Who Rules the United States?

That was not Orwellian double speak...but even if it were, I doubt my attempt would be the best ever.

Try to be real, Gary.

Freedom is advanced by government. Anarchy does not promote freedom...it promotes chaos.

 

Exactly the opposite government by it's very nature is the antithesis of freedom. And yes part of the duty of government is to constrain human behavior, but there is a huge difference between being safer and being freer. It is not possible to be simultaneously totally safe and totally free. Never confuse safety and freedom.

 

Correct - I did not. I would concur with your statement but add that it goes back much further than 6 Presidents.

International financiers have been at this game for a long time.

http://www.azquotes.com/author/5343-James_A_Garfield

This President was very intelligent, in a time when educated people were very learned !

Below is a few more quotes from James.

"A brave man is a man who dares to look the devil in the face, and tell him he is a devil"

"The truth will set you free but first it will make you miserable"

"Ideas are the great warriors of the world, and a war that has no ideas behind it, is simply a brutality"

This last one is perhaps my favorite:

" I love agitation and investigation and glory in defending unpopular truth against popular error"

 

Who created the Federal Reserve Bank?

 

Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all came from humble or moderate beginnings. None of them came from what I would consider elitist backgrounds.

 

You two have started an interesting conversation. You are both right and at the same time wrong.

This is not a black and white issue. Freedom is less under anarchy (complete lack of Gov't control). At the same time too much Gov't control (totalitarianism) also generates less freedom.

This discussion was trotted at length by enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. and is now referred to as "Classical Liberalism - not to be confused with the modern usage of the term Liberal - which is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I can post a lengthy discussion if you like but in general it was recgnized in days prior to Gov't people formed groups for protection. "Strength in Numbers".

Within these groups codes of conduct (relating to protection from harm) developed. It does not do much good to have protection from outsiders if one is not protected from insiders. Groups without such codes did not last (united we stand divided we fall).

There is no point having a code of conduct if there is no punishment for code/law breakers. The people realized that it was necessary to give some "authority" power to punish law breakers.

At the same time it was recognized that no man wants to be ruled over by another. As such the power of this authority was to be very limited - only for protection from direct harm, one person against another: Murder, Rape, Theft and so on.

This is what is referred to as "Legitimacy of Authority". The Legitimate authority of the Gov't to make laws only extended to acts which were injurious to others.

The Gov't is not to make "ANY" laws outside it's legitimate purview (protection from harm) never mind making laws on the basis of religious belief.

In the Declaration of Independence - Individual rights and freedoms/Liberty were put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't = the Gov't is not supposed to be making "ANY" laws outside its legitimate purview ( protection from harm) and in particular it is not to make laws that mess with individual liberty.

The Gov't is supposed to appeal to "We the People" if it wants to make law outside it's authority. The bar is not "simple majority" 50+1. The bar is "overwhelming majority".

An overwhelming majority agrees with laws against murder, rape, theft and so on. The bar is (supposed to be) the same for any other law.

The bar for a law messing with Liberty should be at least 2/3rds majority. (75% is the bar for states required to make a change to the constitution).

Making law based on simple majority was referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority" . In addition, this would defeat the purpose of putting individual freedoms above the legitimate authority of Gov't as all Gov'ts have a simple majority mandate.

Every sitting member of SCOTUS should be removed for dereliction of duty - for not applying the principles on which this nation was founded in the interpretation of the Constitution and law.

We have fallen so far down the slippery slope we can no longer even see the top of the mountain. The founders limited the power of Gov't ... for 200 years the Gov't is trying to get that power back ... and they have succeeded.

I do have a contender for the Orwellian doublespeak title.

Bush made it our "Patriotic Duty" to give up individual rights and freedoms = "Patriot Act"

Obama then came along and changed the name to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act".

 

There you go again confusing freedom and safety. You are also confusing anarchy with what invariably follows in it's wake. Anarchy almost always gives way to some species of thuggocracy.

 

The owners of the bank swindlers that Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump have hired as Secretarys Of The US Treasury....Members of the international banking cartel which has been bleeding us to death by controlling our currency for almost 100 years now. Trump railed against them all throughout the campaign then, just like the Bush's, Clinton and Obama hired a bevy of Goldman Sachs lackeys to infest his administration....

 

The same folks who shot (or at least applauded the execution) of Brother James.
The same people who own the banks (including the Fed banks), drug companies, defense contractors, oil companies, insurance companies, food conglomerates, the media ..
The same people who control the establishment.

