Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Internment and resettlement: WHAT FOR?

YOU Have Been Targeted for Internment & Resettlement

Copied from the following article:

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/03/02/targeted-internment-resettlement/

This is not just another FEMA camp article which can be easily debunked. This article deals with the fact that a recent government manual, leaked to the public, details the plans for mass arresting dissident Americans and stripping them of their citizenship so as to be able to violate the Constitution and the Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners.

The previously mentioned document which has been leaked online, is entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF). The document was originally to be kept secret, but everyone in the military command structure, as we know, is not on board with the encroaching tyranny sweeping across this country.

There are two terms which should concern you, namely, Internment and Resettlement (I/R). As if this needs any further elaboration, the two terms simply mean that you will be snatched from your home and sent to a detention camp for an undetermined period of time and treated in a manner which will not be defined by any law.

The Authorities Practice Targeting Second Amendment Supporters

There exists solid evidence that our illegitimate government, hijacked by the banksters, possesses a detailed plan to mass arrest Americans and it has moved from the pages of government documents and it is actually being practiced by authorities on American soil.

Jesse Hathaway wrote for MediaTrackers in which he said that a recent Ohio State National Guard exercise “reveal the details of a mock disaster where Second Amendment supporters with ‘anti-government’ opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists.” Hathaway’s article went on to say that the “Ohio National Guard Communications Director James Sims II, MediaTrackers claims, told the website that it was “not relevant” as to why conservatives may feel targeted by being portrayed as anti-government extremists”. “Okay, I’m gonna stop ya there. I’m going to quit this conversation,” Sims told the site when reached for comment. “You have a good day.”

Then there is the ’fake” $96 million dollar Northern Virginia town which is being used to train the military to enforce martial Law. Of course, the government says that this is a foreign town being used to train our troops to occupy a foreign town. If this is true, then someone needs to explain why the town has a Christian church, handicap parking spots, Washington DC subway logos, loading zone signs and road signs in English. A picture is worth a thousand words as you will see in the following video.

In the Words of the Government

Straight from the Internment/Resettlement article (12 February 2010 FM 3-39.40 1-5) it states the following:

“…I/R operations may place Soldiers in continuous contact with or near insurgents, terrorists, or criminals who will exploit every opportunity to escape and kill or injure U.S. personnel or multinational partners“.

Whether you believe there are Russian troops training on our soil, along with other UN “Peacekeeping” troops is an irrelevant argument at this point. The above excerpt makes it clear regarding the INTENT to use “multinational partners” to round up and detain American citizens.

The following is a list of involved agencies involved in the soon-to-be roundups of American citizens who are not drinking from globalist Kool-Aid.

AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT
1-40. External involvement in I/R missions is a fact of life for military police organizations. Some government and government-sponsored entities that may be involved in I/R missions include—
International agencies.
UN.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
International Organization of Migration.
U.S. agencies.
Local U.S. embassy.
Department of Homeland Security.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Federal Emergency Management Agency.

There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the above quote from the manual. This government plans to enlist the aid of foreign troops in conjunction with the UN, DHS and FEMA for the purpose of rounding up and detaining American civilians.

Segregation of Civilian Detainees

I have previously been told by military sources that when families are transported to the I/R camps, husbands will be segregated from wives and children from parents.

“Detainees may also be segregated by ethnic and family groups and further segregated to protect vulnerable individuals. Additionally, detainees may be categorized by behavior (cooperative, neutral, or combative) to accurately resource guards and facilities”. Juveniles within the I/R population are typically segregated from the general population. (See DODD 3115.09.)

You Are An Enemy Combatant

Most of us who are detained in these I/R camps will be classified as enemy combatants. The following reads like the MIAC Report on steroids.

“Enemy Combatants
1-15. An enemy combatant is, in general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. (JP 3-63) Enemy combatant includes EPWs and members of armed groups.
1-16. Enemy combatants are divided as follows:
An enemy prisoner of war is a detained person who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, was captured by the armed forces of the enemy.
Member of an armed group is a person who engages in or supports acts against the United States or its multinational partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during a named conflict that do not meet the criteria of a prisoner of war as defined within the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War”

The last sentence is frightening. It says that anyone who supports acts against the United States or its foreign mercenaries, is not entitled to humane treatment under the Geneva Convention. An offense against the US government could include the failure to turn in your gun or to not pay your taxes. This also opens the door to torture and summary extermination as you will not likely have any rights. For those who think this is an exaggeration, ask yourself what does “do not meet the criteria defined within the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war”, actually mean?

We already know that the present administration holds the US Constitution in complete disdain and utter contempt. Do you remember the domestic terrorist designations which are contained in the MIAC Report? An authority not recognized by this criminal government would include Libertarians, Constitutionalists, a former Ron Paul supporter, a Bible believing Christian, a Second Amendment supporter and a veteran. If you belong to any of these groups, you are a domestic terrorist, an enemy combatant, a sovereign citizen and a stateless person.

The Legal Justification to Snatch You From Your Home

The following definition of an “evacuee” should concern all Americans. The definition of the term indicates the right of the military to remove a citizen from their home.

