Sibel Edmonds worked for the FBI from Sept. 2001 till April 2002 when she was fired for reporting to her superiors that one of her FBI colleagues was engaged in espionage against the United States.  Her colleague, Melek Dickerson and her husband Major Douglas Dickerson, employed by U.S. Defense intelligence, were acquiring U.S. nuclear and weapons technology for foreign entities that sold it on the international black market.

The foreign entities were primarily Turkish and Ms. Edmonds was subpoenaed to give her deposition in a case involving Turkish influence in a Ohio Congressional race between David Krikorian and incumbent Jean Schmidt.   The first 7 minutes of the deposition is repeatedly interrupted by attorney objections so I suggest starting at 7 minutes.

There are five parts to Ms. Edmonds deposition and the remaining 3 can be found at YouTube.

Former FBI director Robert Mueller has been appointed Special Counsel in charge of investigating Russian involvement in the last presidential election.  Mr. Mueller was FBI director at the time Ms. Edmonds was fired by the FBI.  No action was taken by director Mueller regarding Sibel’s report of foreign entities engaged in espionage against the United States.  One of these foreign entities is a multi-billion dollar organization run by Turkish Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen.  Mr. Gulen currently lives in the United States and has received hundreds of millions of tax dollars to start charter schools in America.

President Trump’s former National Security adviser, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, had been working to expose Gulen’s criminal network.  Gulen’s agenda includes radicalizing Muslim populations in energy rich countries that border Russia.  Like the U.S., Russia is a victim of Islamic terrorism and opposes organizations like Gulen’s because they produce Islamic terrorists.

This is where the plot thickens.  As director of the FBI, Mueller ignored actionable intelligence regarding Gulen’s operation, but as Special Counsel in charge of the Russian investigation, Mueller has targeted General Flynn. Hmmm?

This report by Ms. Edmond’s news organization NEWSBUD, illustrates Mueller’s conflict of interest based on his past failure to take action against Fethullah Gulen.  Court documents pertaining to Gulen’s immigration status in the U.S. also shed light on the CIA’s illegal operations involving Gulen’s network in Central Asia.

After being fired by the FBI, Ms. Edmonds used official channels to address her allegations.  These channels included filing a report with the DOJ Inspector General’s office, contacting appropriate Senate committees, and eventually a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court.  Even though Senator Chuck Grassley and others called her a “credible witness”, all her efforts were thwarted by a gag order based on the government’s decision to invoke State Secrets Privilege.  This is documented in a story by The American Conservative.

Because of the difficulty in getting accurate information to the public, Sibel Edmonds and others have started a news organization called NEWSBUD.  Their attempt to create a new model for delivering accurate information to the public is not perfect, but it is a useful piece when putting together the information puzzle.

The term globalization was popularized during the late 90’s in conjunction with the implementation of “free” trade policies.  Free trade is based on the notion there’s nothing exceptional about America, it’s just one nation among many, so we shouldn’t use trade policy to protect our economy and Constitutional liberties.  The architects of free trade want policies that are free from legal and moral Constitutional constraints.

This is a fundamental shift in U.S. trade policy.  In 1789, our founders placed tariffs on textile imports to protect the domestic textile industry from King George III, his private sector cronies, and their predatory monarchist ideology.  From then until the Clinton/Bush free trade policies, protectionist trade policies were instrumental in protecting Constitutional liberties and building the world’s most prosperous manufacturing economy.

John D. Rockefeller said “competition is a sin”.  You can’t have a capitalist market economy without competition, so Rockefeller was advocating for an economy dominated by price fixing cartels, not unlike Communist China.  This Wall Street Journal article titled “China’s Superior Economic Model”, is based on comments by Intel CEO Andy Grove.  Grove said China has “demonstrated that a plan for job creation must be the number one objective of state economic policy.”  This is the socialist rhetoric Republicans claim to oppose while defending trade policies that subsidize Chinese communism.  Oops!

