton praised Margaret:

“Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. Another of my great friends, Ellen Chesler, is here, who wrote a magnificent biography of Margaret Sanger called Woman of Valor. And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

And there are a lot of lessons that we can learn from her life and from the cause she launched and fought for and sacrificed so greatly. One in particular, though, has always stood out for me almost a hundred years later. It’s the lesson that women’s empowerment is always, always about more than bettering the lives of individual women. It is part of a movement. It’s about economic and political progress for all women and girls. It’s about making sure that every woman and girl everywhere has the opportunities that she deserves to fulfill her potential, a potential as a mother, as a worker, as a human being.”

How, the invasive ripping apart of unborn babies from the wombs of young woman can be posed as “bettering the lives of individual women” is beyond me. Abortions leave scars, emotionally and physically as well. Tells a bit about Hillary’s character though, heaping praise on the woman who led to the selling of baby parts and abortion numbers in a single year 6 times greater than the entire Vietnam conflict!

BTW, the winner of the 2014 Margaret Sanger award was Nancy Pelosi.

Black Genocide? Maafa 21 Makes the Case

Planned Parenthood, in addition to selling baby parts as was recently disclosed, also carries on the Sanger tradition of racism. In 2011, 37% of all abortions were performed on African-American woman who only represented 12.8% of the population. That’s about 3 times higher than it should be based on their percentage of the population. (Some would conclude that it would be 100% higher BTW if they considered all abortion as murder.)

Maafa 21 which documents the impact of Margaret Sanger on the black and minority populations. Begins way back with Darwin and presents a good overview of Sanger and the development of Planned Parenthood. Concentrates on the racial genocide aspect of Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Well worth your time:

If the Constitution Was the Solution, Why Hasn’t It Worked?- Part Four

Let’s take a deeper look into the nature of the individuals who created the Constitution in order to gain more insight into why it may have gone off the rails. We’ll begin with a focus on one of the primary figures of the period and almost a sacred figure in our nation- George Washington.

George was highly known and revered even in his own time. So, we should get to know who this man was and what he was about. It has been said that without Washington’s approval, the Constitution would never have been constructed and ratified. He was that highly respected.

The Aloof American?

Nonetheless, he was also known to hold himself apart from others, cultivating an aura of aloofness and separation. A familiar anecdote from the 1787 Constitutional Convention serves as anWashington Posed example of the image he outwardly projected:

“A group of Washington’s friends were remarking on his extraordinarily reserved and remote manner, even among his most intimate acquaintances. Gouverneur Morris, who was always full of boldness and wit, had the nerve to disagree. He could be as familiar with Washington, he said, as with any of his other friends. Alexander Hamilton called his bluff by offering to provide a supper and wine for a dozen of them if Morris would, at the next reception Washington gave, simply walk up to him, gently slap him on the shoulder, and say, “My dear General, how happy I am to see you look so well.”

On the appointed evening a substantial number were already present when Morris arrived, walked up to Washington, bowed, shook hands, and then placed his left hand on Washington’s shoulder, and said, “My dear General, I am very happy to see you look so well.” The response was immediate and icy. Washington reached up and removed the hand, stepped back, and fixed his eye in silence on Morris, until Morris retreated abashed into the crowd. The company looked on in embarrassment, and no one ever tried it again.”

Developing the Image- The Famous Cherry Tree Story?

Cherry Tree“When George was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet, of which, like most boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping every thing that came in his way.

One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother’s pea bushes, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that the tree never got the better of it……”

As the story goes, his father was very angry. When he saw George with his hatchet he asked him, “George, do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry-tree yonder in the garden?”

George replied, “I can’t tell a lie, Pa; you know I can’t tell a lie. I cut it with my hatchet.”

“Run to my arms, you dearest boy, cried his father in transports- ‘run to my arms! Glad am I, George, that you killed my tree, for you have paid me for it a thousand times. Such an act of heroism in my son, is worth more than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold.” – Excerpted from “Washington and his Masonic Compeers by Sydney Hayden

We have all heard a variation of that story in elementary school. George has been perceived in an elevated status from his own day until today. An almost a saintly reputation surrounds him, but was he really the “father” he has been projected to be? Unfortunately, the story appears to have been a fabrication. Let’s look at some of the less highlighted facts surrounding George Washington.

George Washington as a Christian

As the cherry tree story points out, Washington is projected as a model of honesty. From the cherry tree foundation of morality, it is an easy leap to project Washington as a Christian as well. When examining the facts however, that assumption does not bear itself out.

Gary North in the book Political Polytheism (pages 420-422) addresses the assumption of Washington as a Christian.

“[George Washington is]Often portrayed as a great Christian statesman, but just what kind of Christian?

Washington was a communicant member of the Anglican Church all of his life.

However, he never took communion, even though his wife did. He would rise and leave the church just before communion began.

When challenged publicly about this by the rector of The Church of Christ in Philadelphia, Bishop William White, he later apologized indirectly by way of a U.S. Senator and promised never again to attend the church on communion day. A promise that he apparently kept.”

More Directly Stated

“Dr. James Abercrombie had been an Assistant Rector of Christ’s Church and did not mince words in an 1831 statement in which he said, “That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance at our church, but sir I cannot consider any man a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine author of our holy religion and considered as a challenge to divine grace.”

North explains further:

“Here was the strange situation. George Washington was formally a communicant church member who systematically refused to take communion. The institutional problem here was the unwillingness of church authorities to apply formal sanctions.

Any church member who refuses to take communion has thereby excommunicated himself. A refusal to take communion or a prohibition against one’s taking communion is what excommunication means. Self- excommunication is excommunication just as surely as suicide is first degree murder.

Nevertheless, the churches to which Washington belonged did not take official action against him by either requiring him to take communion or by publicly excommunicating him. It was this disciplinary failure on the part of these churches that led to the public legitimizing of Washington as a Christian.

This failure later indirectly legitimized the Constitution that he conspired to impose upon the nation. Without Washington’s support of the actions of the convention, the Constitution would never have been ratified. But Washington was deemed either too powerful or too sacrosanct to bring under church discipline.”

Never Once Mentions Jesus Christ in Letters

Boller [Paul F. Boller author of George Washington and Religion] insists that not once in his [Washington’s] voluminous letters does he actually mention the name of Jesus Christ. Washington refused to commit to public pronouncements any statement of his personal faith besides a commitment to divine providence.

Except during wartime, he only attended church once a month. Thus concludes Boller, “If to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington on the evidence which we have examined can hardly be considered a Christian except in the most nominal sense.”

Washington – The Only Grand Master Mason President

The key to understanding Washington’s public religion is found on the cover of J. Hugo Tatsch’s book “The Facts About George Washington As a Freemason” There we find Williams 1794 paintingWashington - Freemason Portrait Washington-The Freemason of Washington in the regalia of Grand Master of the Masonic Lodge.

It was an official painting. His lodge at Alexandria paid fifty dollars to the painter.

Washington had served as Grand Master of the Alexandria lodge in 1788 and 1789. When he was inaugurated President of the United States, he was therefore a Grand Master. The only mason ever to be inaugurated President while serving as Grand Master.

Carter’s [James David Carter author of Masonry in Texas: Background, History and Influence to 1846] first account of Washington’s inauguration as President is illuminating:

“On April 30th 1789, Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States administered by Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, Grandmaster of the Grand Lodge of New York, General Jacob Morton, Worshipful Master of St John’s Lodge in New York City, the oldest lodge in the city and Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of New York was Marshall of the inauguration.
It was one of his duties to provide a bible for the occasion. Morton brought from the altar of St. John’s lodge the bible upon which Washington placed his hand while repeating the obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States and then kissed the sacred volume to complete the ceremony.”

Mason Generals in the Continental Army

You will not read in the textbooks that 33 of Washington’s generals were Masons. You will also not read that Lafayette was not given command over any troops until after he had agreed to be initiated into Union Lodge number one at which ceremony Washington officiated as Master Mason. But such was the case.

Washington and His Masonic Compeers - CoverWashington presided over a procession in Philadelphia on December 27th 1778 after the evacuation of the British. Dressed in full Masonic attire he marched through the city with 300 other Masons and then held a Masonic service at Christ’s church, which became his congregation of preference during his Presidency.

As President he received many honors from local lodges. His written replies to them were generous. He never wavered in his attachment to Masonry.

In a letter to King David’s Lodge, New Port, Rhode Island written on Sunday, August 22nd 1790 Washington wrote: “Being persuaded that a just application of the principles on which the Masonic fraternity is founded must be promotive of private virtue and public prosperity, I shall always be happy to advance the interests of the society and to be considered by them as a deserving brother.”

The Supreme Architect of the Universe?

In several letters he referred to God as the Supreme Architect. A representative example of his letter to Pennsylvania Masons December 27, 1791:

“I request you will be assured of my best wishes and earnest prayers for your happiness while you remain in this terrestrial mansion and that we may thereafter meet as brethren in the eternal temple of the Supreme Architect.”

John Eidsmoe in his book length attempt to defend the Constitution as a Christian document takes seriously Washington’s outright lie. It can be nothing else in a letter to G.W. Snyder in 1798 that “he had not been in a Masonic lodge more than once or twice in the last 30 years.”

One does not become a Grand Master of a lodge by attending services once or twice over 30 years but one can certainly fool two centuries of Christian critics by lying through one’s wooden teeth about it.

As noted by Tatsch, this statement is true but it applies only to English lodges. Washington was a member of Scottish rite lodges. As Tatsch notes: “Washington very obviously distinguished between American and English lodges in that statement, as records of his attendance at American lodges are more numerous.