“Evacuee. An evacuee is a civilian removed from a place of residence by military direction for reasons of personal security or the requirements of the military situation.” (JP 3-57)

Do you remember when the globalists began to use the term “sovereign citizen”? This term was applied by DHS to Americans who claimed that they followed the Constitution, but not the “legitimate” governmental authority. The first time that I saw the term utilized by the government was in the Stacy Lynne case in which this anti-Agenda 21 activist had her son stolen by a NWO Judge, Julie Kunce Field, without so much as an allegation of parental wrong doing. This former World Bank and IMF consultant, turned judge, referred to Stacy as a “sovereign citizen”. As a result, Stacy was not allowed to call witnesses or object to the illegal practices she was subjected to while in Fields’ courtroom on the basis of any of the “constitutional violations” of law. This is because Field labeled Stacy as a non-citizen, a stateless person. The following defines a sovereign citizen as a stateless person.

Stateless Person. A stateless person is a civilian who has been denationalized or whose country of origin cannot be determined or who cannot establish a right to the nationality claimed.

If one is a stateless person, they are, by default, an enemy combatant. I have been assisting the Larimer County resident, Stacy Lynne, for 26 months. Stacy has not been able to see her son in almost a year and a half. I always wondered what kind of chicken outfit could steal someone’s child without cause. When I read this I/R manual, my eyes were opened and chills went up and down my spine. What was done to Stacy was accomplished because she was an anti-Agenda 21 advocate. And through the complicity of this globalist judge, Stacy was declared to not be a citizen and, as such, was not entitled to any Constitutional protections because a “sovereign citizen” is in effect a stateless person.

When martial law comes to our land, we will be snatched from our homes because of our collective verbal and behavioral resistance to the tyranny that is sweeping our land. We will be met by the likes of the self-appointed authority that globalist judges like Julie Kunce Field represent. These despots will use their unconstitutional powers to declare a wide swath of Americans to be stateless, or sovereign citizens. This mentality already exists in places like Ft. Collins, CO., and in Austin, TX. Soon, the entire nation will be declaring any perceived dissident to be a sovereign citizen.

Conclusion

Do I have to spell it out for you? All of us are Stacy Lynne. The NDAA is for you and for me. By virtue of the fact that you have visited this website, or a website that linked into this website, your every keystroke has been cataloged by the NSA and you and your family have been declared to be non-citizens and are targeted for forced Internment/Resettlement at some future date. This will most likely occur following a false flag event.

In the eyes of this criminal administration, we are all enemy combatants. We are all “sovereign citizens”. We are all stateless people not protected by either the Constitution, in the pre-arrest period, or, by the Geneva Convention, in the post-arrest period. In the next part of this series, I will spell out what losing your Geneva Convention rights will mean to you and your family.

You will never stand before a judge and jury and have your freedom stripped from you. You will likely be taken from your home at 3AM, loaded into a transport vehicle with other designated sovereign citizens with only the clothes on your back, and shipped to your final designated I/R camp.

Also in the next part of this series, I will expose more details on the upcoming mass incarcerations and what the dead banksters and fired generals have to do with all of this.

Dave Hodges is the Editor and Host of The Common Sense Show.

Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Sent from my iPhone

Monday, March 3, 2014

CT GUN CONFISCATION MEETS WITH FIRM OPPOSITION

Connecticut Patriot Group Fights Back Against Confiscation Order

http://www.infowars.com/connecticut-patriot-group-fights-back-against-confiscation-order/#sthash.6d2ANYXr.dpuf

‘We Are Armed… And Are Familiar With the Finer Points of Marksmanship’

Mac Slavo
SHTF Plan
March 1 , 2014

The war on liberty is coming to a head in Connecticut, where tens of thousands of gun owners have refused to comply with their state government’s gun registration laws. Officials have literally ordered those who failed to meet the registration deadline to surrender their firearms or face arrest.

The State of Connecticut is now demanding that gun owners across the state turn in all newly-banned, unregistered firearms and magazines or face felony arrest.
The State Police Special Licensing & Firearms Unit began mailing out notices to gun owners who attempted to register their firearms and accessories with the state but did not do so in time for the Jan. 1 deadline of Connecticut’s newly enacted gun control law.
The law bans the sale of magazines holding over 10 rounds and “assault rifles” manufactured after 1994 and requires that residents who possessed either before the ban to register them with the state.

It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to understand that the enforcement of this law can only come at the barrel of a gun. Therefore, we can conclude that we may soon see SWAT-style raids on the homes of suspected law breakers. Because we’re talking about gun confiscation, you can be fully assured that the state will not be knocking nicely, and they won’t be asking residents to exist their homes.

They’re going in full force.

But Americans simply don’t take well to being told what to do, especially as it relates to their Second Amendment rights.

These unreasonable demands, which have yet to pass muster with the U.S. Supreme Court, have prompted Mike Vanderboegh of Connecticut’s Sipsey Street Irregulars to go on the offensive. Earlier this week Vanderboegh publicly posted the names, addresses, phone numbers and provided direct access to pictures of all CT legislators involved with passage of the gun confiscation bill, saying that since the government has a list it “seems obvious to me that it is thus only fair to list those anti-constitutional tyrants.”