There is at least one family who, individually, is worth in excess of 1 Trillion dollars. (Some estimates are 3-6 Trillion)

This number is so big it needs to be put into context. If one can earn 5% interest per year (fairly easy given a US T-bill is roughly 3%- in 2000 it was over 6%) this is 50 Billion dollars per year in income without touching the principle.

This amounts to 4 Billion dollars a month to spend - without touching the principle or ... 133 million per day. One family.

We need to start revisiting the question - when is too much money .... too much.

Hint: Refer to post 54

 

Right. They just went from humble beginnings the the White house.

 

Yep, right from barefoot to the White house....

 

WROOOONG!!!! It wasn't a trick question. You didn't bother to check it out.
The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38(*)Stat.(*)251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch. 3) is an Act of Congress that created and established the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States, and which created the authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. Written by a Democratic major Party and signed by a Democrat.

 

I think 'what's up with it' is that the West, in its dumbed down stupidity and obsession with 'not frightening the liberal horses', is in denial: Western countries don't know how to counter the jihad so they've chosen to close their minds to it, because it's easier to do that than do what needs to be done. The political mind will always choose the lazy way out of a problem, and if there isn't a lazy way they'll simply ignore the problem. This is why Islam has chosen to act now. As to new recruits being radicalized via the internet - there obviously is no answer to that, not least because they're so willing to be radicalized. Presidents Trump and Putin seem to be the only political leaders who understand all that.

 

I strongly disagree with your assessment. The first issue is generalizing. There are plenty of smart people in the west that know how to deal with "Islamists".

An Islamist (as oppose to a Muslim in general or Islam) is someone who hates individual rights and freedoms/liberty and who hates secularism (non theocracy) and wants an extreme version of strict sharia to be the law of the land/political system.

This is why the term Islamic radicalism is an offensive term. The proper term is "Islamist radicalism" . The mass media intentionally keeps people ignorant of this distinction because then the people would be protesting in the streets over what our Gov'ts are doing.

In Syria for example we armed and supported the Islamists (including Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, ISIS, Islamic Front and others of the same ilk).

The whole call to Jihad in Syria was radical Islamist Jihadists wanting to turn Syria into a strict sharia theocracy. The "moderates" are the one's fighting for Assad.

Syria (as opposed to the land of Saud) was a "Secular" Muslim nation. The Jihadists hate secularism. Assad had Christian Generals in his army, there were Christian Churches and freedom of religion. There was no sharia law. There was drinking and dancing in bars and women in skirts and women wearing proper bathing suits. A woman did not have to ask a man's permission to be educated and she could drive a car ... and so on.

Saud on the other hand is still stoning women for Adultery. There is no freedom of religion. They have the death penalty for apostasy. They even go after other Muslims who do not share their extremist beliefs.

Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and numerous other Islamist groups of the same ilk in Pakistan and other countries - ALL share the same Saudi inspired extremist Salafi ideology. In Saud - hating Christians and Jews is part of the grade school curriculum.

Saud has been exporting this ideology all over the world. Saud has been arming and supporting these radicals - Including Al Qaeda.

We have been united with Saudi Arabia in Syria - Supporting the terrorist Jihadists.

The way you fight Islamist's is by educating people in what these people believe. - They hate individual rights and freedoms/liberty. Western systems of Gov't are founded on respect for individual rights and freedoms.

The Declaration of Independence puts individual rights and freedoms "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Why then would we let someone into this country that hates the very principles on which this nation was founded ?

Western Gov'ts do not want to start making these distinctions is because they too have been trampling on individual rights and freedoms over the last number of decades.

So it is not "liberals", it is not "denial". It is an intentionally not participating in the war of ideas - which is the real war being fought - and "we the people" are losing and the Gov't is winning.

The greatest risk to the security of the US citizen is not ISIS or Islamist extremism. The greatest risk to the security of the US citizen is our Gov't.

 

I don't remember saying that 'the man in the street' is dumb', I'm saying those in power are: for example, the incident in Heidelberg yesterday? After the attack the perpetrator was shot (and rightly so, anyone with a functioning brain might say), but then - guess what? He's blue-lighted to hospital for emergency surgery to save his life , then after he's discharged he'll be able to do it again and again until he's caught again. Is that stupid or what!! The only thing which could make it more surreal is if his life-saving operation compromised someone else's life because theirs was delayed by it. Hopefully it wasn't someone you know???