More Facts About Washington as a Mason

George_Washington_Masonic_National_Memorial

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The lodge of Fredericksburg state from the minutes as noted by Tatsch (a mason) in his book referred to already above:

“The records show that Charles Lewis (the brother of Colonel Fielding Lewis who married Betty Washington, sister of George Washington), paid his entrance fee of 1 pound 1 shilling on November 3, 1752, and affiliated with the lodge on November 4, while George Washington paid his fee for initiation at the same time, amounting to 2 pounds 3 shillings and was brought to light as an Entered Apprentice on November 4. He remained a member of the lodge throughout the remainder of his life.”

Also of note from Tatsch, although the first meeting of 14 persons at the Fredericksburg lodge happened in September 1, 1752 the lodge received its charter on July 21, 1758 from the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Scottish Freemasonry was later infiltrated by the Illuminati created by Jesuit and Mason, Frederick Weishaupt.

Tatsch- Lafayette Mason Apron Presented to George in August 1784

Tatsch- Lafayette Mason Apron Presented to George in August 1784

I’m not saying Washington was a member of the Illuminati however the Illuminati adopted the All Seeing Eye from Masonry. Washington was also known to own two Mason aprons according to Hugo Tatsch in the aforementioned book. One was reportedly given to him by Lafayette who was a French Mason in August 1784.

Take note of the All Seeing Eye on this apron along with other occult symbols. Not exactly a Christian based orientation, one would say.

Masonic Beliefs and Christianity Clash

Mason are pluralists. They equally accept all religions. In Masonry, the interpretation of God is left up to each individual meaning Allah of Islam has as much validity as the emptiness of the Buddha and the God of the bible.

Christians who follow the bible consider this a transgression. The God of the bible clearly states, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:3

Masons refer to God as the Grand Architect of the Universe. The term George used in his letters.

Masons use this name for God because he is universal and belongs to all men regardless of their religious persuasion. In their private devotions, a Mason considers it acceptable to pray to Jehovah, Mohammed, Allah, Jesus or the Deity of his choice.

Not only do not they not accept the God of the bible as the sole God. They also reject the divinity of Christ. They see Christ as a human being and prophet, not the Son of God. Both of these suppositions could be considered anti-Christian.

As one would expect, Masons also do not accept the Trinitarian concept of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This is yet another transgression of Christian beliefs.

Freemasonry fails to acknowledge the Christian God’s forbidding of idolatry found repeatedly throughout the bible in addition to the 2nd commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;” Exodus 20:4-7

Masonry as noted on the apron Tatsch claims was given to Washington pictured above is chock full of pagan idolatry and symbols. In fact, symbolism is a very important part of Masonry and permeates their regalia and buildings. Again, not a biblical Christian practice.

So, in light of all of the above, a practicing Mason could certainly not be called a Christian. I think it fair to conclude that George was a life long practicing Mason and therefore not truly a Christian despite the claims of authors like David Barton. However, what about the other framers? What were their religious convictions?

Next Up

Let’s next take a look at the backgrounds of some other framers of the Constitution including one of the key but often overlooked figures from the Revolutionary period. John Adams said that without this man, the sword of Washington would have been useless.

Read more in Part Five.

Oregon Standoff May Have Causes Not Being Noted by the Media

The Bundy occupation at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge may have some causes that the media is failing to acknowledge. While their method is an “in your face” move designed to provoke a response. There is a growing and continued encroachment of Malheur Wildlife Refugethe Federal government on private State land that is becoming as overbearing as our growing national debt.

Western State Vacation

I visited Wyoming this summer with my daughter and hit Yellowstone and the Tetons etc. We drove over 1500 miles all throughout the State. So I got feel for the Western part of the Continent that I did not previously have. Great state Wyoming, but as I covered all that distance I kept seeing these National Forest signs like Shoshone National Forest and others again and again.

I couldn’t help but notice that not only was it sparsely populated in general but every highway seemed to note that it was part of a Federal (or sometimes but less often State) park.

My curiosity up, when I got back, I checked up on the population of Wyoming. I discovered that it was the least populated state in the nation. Not surprising to me after my visit.

It ranks 9th in land area but 51st in population, 50th in population density (Only Alaska is lower), but 36th in water area. So water is certainly not occupying all of the space, but the national parks and forests sure are.

Uninhabitable Perhaps?

Now, it isn’t all because it is uninhabitable. There are a good number of ranches which need open land. However, you see cows grazing on both Federal and State land. You wonder if the reason for that may be because otherwise they’d starve.

DSCN1327We saw them grazing along the side of the road at one point going up a switchback mountain road to our lodging. They were also in the Sinks Canyon State park in Lander,Wy on the side of the mountain. It was Federal and State land, but the cows had numbered tags on their ears indicating private ownership.

According to the Congressional Research Service…

Wyoming is according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is nearly half owned by the Federal government (48.1%) which does not account for the additional percentage owned by the State, pushing it over 50% I’m sure. Should it then be any surprise that the population would be so low?

Here are some other percentages of Federal ownership according to the CRS:

  • Alaska 61.2%
  • Arizona 38.6%
  • Idaho 61.6% (not just potatoes I guess)
  • Nevada 84.9%
  • New Mexico 34.7%
  • Oregon 52.9%
  • Utah 64.9%
  • US in total 27.4% (according to CRS)

The reality is that the Federal government alone owns over a quarter of the land in our nation!

Now I love the national parks and have visited a number of them. I can even agree with the need for the preservation of specific areas. Quite frankly, given the moronic and destructive nature of some people, protection of certain areas is necessary. However, might the Federal government in particular be overstepping their limits a bit?

Based on the history of the Leviathan that the Federal government has grown into, I would venture to say yes.

What Does the Constitution Allow?

The Constitution states in Article 1, Section 8, clause 17:

“and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

Now, the States get compensated for lost revenue from taxation for the land it owns, but where does the Federal government get its revenue? So the government of the State that allows the Federal government to take over its land gets taken care of…….

The Bill of Rights also provides another loophole for Federal government take over. The 7th amendment states,

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

One could drive a truck through that clause or perhaps an agency like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In fact, as pointed out above, that is exactly what they have done. That is what the Oregon stand off is really about- a reaction to the growing Federal encroachment.

And “just compensation”? Who cares if you don’t want to sell in the first place? And who determines what is “just compensation”.

What this clause amounts to is what Bastiat referred to as “legal plunder”. That is, a license to steal couched in legalism hidden in the “Supreme Law of the Land”. In common parlance, this would be called  theft. If a citizen did the same thing to another’s property, they would be arrested. The government claims immunity based on the Marxist inspired greater good principle.

But how about “We the People”?

The Federal government greases the State governments palm with money they take from the citizens of the States. However, the people get squeezed out of the picture. We the People end up holding the bag because the Federal government get its money from…………? That’s right: We the People.

Now, if they instead run to the Federal Reserve and take a loan to pay the State for the lost tax revenues, who ends up paying for that through the decreased buying power of money earned because of the federally inflated debt? Once again, “We, the People”.

More taxes, less available private land…….

Perhaps Ammon Bundy Has a Point After All

Ammon BundyThat Constitutional provision of “other needful buildings” may be getting a bit carried away. Already nearly at 28% (and possibly more than a third of the land if you include the State controlled land) is under the control of the Federal and State governments.

I guess “other needful buildings” is interpreted pretty liberally huh?

Where does it end? When we are all in bondage to the Federal government and corralled in the cities under the thumb and tyranny of government?

Like I said, maybe Ammon has a point after all.

Obama Tramples Upon the Constitution, Yet Again

This is a brief detour on the series, If the Constitution Were the Solution…. to provide yet another very present example of how it has failed us.

Obama_Gun Control

How Many Can I Grab? How Many Can I Grab?

As most know, the 2nd amendment specifically reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Why ain’t it working I ask? What part of the words “right of the people” does the President not understand? What part of the words “shall not be infringed” (violated) does the President not understand? Apparently, none of them!

He apparently believes he can simply alter our laws (and the Bill of Rights as well) with a few deft strokes of his pen, so to speak.

Today, he used the assumed (and made up BTW) powers of an executive order to make more laws regarding gun acquisition. The executive branch making laws? Huh?

His Justification for the Gun Control Moves?

“These are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch,” he said. “But they are also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.”

His Constitutionally Granted Powers

Oh really now? Let’s look at what the Constitution actually has to say about the powers of the executive. The powers granted to the President in Article II, Section 2 are as follows:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

That’s it! Above are the extent of the Constitutionally granted powers to the executive according to the text of the Constitution, our supposed (as Bush Jr. always liked to refer to it) “rule of law”.

Where Does It Say the Executive Can MAKE Laws?

Now can someone please demonstrate, based on the text of the U.S. Constitution, where his capacity to issue executive orders regarding the 2nd amendment arises?

You know, because for the life of me, I see nowhere in the powers granted in the specific text of the Constitution that the President is granted the ability to issue an “executive order” that creates laws applying to ANY of the amendments, let alone one specifically claimed to be “the right of the people” NOT the government.

At best, (let me repeat that- at best) the executive executes or enforces the law and even that is an overreach based upon the powers specifically defined as demonstrated above from Article 2, Section 2.  Nowhere in the Constitution is he delegated the power to MAKE laws. Nowhere!

To me this is yet another example of how useless the text of the Constitution has become when it comes to limiting government (which is supposedly what it was instituted for and expected to do).

Another False Claim in Obama’s Statement

Obama claims that this move is what the “overwhelming majority of American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.” (An oldie but goodie for Obama- something we can believe in. At least according to Emperor Obama that is.)

This is nothing less than a patent falsehood, or in more common parlance, a lie.

American gun owners by and large want the Federal government out of their faces when it comes to gun ownership. It is, as the Constitution stipulates, a “right of the people“. Gun owners are not fools. They clearly recognize that which is why there is an Gun owners statementactive membership in the NRA and there are organizations like the Gun Owners of America are calling to repeal these unConstitutional orders meddling with the right of the people. (The executive order was designed to apply to the executive branch only, not as a means of creating laws BTW. Another, distortion of the Constitution. See defined powers above for the executive’s controls.)