The Daily Sheeple reports:

Sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire. And that is exactly what Mike Vanderboegh has chosen to do. The state of Connecticut wants to make a list – a list of gun owners. So, Vanderboegh has created his own list – a list of those state legislators who are insisting that certain firearms be banned or registered.
Here is the post, A Sipsey Street Public Service Announcement: The Connecticut Tyrants List:
The state of Connecticut is making lists of firearm owners to raid. It seems obvious to me that it is thus only fair to list those anti-constitutional tyrants who will have blood on their hands the moment the first Connecticut citizen is shot by the CT state police while carrying out their orders. I will be sending these folks my own email later today.
CT State Senators voting Yes on “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety, also known as Public Law 13-3 or Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1160,” 3 April 2013. List includes home addresses. Photos and home phone numbers of these tyrants are available here.

As promised, Vanderboegh followed up his list with an Open Letter to the Legislative Tyrants of Connecticut sent to all CT legislators where he extensively details the impact of Connecticut’s new law and which he closes with a plea to legislators in an effort to prevent the potential for violence that may result in the event of a state-mandated gun confiscation:

(Excerpts via Sipsey Street Irregulars)
To the CT State Senators And Representatives who voted Yes on “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety, also known as Public Law 13-3 or Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1160,” 3 April 2013.
And, yes, I said tyrants. You bought it, in the form of the woefully misnamed “Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety,” you own it, you are certainly — if you get your way — going to pay for it like it or not, so you might as well own up to it. Look in the mirror. That’s what a tyrant in the 21st Century looks like. Mather Byles, the Massachusetts Loyalist of the Revolutionary period — our first civil war — once famously asked, “Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?” The Founders themselves were just as suspicious of unrestrained democracy as a means of tyranny. This is why they gave us a republic of limited powers and the rule of law, to limit those who would misuse democracy to create a new tyranny. Yet that is precisely what you’ve done. Own it.
You know, in Greek mythology Cassandra, the daughter of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy, was given the gift of prophecy. She could see exactly what was going to happen to her endangered city. Yet she was also cursed with the burden of never being believed. The frustration was said to have driven her mad. Never have I come closer to understanding Cassandra’s curse than these past months.
…
We are at a crossroads. You, in the arrogance of your power and your ignorance of the people you seek to dominate are extrapolating from your own cowardice — you believe that just because the government orders these folks to knuckle under that they will do so BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO. You mistake them, and your mistake is, in the fullness of time, going to get people killed. And who do you think these people who you victimize — these people who you will have state agents seek to round up and kill — who do you think they are going to blame for that? It doesn’t take Madame Lawlor and his crystal ball to predict that such people — victimized by their own state authorities in an unconstitutional law that likely will be found to be null and void anyway — will blame the people who sent the killers. Which is to say, you. (13)
This is deadly serious stuff, this foray into an undiscovered country that you have so blithely entered upon, like blind men and women tap dancing in a minefield you scarcely comprehend. Fully eighty-five percent of the people you targeted with the law — the people that YOU AND YOU ALONE made into lawbreakers — have just told you by their noncompliance to take your unconstitutional law and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Does that not tell you ANYTHING? These people are ARMED.They are familiar with the finer points of marksmanship. They are principled in a way that perhaps only the Founders would understand — at the risk of their own lives. So what part of “Oh, HELL no” don’t you understand? You have been playing with titanic forces. You are going to send armed agents of the state to their doors to work your collective and collectivist will upon THEM? You have unintentionally sown the wind and if things go predictably south you will reap the whirlwind.
BUT IT IS WITHIN YOUR POWER TO REVERSE. You own the weather machine, as it were. I’m not asking you to repeal the law, although that makes perfect sense to me. No, I realize that too much of your ego, your own false vision of omnipotence is wrapped up in it to do THAT. What I am asking you to do — no, what I am BEGGING you to do — is to use your power to suspend the enforcement of that Intolerable Act at least until it is ruled constitutional or not by the United States Supreme Court. “An unconstitutional law is null and void.” Do you really wish to risk death and destruction upon innocent people — upon us all — on a bet against the odds? Is your appetite for your own citizens’ liberty, property and lives that insatiable? Or now, as the likely unintended consequences of your actions have been directly explained to you, are you willing to reconsider the menu choices? What will your political fortunes be when the first shots are exchanged over this? When the first innocents are killed in carrying out your will? What will your arrogance, your ignorance, your insufferable pride be worth to you then? What will it be worth to any of us? Starting a bloody civil war seems an odd way to avoid “violence against children.”
Praying that my advice fares better than Cassandra’s, I am, sincerely,
Mike Vanderboegh
Smuggler and alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
(You can read the full text here)

The importance of what’s happening in Connecticut and how its citizens are responding cannot be understated. What we have here is a government that has directly violated the Second Amendment of the United States of America by legislating forced gun registration with the penalty of confiscation of said firearms and felony imprisonment for those who refuse to comply.

They have now threatened all Connecticut residents with arrest if they refuse to turn over their firearms.

In coming days and weeks, unless Mike Vanderboegh’s warnings are heeded, we will begin to see police-state raids of homes belonging to anyone suspected of owning an unregistered firearm or accessory.

Keep in mind that this legislation has not yet made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, so Connecticut state officials intend to confiscate guns through the use of force and without a judiciary review of the Constitutionality of the laws they passed.

There will be those in Connecticut who surrender their firearms. But a growing sentiment across the United States suggests that there will be those who will simply refuse to submit to the will of the state.

If Connecticut goes through with this and sends heavily armed police personnel to the doors of Constitutional Law-abiding citizens it is not out of the question to suggest that we will see bloodshed and violence when these gun confiscations begin.