 

It is certainly implied, just as it implies that Trump has any more clue about national security than a federal judge does. Last time I checked, getting elected to public office did not make anyone smarter about anything. Trump has made a career of negotiating real estate deals. There probably isn't a person in all of government who knows less about national security than Donald Trump.

 

Maybe; maybe not. Some prime hotels have been shot up by terrorists in other countries, and IMO Trump probably saw fit to check into those situations.

 

You accused the entire west of being stupid. There are "men in the street" in the west. So yes .. you did. And I would tend to agree in general - All I did was point out your generalization and some exception.

Other than this really address anything in my post so ..... Not sure how to respond

 

Here's what's self-evident:

Of course the White House response was:

That's right, it wasn't the report that the White House asked for, The White House asked for a report that would establish that a threat existed because they said it did but there's no evidence of that threat. As usual the White House is living in the World of Alternative Facts that's a pseudonym for the "delusional world of Donald Trump's narcissistic personality disorder" but there's no evidence to support the delusion.

Who the hell said that?

Apparently our vetting process is more than adequate because no one born Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen entering the United States on a visa has ever committed a terrorist attack on US soil. I call anything preventative that results in zero cases as being pretty damn effective. In fact there have been zero international terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11/2001 because of the significant increases in security and the visa issuing processes implemented by both the Bush and Obama Administrations since 2001. We have an even better record when it comes to political refugees that face the most stringent and time consuming vetting process. Not a single terrorist attack by a political refugee admitted to the United States in at least the last forty years.

Why is it that some people are so caught up in the bubble that for whatever reason they think our government has been sitting on it's thumb since the 9/11 terrorist attacks? These people defy understanding. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration were constantly addressing every possible means for increasing the security of the United States from foreign terrorist attacks and they both did an exceptional job in accomplishing that.

The United States doesn't have an international terrorist threat. We have a domestic terrorist threat and according to law enforcement agencies their primary concern isn't the domestic Muslim terrorist threat. It's the domestic right-wing extremist ("Alt-Right") terrorist threat. You know, the one's Steve Bannon told to "Turn on the Hate." Well, they are and hate crimes, a form of terrorism, against Jews, Muslims, and minorities is on a constant rise. The number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled in 2016 while Trump was campaigning for office and the people joining these hate groups supported Donald Trump.

The DOJ has had opportunities in numerous federal courts to present any evidence that there was a threat to the American people but did not produce any evidence. The DOJ didn't even bring any "hearsay in a can" to present as evidence. If the American people are being threatened then the American people have a right to know who and based upon what evidence. As an example of what the DOJ was doing let's look at the federal court in Virginia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...cee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.1f263b76df5c

Once again the introduction of "alternative facts" that only exist in the delusional world of Donald Trump.

The case resulting in the temporary restraining order was filed by the Attorney Generals from Washington and Minnesota. Of course lawsuits were filed across the nation and there were corporate interests and educational interests and constitutionalist interests

The Temporary Restraining Order was issued by a federal court in Seattle. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals merely upheld the restraining order but didn't issue it.

The federal judge in Seattle, James Robart, that issued the initial nation-wide temporary restraining order is a "conservative" justice appointed by former President Bush in 2004 and confirmed by a unanimous vote in the US Senate.

The three judges on the Ninth District Court of Appeals panel were Michelle Friedland, appointed by Barack Obama; William Canby Jr., appointed by Jimmy Carter; and Richard Clifton, appointed by George W. Bush.

All together four justices were involved, two were liberal appointees and two were conservative appointees and they unanimously ruled in favor of the temporary restraining and against the travel ban.

A person's religion has nothing to do with them being allowed to immigrate to the United States and immigrant Muslims based upon some statistics (e.g. education, income and home ownership) arguably become "better Americans" than native born white Christians.

 

Trump supporters ???

It's a movement, an anti globalization, anti political correctness, anti globalization, anti oligarchies, anti open borders, anti uncontrolled immigration.

It's a movement of returning to being a nation of laws, defending the intent of the Constitution and putting America and native born Americans first.

It's about reestablishing the American industrial base and bringing American jobs back to America.

Who are the oligarchies or more accurately the foreign oligarchies who control America and the industrial world ? The same individuals who have been trying to take Trump out for well over a year now. The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group.

All you have to do is look at who their members are. All are globalist and the agenda is a world with no borders, Bill Clinton, G.H. Bush, Henry Kissinger, etc. etc...


Interesting that the former Obama administration (Obama) had the largest number of Trilateral Commission members appointed to the Obama White House.

FYI: Crooked Hillary Clinton attended the Bilderberg Group Meetings so that would make her part of the foreign oligarchies. So is George Soros.