Additionally, according to the latest Gallup poll, the President DOES NOT have an overwhelming majority by any stretch of the imagination or interpretation.

What the Public Really Feels About Gun Control from Gallup Polling

As summarized in an article in The New American entitled “America Pushes Gun Control; Most Americans Don’t Want It”:

“Gallup just issued its latest poll indicating that

1) most Americans don’t really give two hoots about what the president is doing about the gun “problem” but

2) instead are increasingly concerned about government overreach, which has hit new highs during his administration.

Specifically, concerns about the gun issue that Obama is focusing on comes in at 19th out of 23 issues presented by Gallup to 12,000 American adults over the past 12 months. At no time did gun control ever engage more than seven percent of those respondents, while for most of 2015 the issue engaged just one percent.

Much higher on the list, according to Gallup, is government: specifically government under Obama. In 2007, governmental overreach concerned just seven percent of Americans but climbed steadily as the Obama administration pressed its agenda to “change” America, and now is at 16 percent. Said Gallup: “For the second consecutive year, dissatisfaction with government edged out the economy as the problem more Americans identified as the nation’s top problem in 2015.”

About the so-called “gun issue” Gallup added: “Another issue that briefly spiked as a concern in 2015 was gun control, with mentions rising from near 1% most months to 7% in October and December following mass shootings that dominated the news.” On average, just two percent of those polled listed gun control as a concern during all of 2015.”

More lies from a President whose campaign was built upon and whose 2 terms have continued to reflect.

Back to the Constitution

Perhaps now you can see why the Constitution has essentially failed us. It is little more than an inconvenience these days rather than the claimed “Rule of Law”. The President and others routinely step over or around it and claim rights upon that, like our phony Federal Reserve Notes, are manifested out of the thin air.

I hope to return to the Constitution series in the next few posts, but I hope this cements my point a bit more firmly about how the Constitution is NOT the solution. Not any more and quite possibly never was! We’ll be considering that as we move along.

Fact is, there ain’t hardly nothin left of the sucker. Constitution? What Constitution? Obama acts like an Emperor and we are all expected to bow and say, “Yes, master. How high was that you wanted me to jump?”

Oath of office of Congress? What oath of office? For the most part they stand around with their thumbs up their you know what’s and spinelessly/complacently, quite simply- let it all happen. Along with the Constitution, the oaths of office for all politicians (starting with the President and Cabinet on down) mean little to nothing these days.

Why should it? The Constitution is in shreds already. There ain’t nothing left to uphold!

Related articles

If the Constitution Was the Solution, Why Hasn’t It Worked?- Part Three

In the few seconds that it took you to read this sentence, our government in 2011 spent on average nearly $250,000. Five years ago, the budget pace was about $7.2 million a minute which works out to a pace of about money burning$435 million per hour. The velocity of our national debt has continued to grow even faster in the past 5 years, so these levels are like even greater today.

Since our government is based on the Constitution, one has to wonder then, “What kind of people put together a document that could lead to this kind of debt?” So let’s take a look at the socioeconomic facts related to the persons who constructed the document which we base our government upon.

In becoming aware just who these framers of our Constitution were in terms of their general occupations and interests, we will have a better understanding of the nature of the document they produced and why they produced what they did.

Framers Not Founders

First, I must point out that these men were not the “founders” of our nation. This is simply an embellishment designed to elevate this group to an undeserved level of prestige. It qualifies as propaganda designed to produce the illusion that until the Constitution our nation was in a shambles that the Constitution corrected.

The fact is, the nation already existed before these conspirators (planners in secret) rewrote the agreement to reconstruct the form of government. They did not create a new nation. They “framed” a new government.

Illegally, if you want to accurate about it, but nevertheless it was the reframing of an existing governmental agreement, not the founding of a new nation. The actual “founders” were the people who sacrificed their time, ideas, and sometimes their lives to forge a nation out of what formerly a sparsely occupied wilderness.

What Did They Create?

The re-framed government took on the intended shape of a Constitutional Republic. (Article 4, Section 4- “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,) The term Republic comes from the Roman Latin words, res and publica together meaning “the people’s thing”.

This would be in line with the first words of the Preamble, “We the People…” It also is another pointer to the secular nature of the newly created form of government.

So Just Who Were These Framers?

In order to discover who these framers were, it is best to first take a collective approach. By looking at this group in this manner, we can better achieve a general sense of the kind of document theConstitutional Framers collective group would agreeably approve. Otherwise, we end up not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

The Old Guard

First of all, something kept pretty much in the background about this group of invited delegates is the military emphasis in their backgrounds. Of course, in the presiding chair, we have the commander in chief of the Continental Army, George Washington. We will cover his background in more depth in another post.

Then, we have Generals Pinckney and Mifflin, major general and quartermaster general respectively of the Continental Army.

Next, James Wilson briefly the brigadier general of the Pennsylvania militia; James McClurg, surgeon general of Virginia troops; Pierce Butler, adjutant general of South Carolina troops; Gunning Bedford, lt. colonel and muster master general from Delaware; George Clymer, deputy commissary general of prisoners from Pa.; William Livingston, brigadier general of the New Jersey militia; John Dickinson, brigadier general of the Pa. militia, and Hugh Williamson, surgeon general of North Carolina forces.

Between the generals and colonels like Alexander Hamilton and others, to a large extent it was like a gathering of the old guard revolutionary army. That is, men used to wielding authority over the rank and file. Altogether, twenty seven or nearly half of the delegates (mostly men long known to Washington) had been officers in the revolutionary war.

Political Background

With few exceptions, the persons both invited and those who showed up in Philadelphia were continually active in politics, always at the highest levels. However, it was not a political dream team, so to speak.

Missing were the big names of the day like Jefferson, John and Sam Adams, John Jay, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, Paul Revere, John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry (named but chose not to attend), Richard Henry Lee (who later eloquently opposed the Constitution during the ratification process) and a host of others.

With the exception of notables, namely Washington and Franklin, few of the men (even those who later achieved national status) were well known nationally when the convention met. Unlike today with our ever present media, these politicians were for the most part unknown to the general public and mainly only known locally.

However, forty four were either present or past members of congress. Forty six had held political offices in their home states including 7 who were present or former state governors and 5 who were high level state judges. The Constitution, in fact, was generated along defined lines by the government itself by a rather small number of self-selected elite.

Intellectual Capacities

While, there were 25 college graduates, using this as a measurement of a stellar intellectual capacity in the colonial period is distinctly misleading. The colleges of this period were rudimentary in nature and graduated students at much earlier ages than present, often as early as age 16.

Education consisted largely of a study of the classics, some history and some natural science. Harvard boasted a faculty consisting of professors of divinity, mathematics and Greek, four tutors and a steward.

Washington had a 5th grade education. Franklin and Hamilton were both pretty much self-taught. There were of course some good, if not superior, intellects in George Mason (a non-signer), John Dickinson, James Madison and James Wilson who acted as guiding forces.

There were only two professorships. William Houston of New Jersey (mathematics at the College of NJ) and George Wythe of the College of William and Mary. Both lasted very short times. Houston, got sick, left and died after a week of participation. Wythe left soon after the convention started, due to his wife’s fatal illness and never returned.

For the most part, they were sensible and practical thinkers but certainly not a group of extraordinarily learned or exceptional intellectual giants.

Religion

This was not an assemblage of Christians. Most were Deists, Unitarians or simply rationalists. Only one stood out as Christian enthusiast, Richard Bassett, a devout Methodist from Delaware. Washington gave pro forma (for the sake of form) support to religion but was certainly not a devout Christian (more on that in another post).

Both Deists and Unitarians believe in a Creator but are far from Christians. They do not accept the divinity of Christ, nor the Trinitarian concept. Both emphasize reason as much if not more than faith. Both believe in a secular society in which government is kept separate from religious affairs.

Economic Status

Aside from being persistent office-holders and lawyers, a third general characteristic of the delegates was that most of them were men of substance. That is, through inheritance or marriage (thirteen had married heiresses) or gained by their own successful strategies, most of them would have been considered wealthy.

No fewer than 21 were rated to be rich or very rich. Washington and Robert Morris being the richest. Washington mainly through land holdings. Morris through commercial banking.

Another 13 were considered affluent to very affluent. The four from South Carolina had been very rich until the Brits confiscated their slaves and plantations during the war. They were however, well on their way back to financial health by the time of the convention.

All were considered highly solvent at the time of the convention. Thirty one were owners of personal property (merchants, attorneys, holders of continental securities and specie.) Twenty four including Washington had more wealth concentrated in land holdings than personal property.

This was certainly no meeting of the economically ordinary.

Other Characteristics

In an agrarian society largely of farmers, there were no actual farmers at the convention. (Broom and Few were claimed as “small farmers” but their backgrounds hardly substantiate that claim.) There were planters like Washington but he was primarily a military man who also ran a plantation when on the home front.

Directly or indirectly, the delegates consisted of lawyers (33 total bearing in mind that unlike today one could become a lawyer through self-study in a matter of weeks, as Hamilton did), bankers, merchants, ship-owners, slave-traders, slave owners, privateers, money-lenders, investors and speculators in land and securities. In general, not exactly representative of “We the People”.

Anticipated Results

With this kind of background one would not be surprised in the production of a document with the nature of the Constitution that came out of these meetings.

Religion

With essentially no Christians in the group we can expect that a secular, perhaps even anti-Christian sentiment would prevail in the nature of the document. That is, in fact what surfaced which I will cover in a future post.

War

Washington_Crossing_quipWith the military backgrounds, one would also anticipate an authoritarian approach which we find.

The decision to go to war would be the responsibility of our representatives rather than the people who would fight the wars. It’s also no surprise the President, or their leader, would be determined to become the Commander in Chief.

Not only was the power to declare war granted but also to raise money for both the army and the navy.

It follows then that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

That is, they (Congress) could declare war but the people who would ultimately fight it would also have to pay for it through taxation. Is it any surprise then that we are continually embroiled in war these days and generating debt at the velocity and level noted in the beginning of this post?