The people have had enough and many Americans are preparing to stand their ground.

This article was posted: Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 11:30 am

NYC Mayor de Blasio Kicks 700 Kids Out of Over-Performing Schools

Article copied from the following link:

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/03/02/mayor-de-blasio-kicks-700-kids-out-of-overperforming-schools-n1802822?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Elite New York Democrats are waging a war on children. Well… At least that’s how it appears when the progressive Democrat mayor kicks 700 students out of high-performing schools, because… Well… He doesn’t really have a good reason. Ostensibly, it’s because he doesn’t want charter schools (public education facilities that govern their affairs with autonomy from New York public education directives) to share space with underperforming school districts.

Proving that there are worse things than a Bloomberg-run city, de Blasio has decided to kick at least three charter school programs out of their co-location agreements with traditional public education facilities. The fact that the charter programs have shown a tremendous ability to produce quality education – and are highly prized by under-privileged families – is apparently unimportant to a mayor who was elected with heavy teacher-union support. Over 700 kids will now be dumped into underperforming public schools, because their charter program has been forced, by the elitist minds at Gracie Mansion, to shut its doors.

According to the New Yorker:

De Blasio, a vocal supporter of teachers’ unions, has said that he would end free rent for some co-located charter schools. At a June forum, when asked about the existing rent-free agreements, de Blasio said, pointedly, “There is no way in hell that Eva Moskowitz should get free rent, O.K.?”

Right… “Free rent” is the issue… That’s a hard pill to swallow in a city that has strict rent control regulations. (By the way, Eva Moskowitz is head of one of the most successful charter programs in New York. But sure… Let’s get personal.) According to de Blasio, it is unacceptable for high-performing charter schools to share space with underperforming public schools. At Harlem 5, a “22 Success” charter school located in Harlem, 88 percent of the student body passed the state math exam. At PS 123, which shares the same building as Success, only 5 percent passed the same state exam. But yeah… The obvious problem here is rent.

The progressive Democrat’s priorities, however, are obviously not focused on the wellbeing of inner city youth. In a debate with the Republican candidate for Mayor (Yeah, there was a Republican candidate) de Blasio explained that “in the end, our city rises or falls on our traditional public schools.” Okay… Well, the city is falling. Luckily for some winners of charter-school lotteries, not everyone is falling at the same pace.

And unfortunately, de Blasio is far more interested in protecting the union monopoly, than bettering the education of the city’s underprivileged. After all, it’s not as if these charter programs primarily benefit the wealthy. In fact the primary beneficiary happens to be the very people that progressives claim to represent. Which raises the question: If the betterment of the underprivileged is the goal, why is the city not doing everything they can to expand the footprint of “22 Success” and their educational progress?

Well… The obvious answer is that a 9 year old child from a one parent home, north of 115^th Street, simply doesn’t donate as much to the progressive cause as the United Federation of Teachers. Unions, after all, are unlikely to be ecstatic about a non-union school option that outperforms in such phenomenal fashion.

Parents, by the way, are overwhelmingly supportive of alternatives to the city’s abysmal public Ed system. Last year, a Harlem charter program (soon to be shutdown by the Democrat mayor of NYC) received 2,665 applications for a mere 125 open positions.

Wouldn’t it occur to an education oriented mayor that – maybe – steps should be taken to support the popular and effective alternative to public education’s underperformance? Of course, this is the problem with government: We invest in cronyism… Not results. Do you care about the kids? Help “22 Success” expand their foot print. Do you care more about support from a major Democrat constituency? Well, then you should kick 700 kids out of charter schools and bow to the union that has fundamentally under-delivered on their educational responsibility to needy communities.

Then again de Blasio’s war on the bourgeois aspirations of low income New Yorkers aligns more with the crony mentality of labor unions, than the rhetoric he employed during stump speeches… After all, why should successful endeavors to educate our youth be rewarded when there are so many due-paying members in the United Federation of Teachers?

In the end, to the de Blasio-style liberal, the betterment of children doesn’t matter. The concerns of impoverished families who look to charter programs as a “way out” for their kids, are insignificant to the rookie mayor. (And just to drive this point home: The mayor recently called the public protest, in support of the 700 kids who will be losing their charter program, a “side show”.) See, taking steps to actually help the poor might damage the constituency of a crony Progressive who received massive amounts of campaign funding from teacher unions. Unions who, by the way, feel threatened by out-performing non-union entities, such as charter schools.

So, sorry hopeful families of the “22 Success” program… If you’re concerned about one of the 700 kids who are about to lose their position in a charter school, then thank de Blasio’s love for teacher unions; because it’s apparently stronger than his dedication to the betterment of disenfranchised communities.

Apparently, helping the underprivileged is only “progressive” when you have the support of wealthy union backers…

AMERICAN EXCESS, CHINESE SUCCESS

Copied from the link below:

"Each nation deluded itself into a false prosperity that distorted its economic sense of self. America pushed its consumer model too far, and China did the same with its producer model. Mirror images of each other’s insatiable appetite for growth, they turned codependency from a supportive to a potentially destructive force. Just as a psychologist would argue that it is now time for the cure, the economist must reach the same conclusion."