Trilateral Commission membership. -> http://trilateral.org/page/7/membership

Bilderberg Group membership. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants

Donald Trump vs The Bilderberg Group – Global Showdown Exposed -> https://hallsofkarma.wordpress.com/...derberg-group-global-showdown-exposed-videos/

 

Says no leftist ever.

 

You're referring to the past. Trump is considering the future.

In addition, the US has the right to exclude anyone it pleases from immigration.
Our boundaries are our boundaries, and our borders are our borders.

 

From the link:

"The powerful Globalist players at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission are certainly watching the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

From Jon Rappoport:

“Trump has already made statements about immigration they find troubling. They may or may not be taking Trump’s presidential run seriously. They may or may not view him as an inconsequential blowhard, a shoot-from-the-hip cowboy who forgets today what he said yesterday—but today the New York Times has made reference to Trump in a way that will make these Globalist heavy hitters pause and blink while drinking their morning coffee (Here in “As Stock Market Plunges, Donald Trump Takes a Worldview” by Alan Rappeport):

“Mr. Trump has said that bad trade deals with China and Mexico are to blame for a sluggish American economy and weak job creation. He has promised to make ‘great’ deals with other countries to protect American workers and has threatened to raise taxes on imports to the United States to bolster domestic production.”

It’s the last part that rings alarm bells and shoots firecrackers into the sky:

“[Trump] has threatened to raise taxes on imports to the United States to bolster domestic production.”

Taxes on imports. Also known as tariffs.

Every significant trade-treaty negotiated since 1945 has been aimed at lowering or eliminating tariffs, in order to establish Globalist “free trade.”

Treaties like GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, for example; as well as the current TPP and its cousins.

Free trade is code for: mega-corporations and banks can roam the planet and set up shop anywhere they please. They can bankroll and build production facilities, produce cheap goods, and sell them anywhere in the world without paying tariffs.

Tariffs would make that whole operation useless. It would defeat mega-corporate greed and ambition internationally.

“We’ve got these factories making gizmos in East Nowhere, we’re paying workers four cents an hour, we’ve got no environmental/health regs and rules that would raise production costs, there are no worker unions, and we’ve therefore got a big edge on our smaller competitors, because we can ship these gizmos anywhere in the world and sell them cheaper than they can, and all of this is possible because we pay no tariffs. If there were stiff tariffs, we’d have to shut down the whole scene, pack our bags, and leave…”

Globalism, at one level, is all about erasing tariffs.

Whether in a momentary fit, or by serious intent, Trump has crossed swords with the Globalists.

President Nixon tried that for a few moments in the early 1970s, and betrayed his main sponsor, David Rockefeller. Nixon erected a few tariffs to save American-based companies.

Rockefeller was and is Globalism personified.

Soon, Nixon found himself on a helicopter heading away from the White House for the last time.

Trump might want to think about pumping up his security detail.

He’s just stumbled into the Twilight Zone where money makes money for money making money. Trump $$$ is nothing compared with Globalist $$$.

He’s just pulled the pin on a quiescent grenade in the world of mainstream media, where the subject of tariffs is a no-no.

“Reggie, Klaus here. I was just reading the Times this morning. Did you see the reference to Donald Trump? Tariffs? Maybe we should take a second look at this lunatic. If he presses forward with the idea of protecting American businesses, and it catches on, and people figure out what he’s saying…if he figures out what he’s saying…we could have a problem. If all sorts of business people—I don’t mean people like us—but ordinary business people see a chance to come back to life…with tariffs to protect them…Trump’s campaign could take on a new dimension. We’d have to do whatever it takes to stop it…”

“Yes, if the American people figure out that the new normal economy, as miserable as it actually is, is linked like a lock and key to the Globalist plan; if the American people figure out that no recent American president, including Obama, had any ambition whatsoever to lift up the American economy; that all these presidents are liars of the first order; something might happen.”

He sums up with exactly what I have been saying for months:

“Note to The Donald: Step up your security, and watch all the bankers you do business with very carefully. They will try to find a way to cut you off at the knees. You just stumbled into the Globalists’ private game preserve. They don’t like that (*)(*)(*)(*).”

Bilderberg and the Council on Foreign Relations and Rockefeller Globalists are counting on the TPP. It’s one of their precious babies. They want to undermine the US economy.It’s part of their sink-America program, to pave the way for One United Planet under one management system. Not an American empire. A globalist empire."...

 

A new link.