The Courts and Law

With all those lawyers, lifelong politicians and the military bearing, one would anticipate that the Court would be deemed a “supreme” court and that the document would also be deemed the “supreme Law of the Land”

One could also anticipate that the court being supreme would become the ultimate determinant of the meaning of the Constitution, not “We the People.” A characteristic that patriots like Patrick Henry feared and railed against. A characteristic that Hamilton promised in Federalist No. 78 would be the weakest branch of government because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse”.

Unfortunately, the anti-Federalists turned out to be correct as we more recently saw with the approval of Obamacare on an obscure reference to Congress’ power of taxation by the Supreme Court. No influence on purse? I think not.

Economic Influence

Do the rich ever create legislation that limits them? I think we all know the answer to that one. As expected, this group of wealthy men had little to say about the limits of wealth. I have no complaint about that, not because I am wealthy, but rather because as Jefferson once stated “that government is best which governs least”.

However, as time has passed, the rich are being given more and more advantages while the middle class is shrinking and the number of poor are growing. Corporate monopolies are growing as small businesses struggle mightily to stay afloat under the heavy regulatory and taxation climate of continually expanding government encroachment.

Perhaps the clandestine convention in Philadelphia could have used a few more commoners with a say in the proceedings?

Up Next

Hopefully, the above demographics can help you to have a better understanding of why the Constitution developed as it did and how it helped plant and germinate the seeds for what we have today. There are some other factors we still have not covered.

We can also understand how the secular, man dominant emphasis tends to support an authoritarian control over the people. Perhaps, the little acknowledged military background of the Washington Posedparticipants can help also explain why the seeds of war planted in the Constitution has become as much a part of our lives these days as driving a car.

Less transparent but clearly there is the anti-Christian nature of the document which explains the rise of non-Christian influences and the rejection of the Christian values that our nations real founders relied upon. I will probably address this issue further in a later post because it is more influential than acknowledged. It will also explain why the claim that the Constitution is a Christian inspired, practically sacred document is patently false and absurd.

Next, let’s take a closer look at quite possibly the most revered character in American history and guiding force of the Constitutional convention- George Washington. Without his presence and influence, it can probably be safely said that the Constitution would never have been ratified.

Read more in Part Four.

If the Constitution Was the Solution- Why Hasn’t It Worked- Part Two

As noted in tUS Constitution and Flaghe first post on this issue, it’s pretty obvious that the Constitution is not working as we are told it was intended to. We have been led to believe it was originally designed to limit our government, in turn both protecting and maximizing our personal freedom. The flag is all wrapped around it. You are considered unpatriotic if you do not embrace it as the foundations of our liberty.

However, unless you are sleepwalking through life here in America. simply, not paying attention. One can see that this intended result is pretty much a sham with no real meaning to it. Additionally, the so-called limited government is in our faces at every turn and growing ever more intrusive with every passing day.

However, even for those paying attention, there are other myths attached to the Constitution which distract us from the realization that perhaps the Constitution is not all that it is cracked up to be and has become quite possibly exactly what is was intended to be.

Perhaps if we actually saw the Constitution for what it actually is, rather than what we are told it is or supposed to be, we would begin to realize that the reasons it is not working today are buried underneath the myths attached to it.

Constitutional Myths

There is this aura associated with the Constitution. I mean, the fact that I can refer to the document as “the Constitution” and that nearly all Americans and even non-Americans immediately know what I am referring to points to how deeply embedded this myth actually is. Some even go far as to claim that it was divinely inspired. Many say that it reflects the principles of the Christian culture and the Christian God of the bible that dominated the colonial period.

There are books that even refer to it as a miracle like Catherine Drinker Bowen‘s “Miracle at Philadelphia” or the popular “conservative” classic “The 5000 Year Leap” which has on the top of the cover “A Miracle That Changed the World”. Through patient study and as a reformed Constitutionalist, I beg to differ with those characterizations.

Secret Meetings

Secret meetings are usually held because they wish to cover something up. One would not expect elected public officials to be engaged in them. Perhaps you would expect a few to gather US Constitution Meetingclandestinely to do something underhanded or illegal, but certainly not a large and geographically varied group. Yet, the meetings which resulted in our Constitution were conducted as such.

The “framers” of this document held closed-door meetings. They were not even permitted to disclose the contents of these meetings. The story of Ben Franklin on the steps being asked by the woman, “Well, what have we got?” who answered, “A Republic madame, if we can keep it.” confirms how little people actually knew about this meeting. Nothing to be proud of actually.

The obvious reason for this, as we now know, was that to rewrite government and create a Constitution was never the stated purpose of the Philadelphia convention in the first place. The meeting in Philadelphia invited 74 delegates, 55 showed up. (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were not among them.) The stated purpose of the meeting was to amend the Articles of Confederation. It was NOT to construct a completely new form of government which is what the Constitution actually did.

The “Unintended” Result?

The plain fact is that the meetings in Philadelphia ultimately led to a complete abandonment of the existing form of government. Under the Articles, we operated essentially as a league of nations. The nations being each state and the league being a general association of the States for the purpose of creating mutual cooperation and agreements.

The Constitution on the other hand is a document that established a central form of government or as noted in Article 4, Section 4 a “Republican form of government“. This is altogether a new form of government.

This was not the original intended purpose of the meeting scheduled in Philadelphia. I think we can plainly see here that this is why the meetings were held in secret. (That also may be why a true Christian patriot like Patrick Henry when asked about why he declined to attend the Philadelphia meeting later remarked, “I smelt a rat.)

This also may give us the first clue as to why characterizing the results of this on-going set of meetings in Philadelphia to generate the Constitution as a “miracle”is, in fact, over the top and incorrect.

A Miracle?

Looking back now, how is it possible to characterize the Constitution as a miracle? There is nothing miraculous about the Leviathan that our so-called Constitutional government has become. If anything, as debt and regulatory oversight of our lives continues to climb, far from being a miracle it has become a monster.

I don’t believe we can think of our Constitution as a “miracle” any more. Now, we have to wonder, why has it failed us? So let’s dispel this first myth of the Constitution. It is far from being a miracle.

Another Popular Myth

The Constitution was inspired by and reflected Christian principles. It is something akin to a sacred document. To be venerated along with the bible in fact.

Sorry to burst the bubble on this one, but sad to say that is simply not the case. Let’s begin with the fact that nowhere in the document is there any mention of God. Let me repeat that again, nowhere!

The Declaration of Independence mentioned “the Creator” and “nature’s God” but heck Deists like Thomas Jefferson (credited as its author) and even pantheists, accept a Creator and nature’s God. Deists and pantheists are certainly not Christians.

The actual reality is that the Constitution never mentions God once, anywhere!

So then where is the evidence that the Constitution was a divinely inspired, Christian oriented document? It is not in the document itself. That much is plain.

The PreamblePreamble of the US Constitution

Perhaps if we read the document we can get an idea of what it actually does represent. Let’s begin with the Preamble. “We the People…..” Wait! Let’s stop there for a moment.

What is this “We the People” thingy? The meetings were held by a small minority of appointed representatives in secret. “We the People” didn’t know anything about the results of those meetings until after they had ended. The people had no input whatsoever into the document. The men who attended these secret meetings were the ones who created it not “We the People…”

So for them to begin this document with the words “We the People” is a bit disingenuous shall we say? (That’s a euphemism for “telling a lie” or as Merriam-Webster’s puts it “not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere.”) The people had no clue as to what the meetings produced until after they were concluded.

Wasn’t Ratification “We the People” Then?

Well, you may say, the people had access to the information during the ratification meetings didn’t they? As it turns out, only about 20 to 25% of the eligible voting population voted during the ratification process. It passed by a 5 to 3 margin on average. Taking the highest percentage of 25% voting, that means that only a little over 16% of the colonial population ever voted to ratify the Constitution. That would not have included woman and blacks of course who were not able to vote at that time. That can hardly be considered a mandate of “We the People”.

Window Dressing Only?

One could claim then, “Well they only really used that phrase “We the people” for window dressing.” That is, it was only used to produce the view that the people created this document. This would help to assist in its approval. After all, it was really FOR We the People wasn’t it? So how could it hurt to dress it up a bit and make it look more attractive?

OK, let’s suppose that were true. Well then, doesn’t that also amount to another deceptive practice? Why the need to continue to resort to subterfuge after the document was completed and put before the people? After all, the document was already put together in secret (You know, like the Bilderburger meetings are conducted). Why the need for additional deception?

Christian Inspired?

What is more, “We the People” actually also constructs another God, so to speak. That is, a God substitute (since He is never mentioned anywhere in the document) calledWe the People“.

Doesn’t the authority for this document then become, in place of God, “We the People“? How then can Christians claim that it was a divinely inspired, sacred document or “a miracle” when it never mentions God once, and it makes “We the People” (Not God!) the authority for the document?

Fact is, by taking the document at face value, as it is (Which is something Constitutionalists push for, claiming that if we only stuck to the limited nature of the text of the document, it would be the solution for all of government overreach.) it is a secular document! Secular meaning- not spiritual nor religious.

How then can one claim it to be a Christian document? On face value, that is, what it actually presents to us with its language- it is not!

In fact, sad to acknowledge, while it may not be quite as blatantly generous to the State as the Russian or Chinese Constitutions, it is still a secular document just like them. This is to say, it places authority for rule squarely in the hands of man and clearly outside of the laws
of the Christian God of the bible.

In actuality, there is really no specific reference to Christianity in the document anywhere, nor God, certainly not Jesus. No, the God referred to in the Constitution, if any, would be “We the People”!

Can you begin to see where this may create a problem further on down the road? Oh and by the way, it didn’t take long. Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, and James Madison, a Unitarian, wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the 2nd President John Adams (a Unitarian) Alien and Sedition Acts which they (Jefferson and Madison) felt was a clear US Constitution Burningoverstep of the boundaries of the Constitution and human rights.