Republicans say they support free markets.  But based on the “free” market, Aramco, a Saudi State owned company owns half of America’s largest refinery, and the governments of China and Qatar are acquiring U.S. based Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) export facilities. Apparently, foreign government ownership of US industry is their definition of a free market.  The Saudis use their stake in Motiva as a market for their crude.  Is it more efficient to ship crude oil from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. instead of using the glut of North American oil?

The point is, free markets have nothing to do with market efficiency or freedom from government intervention.  The term “free market” is a euphemism for managed global markets that serve the strategic interests of monopolistic multinationals and their political cronies who reject the notion of sovereign representative governments and unalienable rights.

That’s why State owned companies, which are fronts for totalitarian regimes, are given free reign in the imaginary free market.  The Rockefellers of the world prefer China’s command and control economic model, so they implemented free trade policies that have transferred Trillions in investment capital, technology and assets to Communist China.  I consider this treason.

We live in a hostile world governed by the use of force, including the use of economic force.  So the primary purpose of trade protection is not to shield U.S. industry from competition, but to protect our Constitutional freedoms by protecting our economy.  The framers of the Constitution wanted a market economy, not a free market, i.e., a market free from legal and moral Constitutional constraints.

By inserting the Commerce Clause into the Constitution, they made market principles subordinate to the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  But the Commerce Clause is limited.  In his ruling on Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts said the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” but he betrayed the intent of the framers and ruled it a Constitutional tax.

Ronald Reagan did not betray the intent of the founders.  He protected U.S. markets from communist policies, i.e., he did not allow US multinationals to transfer Trillions in investment capital and technology to the Soviet Union because they had cheap labor.  Why not?  Because it would’ve subsidized a communist ideology that threatens our liberties in a Constitutional Republic.

Did the U.S. economy suffer because Reagan rejected free trade with the Soviet Union.  Of course not.  His philosophy was peace through strength, which meant a strong economy that enabled us to destroy the Soviet Union’s communist ideology.  Likewise, we could destroy China’s communist regime by placing tariffs on Chinese imports.  Anyone who thinks China is not a threat equal to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, should check out this hearing on human rights abuse in China.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, industrial nations have dominated the global economy.  Why?  Because manufacturing generates enormous wealth via capital investment, technology and jobs.  When free trade was being debated in the late 90’s, bipartisan leaders said it would transition America to a “low wage service economy”.  But they didn’t say that transitioning from the world’s largest manufacturing economy, to a low wage service economy, is by definition a radical economic decline.

As indicated in the previous link, countries that manufacture and export more than they import, experience higher growth rates and a higher standard of living.  The same principle applies to business, i.e., businesses that sell (export) more products than they buy (import), are more profitable.

During the 80’s there was concern about America’s ability to compete globally.  Japan was on the rise but we went through corporate downsizing and welfare reforms, and by the mid 90’s, America again dominated the global economy and had balanced the Federal budget.  What “happened”?  Free trade happened.  There’s a direct correlation between free trade, the decline of America, and the rise of Communist China’s command and control economy.  In my opinion, free trade is designed to sell America off to foreign governments run by totalitarian regimes.

Communism, fascism and monarchies are all examples of totalitarian regimes.  The American Revolution was fought to free America from the chains of the British monarchy.  But the domestic fight against totalitarian ideologies didn’t end with the Revolution.  America’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, was a leader of the Federalist Party, which wanted a strong central gov’t similar to a monarchy.

Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, adamantly opposed the Federalist agenda, i.e., a strong central government and central bank (like the Fed) which would infringe on the rights of States and individuals.  Unfortunately, the Federalist vision for America, which includes free trade, is dominating American politics.  Check out the section on “Monetary Policy” in the PDF Knowledge is Power.

The U.S. military has also been globalized, i.e., it no longer protects the interests of the U.S. domestic economy or Constitutional principles, it protects the interests of global corporations and politicians that prefer China’s totalitarian economic model.  Many people believe the Iraq war was about oil, which is partly true, but much of Iraq’s oil is going to China.