Read the whole article:

http://spectator.org/articles/57945/american-excess-chinese-success

Unbalanced: The Codependency of America and China
By Stephen Roach
(Yale, 345 pages, $32.50)

China forecasting is a mug’s game. The terrible example before us all is Gordon Chang, who in 2001 published a book titled The Coming Collapse of China, which predicted that within five to ten years the Communist Party would be chased out of power amid social and economic breakdown. (I reviewed the book here.) As Stephen Roach notes drily in Unbalanced: “During the next ten years China averaged 10 percent annual growth in its GDP, with no signs that the Party was losing its grip on power.”

(Nothing abashed, Chang still writes a weekly column for Forbes, always insightful. For what it’s worth—see above—I think he was right about everything but the time scale.)

Thus chastened, book-length China commentary nowadays mostly shuns the predictive for the prescriptive. What should we do to maintain stability and prosperity? What should we encourage China to do?

Unbalanced takes that more modest prescriptive approach. Stephen Roach is a seasoned economist and a former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. His main theme here is the asymmetric character of the U.S.-China economic bond. That term “codependency” in his subtitle is taken from clinical psychopathology, where it is defined as: “an unhealthy close relationship between two dependent individuals.”

The nature of this particular relationship is one of producer to consumer. That might be expressed more bluntly as “supplier to addict,” except that the addiction cuts both ways. The Chinese labor away for low remuneration, a high percentage of which goes into savings, to produce cheap goods for export. Americans buy those goods so enthusiastically that we no longer save at all.

Stuffed with citizens’ savings, the state-dominated Chinese financial system outputs tumorous property booms and grand pharaonic projects (along with, to be fair, much necessary infrastructure improvement).

By contrast, the U.S. net savings rate—the portion of savings actually available to fund expanding productive capacity—has been negative in recent years, a factor in America’s well-known fiscal and monetary problems.

The Chinese worker has meanwhile fallen into the Paradox of Thrift, saving so much he has nothing to spend on the goods produced by the factories built with loans from banks fat with his savings.

Everyone’s behaving reasonably, and the results seem fine on both sides, but they are not sustainable. Stephen Roach works the analogy with psychopathology:

Each nation deluded itself into a false prosperity that distorted its economic sense of self. America pushed its consumer model too far, and China did the same with its producer model. Mirror images of each other’s insatiable appetite for growth, they turned codependency from a supportive to a potentially destructive force. Just as a psychologist would argue that it is now time for the cure, the economist must reach the same conclusion.

All right, but what’s the cure?

China on the whole has more, and easier, options. One reason the Chinese save so much, for example, is the very low level of public provision in healthcare and retirement support. Carp all you like about America’s bloated welfare state: a fortysomething middle-class Chinese person has no choice but to squirrel away as much of his income as he can for illness and old age.

On the American side, the way to rebalancing is less clear. An export-or-die policy sounds promising, until you reflect that China is already our second-largest export market (behind NAFTA-advantaged Canada and Mexico), up nearly 300 percent from 2003 to 2012. Roach recommends a change in the export mix to “sophisticated goods and services.” He is emphatic that China-bashing by U.S. politicians will not help, and brings out a wealth of statistics to support his case.

If Unbalanced has a weakness, it is a slight tendency towards Friedmanesque I-have-seen-the-future-and-it-works naïvety—seeing the timid, blinkered apparatchiks of the Politburo as meritocratic masters of geo-econo-political strategizing. For example, Roach fears that the Chinese will bite the re-balancing bullet before we do, placing us in a reactive posture.

You can find some support for this view: in the reformist pronouncements from last year’s Third Plenum, for example, and the thoughtful comments by new Prime Minister Li Keqiang and his predecessor Wen Jiabao. (The Third Plenum is discussed by economist Barry Naughton in the second half of a recent Ying Ma podcast.) Also of course in the pharaonic schemes of our own leaders, financed by ever-increasing national debt.

I’m not so sure, though. It has been a pattern for twenty years now that Chinese Prime Ministers propose, but the Party machine—by no means all of which resides in Beijing—disposes. Jonathan Fenby has things to say about this in his very useful 2012 book Tiger Head, Snake Tails.

And while politics is the enemy of economics everywhere, there is still far less politics in the U.S.A. than in China, where everything is political. Okay, I’ll play the mug’s game: the U.S.A. will come out of this decade in better shape than China.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

NYC Mayor de Blasio Kicks 700 Kids Out of Over-Performing Schools

Article copied from the following link:

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/03/02/mayor-de-blasio-kicks-700-kids-out-of-overperforming-schools-n1802822?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

According to the New Yorker:

Apparently, helping the underprivileged is only “progressive” when you have the support of wealthy union backers…

AMERICANS AT THE BREAKING POINT

Quoting the article:

"In his letter, Marbut cited President John F. Kennedy’s warning: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”

"The working people of America are fed up with an overbearing federal govt bent on regulating everyone & everything.”

SUPREMES SHOOT DOWN STATE'S FIGHT FOR GUN RIGHTS

copied from the following link:

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/03/supremes-shoot-down-states-fight-for-gun-rights/

Contending it is “fruitless” to expect that the federal government would rein in its own “lust” for tyranny, the instigator of a years-long conflict with Washington over the Interstate Commerce Clause says the battle is over.

At least for now.

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said the lawsuit he and his organization brought to uphold the state’s rights on weapons will not be considered at the Supreme Court.