Next on the Hit Parade

I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Check out the Constitution itself. See if you find any reference to God in it. Read the Preamble and see what is established as the authority. If you have any familiarity with the bible, read it and see if you can find the parallels to the biblical laws of God. Could this be a contributor to why the Constitution has failed to accomplish its mission of limited government and preservation of freedom?

What I would like to touch upon next is the background of the men who wrote the document. After all, since it is basically a secular document and was written in secret, who were these men really? Why would Christians construct a secular document and completely disregard anything Christian? Let’s take a further look at the Constitution by peeking at the men who wrote it to see if this can help us to understand why this so-called “miracle” has so utterly failed us.

Read more in Part Three.

If the Constitution Was the Solution, Why Hasn’t It Worked?- Part One

As a reformed Constitutionalist, I suggest that the Constitution has been an abject failure. First, however, let me explain what I mean by “reformed” so that you can have a better understanding of where I am coming from here.

At one time, as anyone taking a conservative position naturally would in these times, I firmly believed that the Constitution held all the answers to our problems with government today. Some of my earlier posts reflect that position. However, I also attempt to cultivate the trait within myself of being open minded. That is, I will consider a contrary position to my point of view and if it makes sense after some careful consideration either reject or alter my world view and mind set accordingly.

I usually do this by looking at the evidence to support the conclusion to see if it provides the appropriate ammunition to support itself. This is what I have done with our Constitution and well….it has come up alarmingly shorter than I assumed. Follow along here and see how and why I reached these conclusions.

The First and Most Important Question

Has it Worked? Well, I think the proof is in the pudding as the old saying goes. The results of the Constitution have been nothing short of catastrophically disastrous. I mean we sing the

Real Patriots? Note Michelle’s Hand Location (Flag Colored Shirt even)

Star Spangled Banner with our hands on our hearts and every “good patriot” is supposed to take those words to heart and believe in them with fervor. Are they?

Home of the free and land of the brave? Really?

I mean, just how free do you actually feel these days?

The financiers who run the Federal Reserve from the shadows (since we really don’t have full disclosure of actually who owns the private banking cartel, which poses as a “Federal” agency but is nowhere to be found when you look through the blue pages of Federal agencies in the phone book) and the politicians they own through indebtedness have well…..to be honest………run our economy into the ground!

Take Manufacturing For Example

We have exported our manufacturing in massive amounts. Pretty easy to confirm. Simply go through a retail goods store. Find all of the American made goods you can. Not easy to do these days.

Even easier, take an inventory of what you wear to work or are wearing now. (Hopefully, you will be wearing something, but hey, I still do believe in the 4th amendment despite the nature of this post.) How much of what you are wearing now or wear for work is actually made in America?

Consider the computer or device you are reading this article on. Is it American made? Not very likely. Open it up and peruse the mother board, look at the RAM (random access memory), hard drive etc. Where are they manufactured? Chances are the parts are manufactured outside of the U.S. as with most electronic devices. The same applies to cars, clothing on down to even our food products these days. (Not to mention food producers located here but owned by non-American entities.)

The Constitution was supposed to ensure fair trade, not gut our manufacturing to the point of having practically nothing tangible to trade. Since these so-called “free trade agreements” have begun, it has not gotten better it has gotten even worse. All ostensibly made under the Constitutional treaty clause and approved by the Senate and President btw.

Wage Slavery

The point is, more jobs transferred away from this nation means, the employer in a shrinking job market is in the driver’s seat these days when it comes to employment. As workers we are oftentimes in the position of having to work in a less than satisfying job with less than appropriate compensation simply because a market of limited opportunities causes us to hold on to what we have. We work under, the old fear based, bird in the hand mentality.

Consequently, unfortunately too many of us are ending up as “wage slaves”. Not all of us of course, but too many of us. Wage slavery meaning we go to work for the income because otherwise we would not be able to survive. Not exactly a hallmark of freedom now is it? That is, working because you have to, not because you are passionate about what you are doing and it feeds your inner soul, so to speak.

This, of course, doesn’t even consider the significant amount of debt that college graduates begin their careers with, yet another form of wage slavery. Your career was funded by banks who you

Click Picture for Film: The College Conspiracy

Click Picture for Film: The College Conspiracy

now have to pay back with interest basically placing you in the same position as an indentured servant.

The job becomes the servitude, even worse if you work for a multi-national Corporation that has no loyalty to any nation, and the lender (the bank) becomes the slave master. (Is the Corporation then like an overseer?)

The kicker is that much of this money for college comes from the now supposedly Constitutional function of government as a college loan and grant agent using public money. For the 2014-15 school year, $99.6 billion in new federal student loans will be made to students.

The loans include Direct and Perkins Loan programs. The grants include Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants, and TEACH Grants.

The tax benefits for these loans and grants include exclusion of scholarship income; Lifetime Learning and American Opportunity tax credits; deductions for student loan interest and higher education expenses, 529 plans, parental personal exemption for students aged 19 and over, and exclusion of employer-provided educational assistance.

Was this the intent of our Constitution? That is, to make indentured slaves out of its citizens while running up the public debt?

What About the Constitution?

Well, now you may ask, “What has this got to do with the Constitution? That doesn’t have anything to do with my job does it?” You would be wrong.

You see, it was a bill passed by our Congress which allowed for the advent of the Federal Reserve. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power “To coin money”. What the Constitution left out, however, is a specific definition of the term money. A trap door left open. You see, the brevity of the Constitution was not always necessarily a good feature, although some claim it to be.

Some of course will point to Article I, Section 10 and claim that the Constitution says that money should only be gold and silver coin:

“[No State shall] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

Unfortunately, Section 10 applies to restrictions placed on the States, not the Federal government, each paragraph beginning with “No State shall….” Another trap door left open for our Federal representatives to drive through.

The “Fed” Trap Door

The Federal Reserve Act, legally passed by Congress, simply erased any hint of the necessity to observe the suggestion that money be tied in any way to gold and silver.

Once the Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress, our “money” began a fairly rapid transformation into a debt based currency, which I previously covered.

As a manufacturer, the lower the cost to make something the better. A good way to lower costs? Outsource to cheap labor nations like China for example where there are lots of hungry people under the tyranny of a police state anxious to survive.

Human Rights?

Who cares when profit is the name of the game? Workers are a way to profits. And well, if I can put a little coin in my pocket…..

So how did multi-nationals become multi-nationals? Cheap money was a primary tool. Low interest loans financed overseas expansion. Now guess who controls the interest rates and the issuance of currency? Hint: It ain’t Federal. It has no reserves. It is a cartel or cabal, not a system.

But Wait There’s More!

The Federal Reserve is not the only Constitution based transgression which has converted our land of the free. Take a look at the 2nd amendment.

Yes, the Bill of Rights is valid as part of the Constitution. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states:

…that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

The second amendment reads:

Second_Amendment

First of all, the amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is owned by the people, not any government. It doesn’t specify what kind of arms one can keep. It also doesn’t specify where you can bear arms, i.e. carry. It also makes no mention of a standing army but rather a citizen based militia (later defined as needing to be trained by the States).

The phrase related to the Militia is an explanatory clause placing a context on the amendment not exclusively restricting arms to the militia only as some gun control advocates claim. It does not alter “the right of the people” which is a natural, God-given right of self protection from evil.

Now ask yourself, has this “right of the people” been infringed? My answer would be- You bet it has!!! And every time a gun incident occurs, the leftist oriented gun control advocates (actually better stated as people control advocates) call for still more restrictions.

More can be said on this issue and has been in previous posts, but the point is, this is yet another place where the Constitution has failed.

Wrapping Up

We can easily look at what is happening today and demonstrate where the Constitution has failed to limit government. (What Constitutionalists claim it is the cure for!) Health care? Where is the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to step in and regulate the health care marketplace?

Trade? Congress was granted the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign nations” and between States. Congress is trading away that power each time one of these so-called “free trade” agreements is signed. Read carefully, they are each assigning this Congressional power to the UN based World Trade Organization (WTO)

War? Since WWII no war has actually been officially declared by Congress. Korea was a police action governed under the UN. VietNam and the Iraq wars were based on UN resolutions. Our troops fight under UN connected NATO, not the U.S. government.

The Navy is now a “global force for good” used all over the planet for war and other non-U.S. related functions. And so it goes on and on.

Limited Government?

What is clear here is that if the Constitution is, in fact, the solution- it has failed, flopped, collapsed utterly. Government intrudes into every aspect of our lives. Government debt is massive and growing at increasing velocity every day.

The reality is that the Constitution has been shredded into meaninglessness! It is not considered something to protect and defend by our modern day Princes but has become something to be stepped around and little more than an inconvenience.

If it is the solution to limiting the Federal government, where are the limits? They appear to be boundless.

Presidents now bypass Congress by issuing “executive orders”. (Bear in mind that all executive orders automatically become law when a state of emergency is declared. Ever wonder why we are in a perpetual state of emergency?) Therefore, Congress treats them like laws which is simply another way to bypass the clear mandate from the Constitution at the end of Article I, Section 8 “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Yet according to the Constitution, the powers of the President (Article II, Section 2 to 4), are even more limited than that of Congress!

Moving On

OK, obviously there is a whole lot more that can be written here. All of this was intended to simply be an introduction to the next part. What I would like to do next is to look at why the Constitution has failed. You may not like the answers or agree with them. It will all fit together in the end.

What is clear however as we look at our over-regulated and heavily indebted nation, you cannot deny that the Constitution has failed in its reputed intent, i.e., to “bind them down with the shackles of the Constitution” as Jefferson put it.

Is it time to consider another model or a new direction?

Let’s take a look at who created it. Were they Christians and motivated by the Christian God as some aggressively claim? Were their motivations to limit government as Constitutionalists claim. If so, that part has failed for sure.