So the U.S. military was used to subsidize Chinese communism by securing Iraqi oil.  Meanwhile, Wall Street lobbies for Cap and Trade which limits America’s ability to use it’s lowest cost and most abundant energy resources.  The resulting higher energy costs will harm America’s ability to compete globally and creates incentives to export U.S. fossil fuels.

CNBC reported that Afghanistan is the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”, and Chinese State Owned Entities (SOE’s) have started mining in Afghanistan.  Coincidentally, China is one of the largest manufacturers of lithium batteries for electric cars.  And the plan is to build large banks of lithium batteries to store the intermittent energy produced by wind and solar farms.  So Afghanistan is our first war for “clean” energy and American blood and treasure are subsidizing China’s booming manufacturing economy.  US political and business leaders should be prosecuted for aiding the enemy.

The subprime bubble masked the catastrophic economic effects of free trade, but now we’re seeing the harsh reality of a low wage service economy come into focus.  Municipalities, States and the Federal government have made promises based on revenues from an industrial economy, and they will not be able to keep those promises.

Bankrupting the world’s most powerful democratic republic is what the architects of free trade intended.  They’re ideologically opposed to capitalism, i.e., competitive, market economies within a representative government.  Free trade, a.k.a. globalization, was an opportunity to achieve a bloodless coup d’etat and create a global command and control economy.

Patriotic Americans should oppose free trade policies that are transitioning America from the world’s most prosperous manufacturing economy, to a low wage service economy.  Conservatives recognize Obamacare as a fundamental transformation of America, which it is.  But America’s transformation is a bipartisan agenda that includes Clinton/Bush free trade agreements, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NSA wiretapping, mandates for clean energy, amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, and gun control, which are all part of America’s incremental transformation to a totalitarian system.

These policies are part of a forced transition from a competitive market economy, to a tyrannical command and control economy.  The fraudulent left vs. right narrative is part of a divide and conquer strategy, and is a key part of the tyrannical agenda.  Homeland Security and the Patriot Act will be used to control citizens opposed to the economic decline caused by Clinton/Bush free trade policies, Obama’s policies, and financial sector tyranny.

If citizens want to know where the tyrants have buried the bodies, i.e., the corpse of America’s prosperous republic, look behind issues the fraudulent left/right media agree on.  Examples are globalization and free trade.  Leftist Fareed Zakaria has a CNN show with a segment called What in the World?.  He recently covered the topic of globalization, and like right wing media, Fareed extolled the virtues of free trade and globalization.  And like his counterparts on the right, Fareed said the Great Depression was exacerbated by the implementation of protectionist trade polices (tariffs).  But as usual, the facts don’t fit the media’a fraudulent narrative.

Some say the electronic trinkets produced in China would be too expensive if manufactured in America.  But virtual slave labor has always existed in foreign countries, and before free trade, America’s economy thrived without exploiting cheap labor abroad.  Many leaders say government should be run more like a business.  Well, multinational corporations spend billions implementing policies that PROTECT their market share and global competitiveness.  They even engage in corporate espionage to gain competitive advantages that US leaders give away via free trade.

Businesses don’t engage in anything remotely resembling free trade.  Why?   Because providing the competition with capital and technology guarantees failure.   Doing so would cause shareholders to demand criminal prosecution of the Board of Directors and top officers, which is what should be done to politicians who have intentionally traded away America’s economic future.   Manufacturing is the engine of economic growth, so outsourcing manufacturing in exchange for cheap trinkets is like the Native Americans selling their sovereignty for beads and blankets.

American history teaches the concept of manifest destiny.  But how many fur traders, homesteaders and gold miners were thinking about manifest destiny when they moved West?   Few if any, they didn’t even know what the phrase meant.  Manifest destiny is the language of ruling class elites, i.e. merchant bankers and industrialists.  They moved common folk across the American West like pawns on a chess board.  Ruling class elites wanted conflict with the Indians so they could call in the cavalry and manifest their destiny.