The court’s unwillingness to take the case leaves standing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a lower court’s decision to throw out the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

The law states that firearms made and kept in Montana are exempt from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government authority to regulate commerce only “among” the states.

In a posting to supporters, Marbut wrote that the case is now at the end of the road, but a movement has been spawned.

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act, he said, “caught a sympathetic wave as the first legislation of its type in the U.S.”

“It was cloned and enacted in eight other states, and cloned and introduced in the legislatures of about 23 other states yet.”

Marbut said it’s clear that “a majority of the states of the U.S. are operating under the same frustration with the run amok federal government as is Montana.”

“Further, the MFFA inspired a whole wave of other ‘freedom acts,’ such as the light bulb freedom act, the whiskey freedom act, the tobacco freedom act, the healthcare freedom act, and others. Inspired by the MFFA, the U.S. is now alive with ‘nullification’ efforts at the state level – state efforts telling the federal government to back off,” he said.

All of that activity, Marbut said, means there is a need for the Supreme Court to step into this general controversy “if it has any hope to maintain respect for its historic-but-abandoned turf as any sort of check on the other federal branches.”

“This epic trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court’s rejection of MSSA v. Holder have finally persuaded me that it is fruitless to expect any part of the federal government to control the lust for centralized and tyrannical power that our federal government displays,” he said.

Marbut said further that, perhaps more importantly, his case “proves that it is improper to rely on the federal government, or any branch thereof, to be the judge of what powers the states have delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.”

“As the creator of the Constitution and the federal government, only the states may properly or practically do that.”

WND has reported on the case since it began, including months ago when attorneys general from a dozen states argued that the 10th Amendment essentially has been overturned by decades of incorrect court rulings, and the Supreme Court needed to repair the damage.

“By abandoning any meaningful standard for the substantiality of an intrastate activity’s effects on interstate commerce, this court has enabled the Congress to ‘draw the circle broadly enough to cover’ activity, that when viewed in isolation, would have no substantial effect on interstate commerce at all,” representatives for the 12 states told the high court.

The states were Utah, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming.

The Montana group had petitioned the high court to hear the case, arguing the federal bureaucracy has no authority to impose restrictions on a firearm made, sold and kept inside Montana.

It’s called “The Essential Second Amendment Guide” and the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre has assembled the facts you need to protect your constitutional rights.

The plaintiffs said the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually expanded Washington’s authority under the Commerce Clause so that anything can be regulated under it.

For example, various courts have ruled that under the Commerce Clause, a local law “tracking sex offenders” cannot be allowed because “any effect on interstate commerce from requiring sex offenders to registered is too attenuated to survive scrutiny under the Commerce Clause.”

Further, another court ruled that a disputed statute need not “be a purely economic or commercial statute” to fall under the economic jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause.

States need to ‘check’ Washington

The state of Montana also argued that the independent power of the states “serves as a check on the power of the federal government.”

“If the states are to serve as a real ‘check’ or ‘control’ on federal overreaching, then this court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence – or more specifically, its Necessary and Proper clause jurisprudence – must provide enforceable limits that are more than just hortatory. This is especially true at the ‘outer limits’ where, as here, Congress tries to regulate purely intrastate activity in the ‘areas of criminal law and social police, where ‘states lay claim’ by right of history and expertise,’” the state said.

“It is long past time for the federal government and the lower courts to stop using [their own precedents] as a license to engage in pure conjecture as to ‘substantial effects’ on interstate commerce. More ‘careful scrutiny’ is required if the ‘constitutionally mandated balance of power’ between the states and the federal government is to continue ‘to ensure the protection of our fundamental liberties.’”

The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence argued in its brief that the limitations on the federal government to its constitutional duties are foundational.

“Among the powers not delegated to the federal government was the power to regulate the health, safety, and morals of the people – the so-called police power,” it contends. “[Those] always belong to the states.”

And the Weapons Collectors Society of Montana explained that at the time Montana agreed to become a state – and Congress approved its constitution – there were no regulations, limits or restrictions on Montana’s gun industry.

“At the time Montana entered the union, no federal regulation of firearms and ammunition existed, so it would be impossible for the parties to intend that the wholly intrastate manufacture of firearm or ammunition would be subject to federal regulation. … This impossibility also extends to the parties being able to see 50 years into the future to intend that the unforeseen change in Commerce Clause jurisprudence would limit the ability of Montana citizens from these activities.”

WND reported earlier when the shooting sports association filed its request.

A ruling was needed, it said, that would overturn existing precedent and re-establish the powers to which the federal government is limited, restoring the power given to states.

No power

The case argued Congress has no power unless it is specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution.

Marbut, who has been barred by the federal government from building and selling a “Montana Buckeroo” rifle, released an open letter to members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The natives are beyond restless. They are at the stage of collecting torches and pitchforks and preparing to head for the castle gates en masse,” he said.

In his letter, Marbut charged that the problem is “overweening federal power,” describing the government’s attitude as “overconfident, conceited, cocksure, cocky, smug, haughty, supercilious, lofty, patronizing, arrogant, proud, vain, self-important, imperious and overbearing.”

He insisted there is plenty of evidence for his assertion.

The movement to enforce states’ rights, as provided by the 10th Amendment, goes beyond gun rights, he said.

“Other states have enacted or introduced other ‘Freedom Acts,’ such as the Whiskey Freedom Act, the Light Bulb Freedom Act, and the Healthcare Freedom Act. But those only tell part of the story,” wrote Marbut.