Stay open minded and simply consider the facts presented. I at least promise I will make you think about our venerated Constitution. We have placed it prominently on a pedestal to be venerated as divinely inspired. Yet, it is actually massively dismissed and circumvented leading to a government that intrudes into every aspect of out lives these days.

P.S.- Oh, and to answer my first statement, all of the above and more is why I am now no longer a devotee worshiping the Constitution as “the” solution. It quite obviously has not been. And may I add, never will be, despite claims to the contrary by current Constitutionalists. What is more, there are strong arguments that it was a problem from the get go, even from the framers themselves. Read more in Part Two.

Techniques of Deception and 911

Once Upon a Time a Group of Elitists Had a Dream…

Suppose you were among a group of self-appointed elitists who fashioned themselves as Gods or intellectual superiors among the people. You believed that you had the inside track to what was needed to bring about a semblance of harmony amongst the generally ignorant and undisciplined masses.

Now, you had determined that what was necessary was a global governing body which you and your ilk, of necessity, would have to be the controlling force. In order to implement such a plan however, what was needed was a global governing body.

So, you constructed the framework of such a body (Think the UN here.)

Nonetheless, you also needed to gain control through the cooperation of the masses of each existing nation. This would be best done agreeably through stealth, rather than through the more easily detectable use of coercive force.

The best case scenario would be to generate a means of getting the people to actually request the implementation of your globally instituted government (or a New World Order as the political elite like to refer to it). This could happen by getting them to believe that it was their idea. As a whole, they would most agreeably accept the controls of the global government if they thought that it not only was their idea but also was in their best interests and for their personal protection and safety.

Wellllll.....maybe not "nothing but the whole truth."

Wellllll…..maybe not “nothing but the whole truth.”

So, how could you possibly achieve such a lofty goal?

One Effective Technique…

Attack innocent civilians. Come again- innocent civilians?

OK, stay with me here. Yes, innocents. That is, people including women and even children. Most especially, ordinary people. People far removed from any political game or awareness of it. Just your normal everyday, unsuspecting citizen.

But……..Why innocent civilians?

Well, the reason for using this technique is actually psychologically sound from the perspective of the average psychopathic (without conscience) elitist focused only on their end game goals.

Innocents, especially those not politically astute, could easily be led (once aroused and fearful) to turn to the State to implement greater security. Even, in fact, if it meant that they were required to sacrifice and limit their own freedoms to make it happen.

This could work particularly well if if the people were either already disarmed or somewhat controlled and limited in providing their own self-protection. That is, they were already conditioned to blame weapons for violence instead of the bearer of the weapon. This would make them less inclined to carry personal protection and accept restriction. (Or afraid to carry for fear of being detected and arrested or charged for doing so.)

May I suggest that this is the manipulative logic that lies behind mass violence that has specious (having a false look of truth or genuineness) causes? I am suggesting that BTW.

Scapegoat- A Necessity

Now, this could not be pulled off by a controlling group within its own kind, if there were an opportunity for detection. You would of necessity need to use stealth. You would also need to have an acceptable scapegoat to pin the blame upon, already frameable and set up to take the fall. (A “patsy” as Lee Harvey put it before being eliminated by Jack Ruby.)

After all, our own rulers could never in any way be suspected of allowing or facilitating a devastating event which impacted its own innocent civilians and continue to maintain the public trust. It would have to be precipitated by some external group of radicals far removed from this nation or some “nut” outside of the mainstream of society, of course.

Let’s Consider an Event Like 911 in This Model?

Ok, now suppose you wanted to implement your New World Order. As previously noted, cooperation of the people would be an easier way to make it happen and more effective in the long run than the obvious use of force.

Generating fear of personal safety would be one very effective technique to accomplish your mission. As mentioned, if it involved the murder of innocents, you would necessarily have to be totally free of blame. Otherwise, your real intended plan to further the New World Order could not be facilitated after the precipitating event took place.

Any hint of an association like this, especially when the event were fresh, would immediately turn the people you wished to enslave upon you! This certainly would not be helpful to your long range plans. The jig would be up as the saying goes.

However, suppose you were able to very quickly pin the deed on a scapegoat? Deflect attention from it being an “inside job”and focus the public eye on outsiders. This would be especially effective if the scapegoat(s) were a group or person(s) that included a built in “confirmation bias” (That is , people’s inclination to accept information that supports what they already believe.) This technique would additionally be particularly effective if the confirmation bias belief were soundly entrenched and negatively emotionally charged.

911 and the Scapegoat Model

Let’s examine 911 with this context in mind. First of all, if American’s suspected 911 involved some group from their own nation, they would get very angry. That it was in any way an inside job, they would likely turn on their government rather than support it and demand justice from it. Perhaps even resorting to violence themselves complicating rather than facilitating the end goal.

This would not do if the overall goal were to have them align with you in granting cooperation to implement enslavement of them. Just like the Lost Boys in Pinocchio, you would need to distract and engage them in their own enslavement. You certainly could not pull that off if they saw through the charade.

LiesFortunately for the elite controlling the media narrative, there exists another group which could very easily be targeted to pin the blame on. One that most Americans would accept as violent sorts who have no respect for freedom or Christian morality. Can you guess who that would be? I think I can safely conclude that most of us would agree that the label of radical Muslim could be acceptably inserted as the answer here.

Let me be clear that I do not intend to protect or shield Islamic teachings from their violent nature. They do teach and implement violence seen in the media as beheadings, suicide bombings, abuse against their own woman, attacks and even murder directed against Christians, against other sects they despise etc. I am simply suggesting that they, by their aggressive tendencies and inclination towards violence, they make awfully good scapegoat targets in this strategy.

On the other hand, suppose instead someone suggested that our assumed guardians of freedom, our government or individuals within our system with the ability to orchestrate a government cover up, were the perpetrators of an event like 911? Particularly after continual, immediate media suggestions implicating Bin Laden coupled with endless television loops of the buildings collapsing.

Would you think that an accusation like this would fly? Ask yourself honestly, which of the two suggestions above were you inclined to immediately accept in the aftermath of 911?

Would you be more inclined, with the built-in confirmation bias, to accept a proposed scenario involving radical Muslim terrorists or the possibility of an inside job, particularly in the immediate wake of the event. Which sounded more believable? Again, I think the answer to those questions is pretty transparent by now as well.

After the Event

Perhaps, however, what actually transpired for the average citizen after the event could give us an honest perception of the real primary intended target of 911.

For example, what happened to airport security?  The groping began. Another few specious events like the alleged water bottle bombing and the shoe bomber and well…..even more controls. All for our own protection and good of course.

Now, we all became criminals until we are proven innocent by either being groped or X-rayed, having our luggage examined with potentially lethal substances like shampoo containers over 6 oz. confiscated even.

Heck, I had about $40 of new, high quality, personal care products absconded because they exceeded the arbitrary oz. limits the first time I traveled after the new regulations were implemented. (I do suppose however that natural shave cream could easily be construed as a dangerous packaging for the organic terrorist. Although I imagined the NSA employee enjoying a high quality shampoo that evening instead. I was so ticked that I wrote my Congressman. Much to my surprise, he never responded. Not very patriotic of me I guess.)

The Patriot Act, was quickly generated and approved, almost as though this Act were just sitting on a shelf just waiting for the right time to be implemented. Among other intrusions like NSA spying which was exacerbated, this Act gave the government the capability of examining your bank account without you even needing to be informed by the bank, along with other State authority strengthening measures.

But hey, the term Patriot attached to the Act did give it a nice ring though. I mean, what true “Patriot” wouldn’t sacrifice their personal privacy and their 6th amendment right of privacy- “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…..” for the good of the nation and their personal security, right?

Domestic Spying by the NSA as already noted was also ramped up, as the whistle blower Mr. Snowden pointed out most recently.

Wars on terror were immediately launched against the assumed offending nations even before the corroborating evidence was collected and confirmed. Not against terrorists per se but rather against the entire nation of the assumed offenders requiring complete occupation and all out war.

Note that 15 of the accused 19 were from Saudi Arabia, the rest from Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon but we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan instead. Anyone in the mainstream media ever mention that discrepancy I wonder? Of course, it did also put a few coins in the pockets of the international financiers and continues to do. It also continues to serve as a convenient means of preserving and generating further controls on the population by keeping the flames of fear burning.

Saddam was accused of storing significant quantities of WMD’s an accusation that was never proven. The aggressive investigation yielded NO evidence after 18 months was quietly abandoned. Curiously, there was hardly a murmur in the media, in contrast to the incessant drum beat leading up to the Iraq war which was loud and repetitive. While Iraq made the front pages daily, the WMD investigation termination was in the back pagesonce! (Oh and once again note that Iraq did not provide an of the accused terrorists. Why didn’t we invade the nations they actually came from if it was a “war against terror” and the nations providing the terrorists?)

Still Today…

The war on terror continues to be a reason to restrict our freedoms of movement and privacy. We still spend a lot of money on the war on terror, fueling inflation with debt but feeding the parasite banksters likely connected to 911 I speculate. (What else can you do when the executioner’s face is always well hidden as Dylan put it, but speculate on the evidence?)

Fear mongering continues to be a technique associated with any disturbing event. The suggestions for solutions nearly always point to further restrictions on our basic freedoms, always appointing more government authority as the solution.

So, with all of the above in mind, I invite you to objectively (which means disengaging negative emotion and fixed opinion) watch either of the 2 YouTube videos below.