The new frontiers for today’s ruling class are Communist China and emerging markets.  Free trade is preparing the way for the global cavalry and final phase of manifest destiny.  For all intents and purposes, US financial elites and industrialists have seceded from the Union.  They’ve allied themselves with China’s totalitarian regime and are engaged in economic terrorism against the United States.  Media and politicians support this treasonous alliance and they exploit class and race divisions as part of a divide and conquer agenda.  They want divided Americans to blame each other and fight over the economic crumbs left behind by free trade and the financial crisis.  We’re all Indians now.

Now Obama is calling for fast track trade authority to implement a new “free” trade agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  The following text and next two paragraphs are excerpts from the previous link.  What’s wrong with fast track?  For most of the past 200 years, Congress negotiated trade policy and wrote the laws to oversee trade, as required in the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.  This power was first transferred to the Executive Office when Nixon was granted Fast Track in 1974 as part of his consolidation of presidential power.  Fast Track expired in 2007.

As far as President Obama is concerned, the TPP is entering the home stretch.  All he needs now is for Congress to vote to grant him Fast Track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, and it’s a done deal.  Fast Track would allow the President to sign the TPP before it goes to Congress.  Members of Congress would then have a short time period to hold an up or down vote and would be prohibited from making amendments.  Without Fast Track, which was used to pass NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it is unlikely that the TPP could be signed into law

The Obama administration has been negotiating the TPP in secret for more than three years.  Unlike past trade agreements, the text of the TPP is classified and members of Congress have restricted access to it.  If they do read the text, they are not allowed to copy it or discuss any specifics of it.  However, more than 600 corporate advisers have direct access to the text on their computers.  Sachie Mizohata writes in Asia Times, “The TPP is a Trojan horse, branded as a free trade agreement, but having nothing to do with fair and equitable treatment.  In reality, it is precisely a wish list of the 1% – a worldwide corporate power.”

Global elites creating a New World Order sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory.  But President Obama, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, George H.W. Bush, and other world leaders have publicly stated that their objective is a “new world order”.  Given the decline of America in conjunction with globalization, world leaders talking of a new world order warrants serious consideration.

The video link below, has a clip of Charlie Rose interviewing Henry Kissinger about globalization.  They talked about the “new world order” as a shift of power and economic growth from the West to the East, i.e., China.  There’s also a clip of George H.W. Bush saying, on six different occasions, his objective is a “new world order.”   And there’s a clip of UK Primer Minister Gordon Brown declaring a “new world order”.  The video also explains the Federal Reserve’s use of debt to enslave citizens.  Much of the video is subjective, but the fact is, many world leaders acknowledge their objective is a New World Order.

In the New World Order video, Henry Kissinger used the word globalization to describe the mechanism by which the world is being reordered.  And he emphasized the fact that new global rules are designed to pick winners and losers.  The West, and the U.S. in particular, have been picked to lose.  Goldman Sachs exec Jim O’Neill also makes this clear in an interview with Charlie Rose.  The winners are totalitarian regimes like Communist China.

The invisible hand of the market became visible shortly after 13:50 into the Charlie Rose interview.  That’s when Rose asked O’Neill about the possible implosion of China’s economic bubble.  Jim said, “Some days I wake up and think, what have I created with this damn thing?  I worry about that.”  Goldman Sachs was instrumental in restructuring  trade policy to favor Communist China.

Shortly after 29:45 O’Neill said, “In order for the world to progress, we have to let some things go to other people.”  Charlie then alluded to the massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. to China and asked, “What are the political implications for all this, especially for this country which has been on top for so long?”  Jim responded, “I’d like to hear President Obama say, how do we adjust before he says how do we compete”.