He noted that states are passing laws prohibiting enforcement of indefinite detention under the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA. Police agencies have publicly declared they will not enforce provisions of the Patriot Act, and some states have enacted various marijuana tolerance laws in defiance of federal law.

“These rejections of overweening federal power are happening not only at the state level, but at the county, city level, and with individual citizens,” he said.

“Frankly,” he wrote, “the working people of America are fed up with an overbearing federal government bent on regulating everyone and everything.”

Read Marbut’s letter

Peaceful revolution

In his letter, Marbut cited President John F. Kennedy’s warning: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”

His lawsuit, he said, “is our best, and could be the last or near last, attempt at the peaceful revolution we’d all emphatically prefer to the alternative Kennedy asserted.”

“It could well be that MSSA v. Holder marks an historical cusp similar to that served up to SCOTUS in Scott v. Sandford. (For any non-attorneys reading this, Scott v. Sandford is often known as the ‘Dred Scott decision,’ a Supreme Court decision thought by many historians to have been the spark that set off the Civil War, a decision that effectively upheld the institution of slavery.)”

Learn what you can do about your nation. Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

The lawsuit was filed by Marbut and several firearms organizations in Montana as well as the Second Amendment Foundation after the state legislature adopted the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

Washington maintains that under the Commerce Clause, it has the right to control commerce inside states, even though the constitutional provision specifies it’s for commerce “among” the states.

Montana Buckaroo

The case never was only about a Montana Buckaroo.

“I wrote the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) in 2004, specifically to use firearms as the vehicle to challenge federal power under the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC),” Marbut explained.

The lawsuit was thrown out by a federal district judge on grounds of standing and merit. The far-left leaning Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that the plaintiffs do have standing, but it affirmed the ruling on merit, opening the door to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Marbut argued in his letter that the problem traces back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in a dispute over wheat price supports threatened to “pack” a Supreme Court with six extra justices so he could ram through his agenda of government control.

The Supreme Court folded, deciding the “Wickard” case in Roosevelt’s favor. The ruling formed the basis for the long string of later decisions that further tightened the federal grip on in-state activities.

New Definitions

Marbut explained the court created new definitions for the terms “regulate,” “commerce” and “among,” which became a de facto amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

He said “commerce” was changed to mean “any economic activity, no matter how minor,” “regulate” was given the meaning “prohibit” and “among” was made to mean “within.”

“The word ‘among’ is a bit slippery to define, although we all grasp what it means,” Marbut wrote. “However, we can easily define what it does NOT mean with a simple thought experiment: You say, ‘Among the three children they had enough money for two ice cream cones.’ I ask, ‘Is an X-ray machine required to find the money?’ You answer, ‘No, because the money is not within them, it is among them.’ Thus, we see clearly that the meaning of ‘among’ does NOT include ‘within.’ Yet to make the Wickard decision do what FDR wanted, SCOTUS had to redefine ‘among’ to mean ‘within.’”

Read Wayne LaPierre’s documentation of “America Disarmed: Inside the U.N. & Obama’s Scheme to Destroy the Second Amendment.”

Conflict

Marbut also argued in his letter to the Supreme Court that a standard principle of law is that provisions adopted later amend those adopted earlier. He notes that the Second Amendment, as well as the Ninth and 10th, were adopted after the commerce clause, and thus amended it.

“The laws that the U.S. asserts prohibit Montana from implementing the MFFA, and that prohibit me from making and selling the Montana Buckaroo sans federal regulation, are clearly a form of prior restraint,” he contended.

The U.S. Supreme Court, he said, “has been clear that prior restraint upon the exercise of constitutionally protected rights is not to be lightly tolerated.”

“Because federal laws being applied inhibit exercise of Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendment reserved rights in advance, those laws neatly fit the prior restraint definition. Generically, prior restraint of a reserved constitutional right may not be done when supported only by a rational basis. It will be difficult or impossible for the U.S. to muster persuasive arguments to satisfy a level of review more strict than a simple rational basis concerning an asserted federal trump of the MFFA.”

He also argued that Montana entered statehood in 1889 under a compact, or contract, and the state accepted the U.S. Constitution as it was understood at the time.

“If the people of Montana had understood in 1889 that this proposed Compact would preclude them from being able to make firearms, or even repair firearms, without a federal license, I seriously doubt that the Montana Legislature would have approved the Compact and Ordinance 1.”

Attorney Nick Dranias represented friend-of-the-court party the Goldwater Institute and others in the Ninth Circuit’s oral arguments, and Quentin Rhoades represented Marbut and Montana shooting interests.

The arguments presented to the Ninth Circuit were posted online:

video

Saturday, March 1, 2014

ERIC HOLDER LEADS 'TOP 12' PORN PURVEYORS

Copied from the following link:

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/02/eric-holder-leads-top-12-porn-purveyors/

An organization that has been fighting the scourge of pornography in America for more than 50 years has released its 2014 Dirty Dozen List of people, groups and corporations that are the “leading facilitators” of pornography in America.

And it’s headed by one of President Barack Obama’s top appointees: Attorney General Eric Holder.

Morality in Media, the leading national group opposing pornography and indecency through public education and the application of the law, said Holder tops the list for his support of pornographers over children and families.