Take a fresh look at 911. See if it still makes sense to you as spun by the media and government or NIST. Perhaps some of the suggested motives above may have more meaning afterwards. At the least, I think you will learn a thing or two about the implementation of government and insider deception (It’s global btw not just confined to America.):

The first video Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth presentation takes a look at the events from the point of view of construction engineers and other professionals who plan and construct high rise buildings, along with other 911 related professions which would lend themselves to contributing to an investigation of the events:

The second one September 11- The New Pearl Harbor (full) demonstrates the parallels between 911 and Pearl Harbor and most especially addresses the conspiracy “debunkers” (from France and Italy not just the U.S.) claims in the light of the actual evidence. It is confessedly a bit long but taken in chunks if you prefer is worth the watch and will give you another view of 911 you will not get from the mainstream media in a sensible and non-hypey manner:

Give them a view. Make your own mind up based on the currently available evidence. 911 needs a second look.

NIST was a joke with ludicrous conclusions, as was the 911 commission. A second look will never happen from those in authority, just like the questions surrounding JFK which still remain satisfactorily unanswered for many of us.

The pancake collapse (despite the smoking gun anomaly of Building #7) from terrorist piloted airliners is their story. They are sticking to it. You can count on that. The real back story? Not a chance. You can count on that as well.

The Truth About Santa- Beyond the History Channel

At this time of the year, the figure of Santa Claus is ubiquitous and an accepted American symbol of the Christmas season. In America, a Christmas without Santa just isn’t Christmas.Santa with Pack

Children highly anticipate Santa’s arrival eagerly hoping they get what they asked for. Parents on the other hand take careful steps not to let them know that the real gift giver is them and not Santa. They are convinced to accept this role by societal conditioning and media propaganda including a constant drone of children’s Christmas programming which increases in crescendo as Christmas day approaches.

After all, it is just an innocent fantasy and fun for the children. But is it?

The Real Story of Christmas?

The History Channel runs a show each year at this time called The Real Story of Christmas. You can watch it online here. It is interesting but there are some built in biases and background left out that would be good to know.

For example, in the “real” story we are told that “the Church” declared the feast day of the nativity  on the same day as the birthday of the sun god Mithra. They fail to mention that “the Church” is actually the Roman Catholic church. This ties in to some of the mythology built into the Santa image.

As any bible believing Christian and many Protestant church members know, the Catholic Church and religion is very different from Protestant denominations. In fact, it can hardly be considered biblical. Most Catholics do not even read the bible to be honest (I was raised as a Catholic BTW and attended parochial school for the first 6 years of my education.)

The Other Churches

The Protestant movement arose once the invention of the printing press made bibles more available. Formerly, they were mainly in Latin only and closely held by the Catholic church. Few people actually read them. This gave the Catholic church free reign upon interpretation of what is acceptable “Christian” behavior.

Once believers starting reading the bible themselves, however, they began to realize how off the Catholic church actually was and rejected/protested the church’s teachings. Hence, the rise of Protestant denominations and churches.

How Catholicism Arose

The Roman Catholic church itself developed as a response to the growth of true Christianity based on Christ’s teachings from apostles like Paul. Despite the fact that the Romans were doing their best to eliminate Christians, perceived as a threat to the empire, the group continued to grow. So Rome adopted another tactic and created their own State religion- The Roman Catholic church.

Note the Similarity to the Papal Hat (bottom right) and the stone Babylonian Dagon on the left? A Giveway or Tell, as They Say in Poker?

To appease and attract existing pagan religions, the Catholic Church was created as a hybrid of Christianity and paganism. You can note this in the pagan symbolism found throughout the religion. For example, one of the most common papal hats is markedly similar to that of the Babylonian god Dagon, a fish related, fertility god. (For more on pagan symbolism and the Catholic church on YouTube click here.)

I don’t want to go into detail in this post and take up too much space. I simply wish to point out that like a lot of the mainstream media facts presented as facts, they are often half-truths (deception by omission).

The “Church” as the History Channel decides to put it does not represent all churches. In fact, if you conducted an objective and careful study Catholicism, it does not even really qualify as Christianity if it were based on the foundation of Christian beliefs, the bible.

Again, this post is about Santa Claus not Catholicism so I will not go into too much detail here. I just mention it as a way that the History Channel spins their yarn about the “Real” Story of Christmas inaccurately.

So Where Did This Santa Claus Character Come From Anyway?

It is commonly accepted the Santa Claus morphed out of St. Nicholas, the Greek bishop of Myra. (Twas the Night Before Christmas poem for reference). He was known as a defender of Christianity, which is not very Santa like. However, he was also commonly linked to Odin, the ruler of Asgard, a major Germanic god which added some Santa as we know and love him traits to this personality.

Odin

Odin the Wanderer- 1896 Version

Odin, flew around the heavens at the time of the winter solstice (known as Yule) and was depicted as a white bearded man with magical powers. He rode an 8 legged horse (Sleipnir) who could leap great distances (like reindeer). Odin was feared because his judgements would determine prosperity or death in the coming year. Children would leave their boots by the chimney filled with carrots and hay for Sleipnir. Odin would leave sweets and fruits in return for the children.

Another winter connection from Germanic legend is Frau Holda, the Germanic goddess of winter. In German folk legends, she is depicted as a beautiful blonde who is the protector of children’s Santa on His Sleighsouls. Like Odin, she would fly through the night and give gifts to children, as Beliefnet.com noted. In some depictions, Holda is dressed in red and uses chimneys to deliver gifts. Some Germanic traditions involve leaving food and milk for Holda Dec. 24, known as Mother Night.

Now you can see the Santa Claus legend beginning to round out: passing judgment on life and prosperity, flying about with a magical leaping horse, giving gifts to children, going down chimneys, getting bribes to appease him/her like food and milk, coming at the winter solstice (around December 25th) etc.

What is Santa Claus Today?

Here’s the truth about what Santa has become to us today. Yes, he has all of the characteristics of the pagan gods above but he has now morphed beyond having those characteristics.  Christmas is tangentially now, at best, a celebration of the birth of Christ (Christ’s Mass right?). Christ is secondary to gift giving and getting now which is the cultural and commercial priority.

Christmas as we all know has become a consumer holiday now with nothing related to Christ these days. Hardly a time of spiritual celebration but rather of materialism. Heck commercial oriented entities even use an X in front of the “mas” to pretty much tell you what some intend to do with the Christ connection to this holiday.

The words of the song- Santa Claus is Coming to Town tell more:

He’s making a list
And checking it twice
Gonna find out Who’s naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town

He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!

Like the God of the Bible (and Odin) Santa is judging us on his moral standards. He will also punish us or reward us like a supernatural being, not our parents.

Like the God of the Bible, Santa is all-knowing and observes everything. (Also like the Elf on the Shelf that I covered in another post.) However, you aren’t good to meet God’s standards, you are “good for goodness sake”. No biblical standards or commandments to live up to simply a nebulous and arbitrary “goodness” to be good for.

What’s the real truth about Santa then?

He’s the secular replacement for the Christian God of the bible. Secular meaning not connected with anything spiritual or religious. According to Psychology Today, “To be secular is to maintain a naturalistic worldview in which belief in anything is always proportioned to the evidence available.”

There is a big problem however with that interpretation however. The naturalistic worldview is the basis of the evolutionist. The problem is, when you actually take the evolutionary model and analyze its assumptions, one finds paltry evidence at best to support its claims. I can flesh this out, but let me just say this for now: it takes way more faith to accept the evolutionary model based on the evidence available than to believe in a Creator God.

The War Behind the War

Now, you may not have noticed with all of the distractions provided by our “electronic age”, but there is a war going on. That war is a war behind the wars, which is to say, a war to enslave and control humanity. A new world order (Please watch this BTW) if I may.

One of the major battles of this war involves jettisoning a personal God and replacing this with the God of the State (The Marx Model) and the Godless evolutionary model.

Guess what? Jolly Old St. Nick is a weapon in this war. Sad that one of our most cherished figures for children is just that but unfortunately all too true. After all, take a look at how he impacts parents and then read the Communist Manifesto’s intention on what should happen to the family. I think you’ll see how Jolly Old St. Nick aids that cause.

Santa places parents in a compromising position. By accepting your role in the Santa mythology, you are allowing yourselves to be participants in a lie. (BTW, I am not casting blame here. I admit that I got sucked into this as well when I had children.  It is very easy to buy into this agenda. I share this to seed you with a new awareness. One that I regret I did not have when raising my children.)

When your children discover this lie, how do you think it makes them feel about the integrity of their parents? Could this be a contributing factor as to why our children do not listen to us when they get older?

With parents compromised as the authority, are these children not now open to having a new authority stand in its place- like the State perhaps? Does this not also help to undermine the family unit as Marx and Engels wrote about in the Communist Manifesto as I noted above?

Suggestions for Parents About Santa

I don’t want to come off as Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol here. I will be sharing gifts with my now adult children this year too. However, may I suggest that we be honest with our children for starters? If you participate in this deception, you place yourself as a parent in a position of compromise.

Do you fancy your children (or children to be) as morons? Who ends up with egg on their face when they discover the truth about Santa for themselves as you KNOW they will? Is this really the position you want to place yourself in with your children? Wouldn’t you rather teach them to be truthful, to trust your judgement and moral integrity instead?

Let Me Suggest Another Tack

Tell your children the truth about Santa. When they see him, let them know he is simply a person dressed up in a red suit. When they see him again in another store (you know they will), reinforce your truth, “Oh, look there’s another man dressed up in a red suit.”

Explain to them what Christmas is really supposed to be about, the birth of Christ or Christ’s mass as the derivation goes. (Remember, if you are truly a Christian you are in this world but not “of ” it. Reflect on what that really means.)

Santa with Crying ChildrenSanta’s actually a bit intimidating to a small child. They usually don’t like him and his big white beard when they first meet him. We often have to convince them to like this character.

Gift giving doesn’t all have to be from Santa you know. After all, was not the birth of Jesus celebrated by the wise men with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh? Gift giving can beWise Men and Jesus Birth celebrated related to the baby Jesus if you wish, not the Santa Claus deception. Hence, you don’t have to give that part of the holiday up. You can probably also relate other decorative aspects to the Christmas story as well with some thought and imagination.

The point is giving up Santa (which they will give up at some point in time anyway) does not have to mean giving up Christmas. A Christian oriented celebration of the season can be a really enriching experience of this season, not a cultural deprivation but a cultural enrichment. (Really now, how enriching is it to run around depleting your wallet anyway?)

Just remember what really is at stake here– your integrity as a parent in the eyes of your children. I encourage you to step outside the box on this one.

I know how our present media driven culture is stacked against you. Commercial entities have made their stake in the game clear by replacing the name of Christ with an “X“. Will you do the same or trod upon The Road Not Taken, as Robert Frost put it……and “make all the difference”? Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

 

 

The Fed Interest Rate Hike- Danger Ahead?

Ok, the Fed after a decade of manipulating interest rates to absurdly low levels (like 0%) finally bumped them up a quarter point. I’ve read some of the follow-up from the “experts” but quite frankly most of them are the standard stuff that doesn’t really reveal details the public should know about the Fed and interest rates. They simply run off a list of expected impacts.

Let’s take a moment here and peek behind the curtain of this topic of the Fed and interest rates in the hopes of helping to make sense of this issue. I will not just shallowly skirt the surface to make myself sound like an “expert” I promise. (Follow the links for more details BTW.)

What Are Interest Rates?

Distilling it down to the basics, the interest rate is the cost of currency lent to someone or some institution. For the typical individual, if they borrow money from a bank, they would be charged an interest rate or cost on that money which continues until the money plus interest is paid back. Same with your credit card.

The Fed interest rate is what the Fed charges to lend money to their customers, generally the government and huge international financiers/banks. They bumped it up .25%. Not a huge deal but here’s some things to understand about the Fed and interest rates.

Where Does the Fed Get the Money to Lend?

Do they get it from investments? Does it come from commodity guarantees like from what they hold in gold or silver? Are their assets backing it?

Well, the answers to all those questions would be, no. The real truth is that the Fed simply generates our currency on the basis of a privilege granted to them by our Congress in 1913. That privilege which granted them a charter as the central bank for the United States allows them to generate money from nothing.

That’s correct- nothing. The Fed has no reserves to back our currency. It simply creates it from nothing but electronic blips on a computer screen. G. Edward Griffin, author of the definitive book on the Federal Reserve “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve” describes this congressional privilege as “The Mandrake Mechanism“.

You’ll note on the Federal Reserve Note (FRN) the phrase, “This note is legal tender for all debts. public and private.” Pull out any FRN and you’ll see it very small print on the front of the bill.

In other words, our currency is not usable for anything but debt! As long as we accept that non-redeemable (in commodities like precious metals) paper as a debt exchange instrument, it has value.

What is Money Today?

In order to understand the impact of interest, you first have to understand what money is. In the simplest terms, money is that which enables us to purchase services or products from other people. Hence, money can be anything widely accepted as payment for products or services. We could exchange dogs and cats for money if we wanted to. (Don’t think the dogs and cats would like that nor the dog and cat lovers but just saying that to make a point.)

However, in modern times, money is the replacement for barter. In place of trading another desired good for another desired good (dogs and cats again?), we use a generally accepted form of money called the Federal Reserve Note.

After the Federal Reserve- Money Changed

Gold Certificate_100 Dollars

Gold Certificate-One Hundred Dollars in Gold Coin Payable to the Bearer on Demand

Our money used to be commodity money. That is, it used to be redeemable in gold or silver coin upon demand. There were some advantages to this, mainly for the user of this type of money.

First of all intrinsic value. Gold cannot be created with the flick of a pen. There is a limited amount of it, it needs to be mined with labor and it is desired, it tends to have stable value. The user of this type of commodity money knew that it could be exchanged for an equivalent quantity of gold coin. So it had intrinsic and BTW universally accepted value. (For more on gold as money read, Why Gold-Backed Money Doesn’t Bring Booms and Busts.)

It was still fiat money. That is, money by decree of the government, but it was redeemable in an exchangeable commodity that was considered valuable.

Entre- the Federal Reserve and the game changed.

With the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1913, money instead of being fiat and redeemable became a new creation- Fiat and irredeemable. Still by decree, no longer redeemable in coin, however, it was also came with something even more insidious. Not only is it by decree only and not redeemable in anything else as a certificate for a commodity but it was also…

Debt Money

Thanks to our Congress, the Federal Reserve Act created a hybrid kind of “Federal” agency called the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve according even to its defenders, “the Fed is an independent agency that can conduct its duties without political pressure.” Good as far as it goes but fails to mention that politicians need both media support and money. The media has been monopolized into a cartel. Major Corporations need free access to money as do politicians.

So, can you see where the suppliers of money into the system (The Fed) may, just may, have a little bit of leverage over the government and the media as well? Perhaps the pressure is not coming from political pressure but the other way around. After all, you cannot bite the hand that feeds you without ending up hungry can you?

When the government/politicians need more money than comes from taxes, fees and fines, the government turns to the Fed. That creates the federal deficit which is spending over intake.

The Fed in turn creates new money from nothing for the government through the Mandrake Mechanism. It also lends this fiat, irredeemable currency created from nothing to the government with interest. This is unlike a normal fiat system because now the money has a debt attached to it on top of its creation from nothing- hence it is now debt money.

Here’s the Real Problem

By creating money and putting it into circulation only when a loan is made, and then removing it from circulation when the loan is repaid, the Federal Reserve cartel has created a perfect debt trap. Any meaningful attempt to escape this debt trap, by paying down debt, will trigger an automatic “correction mechanism” that guarantees failure.

The chain of events is very predictable. The nation decides to pay down debt. We also begin to limit spending and not take out new loans. (Ok, I admit this is a bit idyllic and not very realistic with today’s crop of spenders of public money in office. However, stay with me as I am just painting a best outcome possibility picture to make a point.)

Naturally, since all money is debt based, the economy’s debt-based money supply will shrink. Now, this will begin to create some disruptions in the economy. Initially the disruptions will be minor. Over time they will become intolerable, unless new money is injected back into the economy through new loans.

Why? Well, perhaps a 10 percent reduction in the nation’s money supply wouldn’t be traumatically disruptive. However, suppose it ramped  up to a 40 percent reduction, or a 60 percent reduction, or even an 80 percent reduction. Imagine an economy with 80% less money circulating in it. What kind of impact would that have?

Robert Hemphill, credit manager of the Atlanta Federal Reserve bank in the forward to 100% Money by Irving Fisher, put it this way:

“If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have… If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible— but there it is.”

The real problem then? As a nation we are locked into a cycle of ever increasing debt, or a system of financial servitude to the Federal Reserve cartel that is literally inescapable.

National Debt

Now, one can see why the national debt keeps growing. It has to. Otherwise, the money supply for the nations economy will shrink since it is based upon a debt based money supply. That’s why we are encouraged to keep spending (not saving). That’s also why the need for constant wars, entitlement growth, educational loans, credit card spending, etc. Debt fuels the system that the banking cartel created when the Federal Reserve was created. Without debt, the system collapses.

The Interest Rate

First of all, having interest rates controlled by a tiny minority of elite bankers or international financiers is abominable. Think about it. A tiny minority of who we are supposed to revere as “wise men” control the cost and volume of money for the entire nation. Seattle to Miami and Portland, Maine to San Diego, Calif. This doesn’t even include the money lent overseas or used to finance our ongoing “war(s) on terror”

Here’s how this control hurts us. They arbitrarily decide (always for their best interests BTW) that it would be best for all of us if the interest rate they were charging was zero. What does this do?

Savings are not only discouraged but penalized. Why save at an absolutely pitiful rate of .25%? At that rate, may as well spend it because you won’t be alive to see the money grow to any appreciable level of gain anyway.

Spending up to the highest levels is encouraged. When Bush took over the national debt stood at the massive (at the time) level of $5.6 Trillion. When Obama took over it was about $10.3 Trillion. As I write this according to the U.S. National Debt Clock, it currently stands at :

While the interest rate hike will boost savings returns a bit and perhaps annuities, it will also raise credit card interest, student loan interest, bank loan interest and most insidiously the interest on the national debt.

The most quickly felt will be the national debt velocity as government is a first level customer. The rest will trickle down a bit more slowly, maybe. Who knows? Banks and credit cards may simply, like the oil companies when a potentially precipitating event occurs, use it as an excuse to jettison rates up a bit anyway.

The Danger?

The Fed goes beyond .25% and continues to ramp up its rate of lending. Having read this article you can already figure out what will happen. The money supply will contract in increasing velocity with each rate hike. Eventually, like a rubber band springing back in response to being snapped, debt money will need to be injected into our debt based economy.

Like the rubber band however, it will not return to its original position but spring beyond it. This could trigger hyperinflation. Think Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe etc. In other words a complete economic collapse.

So while some may applaud the Fed’s move, I see it as potential danger signal. If interest rates continue to climb so will the national debt.

More debt means the currency continue to drop in value. (It is already inflated to the point of being worth less than 5 cents of its value when the Fed began in 1913. That means that 5 cents would purchase more than what a dollar will today back in 1913.) As it drops in value, more dollars are needed to purchase the same things.

We are seeing that already as food costs are rising or for the same money you are getting less food. (Seen in the form of lowered quantity in packaged goods. Look for it as you shop. You’ll see how food distributors are masking inflation of their production costs to keep us buying.)

There is a whole lot I left out of our economic set up in this article. I really just touched upon the topic of the Fed and our economy. There are also solutions to all of this. It does not include the continuance of the Fed of course. As pointed out briefly here. This Federal Reserve System is a system of financial servitude designed to make as little more than debt slaves.

I hope this article helps you to see that. For more, watch the YouTube with G. Edward Griffin, read The Creature from Jekyll Island already mentioned above or a shorter version of the story in Dishonest Money: Financing the Road to Ruin by Joseph Plummer. Suggestions for change are contained therein.

Meanwhile, pay attention to the Fed interest rate. It could signal danger ahead.