“As the pandemic of harm from pornography grows, Holder gives criminal pornographers the green light to proceed by stopping all enforcement of federal obscenity laws,” said Patrick A. Trueman, president of MIM.

The damage done by pornography has been documented in studies. But one of the more compelling condemnations of porn came from serial murderer Ted Bundy, who once escaped from jail in Aspen, Colo., to continue his murderous death trip across America.

Dr. James C. Dobson, now with the nonprofit Family Talk, interviewed Bundy just hours before Bundy was executed on Jan. 24, 1989, in a Florida electric chair.

Bundy, who was blamed for the deaths of dozens of young girls and women, explained that as young boy of 12 or 13, he encountered soft-core pornography in local grocery and drug stores.

“Young boys explore the sideways and byways of their neighborhoods, and in our neighborhood, people would dump the garbage,” he said. “From time to time, we would come across books of a harder nature – more graphic. This also included detective magazines, etc., and I want to emphasize this. The most damaging kind of pornography – and I’m talking from hard, real, personal experience – is that that involves violence and sexual violence.”

Bundy told Dobson that he accepted responsibility for what he did and was not blaming porn for “causing” him to do something. His M.O. was to wear a fake cast on an arm or leg and “accidentally” drop books near a pretty coed. When she helped him carry books to his car, he would shove her into the passenger side, from which he’d removed the seat, and take off with his latest victim.

Bundy said the issue “is how this kind of literature contributed and helped mold and shape the kinds of violent behavior.”

“In the beginning, it fuels this kind of thought process,” he told Dobson. “Then, at a certain time, it is instrumental in crystallizing it, making it into something that is almost a separate entity inside.”

Bundy said he led “a normal life, except for this one, small but very potent and destructive segment that I kept very secret and close to myself.”

“Those of us who have been so influenced by violence in the media, particularly pornographic violence, are not some kind of inherent monsters. We are your sons and husbands. We grew up in regular families. Pornography can reach in and snatch a kid out of any house today. It snatched me out of my home 20 or 30 years ago.”

He said the years he spent behind bars before his execution was carried out were instructive.

“I’ve lived in prison for a long time now, and I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence,” he said. “Without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography – deeply consumed by the addiction. The FBI’s own study on serial homicide shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornographers. It’s true.”

He warned America, too, about the flood of porn that exists.

“I hope that those who I have caused so much grief, even if they don’t believe my expression of sorrow, will believe what I’m saying now; there are those loose in their towns and communities, like me, whose dangerous impulses are being fueled, day in and day out, by violence in the media in its various forms – particularly sexualized violence,” he said. “What scares me is when I see what’s on cable TV. Some of the violence in the movies that come into homes today is stuff they wouldn’t show in X-rated adult theaters 30 years ago.”

Also on the Morality in Media’s 2014 list is Tumblr “for its embrace of pornographic offerings, PlayStation for its live streamed pornography and sexually violent games, and Verizon for its FIOS TV porn offerings, including many with child or teen themes, sexual slavery plots and racial overtones.”

Dawn Hawkins, Morality in Media’s executive director, said the Dirty Dozen companies “profit daily from the sexual exploitation of others, and our campaign against them will not stop until their exploitation stops.”

“Many of them may be in violation of current, enforceable U.S. obscenity laws that prohibit the distribution of obscene or hardcore pornography,” she said.

Morality in Media’s list:

Attorney General Eric Holder – Mr. Holder refuses to enforce existing federal obscenity laws against hard-core adult pornography, despite the fact that these laws have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively enforced by previous attorneys general.
Verizon – Verizon pushes porn into our homes now through hardcore pay-per-view movies on FIOS, smartphones and tablets and as an Internet Service Provider with insufficient filtering options.
Sex Week – Yale and other colleges and universities repeatedly offer Sex Week on campus. Porn stars are routinely invited to lecture, and pornography that glamorizes “fantasy rape” is screened.
Playstation – PlayStation’s live-streaming abilities are filling thousands of homes with live porn, and the PlayStation Store sells hundreds of pornographic and sexually violent games.
Facebook – Facebook has become a top place to trade pornography, child pornography and for sexual exploitation. Facebook’s guidelines prohibit such behavior, but the company is doing little to enforce them.
Barnes & Noble – This Fortune 500 Company is a major supplier of adult pornography and child erotica. They regularly put pornography near the children’s sections in their stores and provide free, unfiltered porn publications on their Nook e-reader.
Hilton – This hotel chain, like Hyatt, Starwood and many other top hotel chains, provides hardcore pornography movie choices. Porn channels are often the first advertisement on their in-room TVs.
American Library Association – The ALA encourages public libraries to keep their computers unfiltered and allow patrons, including children, to access pornography.
Google – Google’s empire thrives on porn. Porn is easily available, even to children, through YouTube, GooglePlay, Google Images and Google Ads.
Tumblr – This popular social media blogging site bombards users with porn. Users must only be 13, and the filters do not work.
50 Shades of Gray – This bestselling book series and upcoming movie are normalizing sexual violence, domination and torture of women. Oprah Winfrey Network, Broadway and other mainstream outlets have even promoted this abusive lifestyle.
Cosmopolitan Magazine – The magazine is a full-on pornographic, “how-to” sex guide, encouraging women to accept the pornified culture around them. They specifically market this content to teen girls.