Jim then referred to Obama’s economic adviser Larry Summers saying, “he understands [China’s] relative advantage in international trade.”  Free trade is designed to pick winners and losers in the global economy and Goldman Sachs picked America to lose.  Because of their influence in Washington DC, Goldman Sachs is referred to as Government Sachs.  Financial elites have achieved  regulatory capture and subverted representative government.

The first three minutes of Fall of the Republic illustrates President Obama’s role in creating a new world order.  During the Rose interview, Jim O’Neill takes credit for coining the term BRIC, which refers to the emerging markets Brazil, Russia, India and China.  The emerging markets represent a New World Order led by China’s totalitarian regime.  Billionaire leftist George Soros says China must be brought into the “new world order”, and its currency will replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

After World War II Germany was a pile of rubble, literally.   Sixty years later they’re the strongest economy in the West.  They pay high wages, have a high standard of living, have a low debt to GDP ratio, and are able to compete with communist china.  This is because they protect their economy and manufacturing base.  Don’t buy the lie that America cannot do the same.

The founders ended the Declaration of Independence with these words: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.  Our founding fathers and mothers understood the price of freedom, and if we are going to preserve the representative government they fought and died for, we must be willing to commit time and resources to reverse the policies of globalization.

Another interesting source is the book Godonomics, which illustrates the Biblical principles behind private property rights and market economies based on moral principles.

Herman and Sharron Bailey have a show on the Christian Television Network (CTN).  They recently interviewed author Alex Newman about his book titled Crimes of the Educators.  Mr. Newman documents the use of public education to intentionally harm the intellectual abilities of students.

Given the serious consequences for the future of our nation, Newman says Common Core could be considered an “act of war”.

The U.S. and European Union (EU) debt crisis are essentially the same event. Banks leveraged toxic assets (mortgages) 40 to1, which made banks insolvent as house prices declined.  This Forbes article refutes the notion that government forced lenders to give loans to unqualified borrowers.  In the following excerpt, Forbes cites excessive leverage as one cause of the crisis.

“The SEC loosened capital requirements: In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks. This exemption replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit.

This allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs [GS], Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America [BAC]), Lehman Brothers (now defunct) and Bear Stearns (now part of JPMorganChase–[JPM]). These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage left little room for error.  By 2008, only two of the five banks had survived, and those two did so with the help of the bailout.”

Most of the NINJA loans (no income, no job and assets) were made voluntarily, and Wall Street banks were buying worthless loans on the secondary market, not lending to homeowners.  No one forced Wall Street banks to buy worthless loans, leverage them 40 to 1, label them as triple A investments, and sell them around the world.

William Black was Deputy Director of the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation during the 1980’s financial crisis.  He helped obtain a 1000 criminal convictions of “elite” bankers.  Mr. Black says public losses from the 2008 financial crisis are “70 times greater” than the Savings and Loan meltdown, but despite compelling evidence demonstrating Wall Street fraud, there have been few criminal prosecutions.

During this radio interview, Black said in 2004, the FBI testified before Congress about an epidemic of mortgage fraud and predicted it would cause a financial crisis.  In 2006, all major lenders were warned that “liars loans” had a 90% incidence of fraud.  But the mortgage industry increased subprime lending to the point that 1 in 3 loans were liars loans when the bubble burst in 2008.  Mr. Black said this constitutes one million cases of fraud per year by the industry.

Kyle Bass, portfolio manager for Hayman Capital Management was on CNBC’s Strategy Session.  He was asked if European banks have enough capital.  He said the EU “doesn’t have the money to recapitalize their banks because they don’t have a mechanism to print money like we do.”

Kyle was referring to the Fed buying nearly 2 Trillion of toxic assets from banks and injecting 16 Trillion of near 0% loans into the global banking system.  The EU is a political union, but it lacked a fiscal union that would allow the European Central Bank (ECB) to print money for a bank bailout.  

Bob Pisani is a market analyst on CNBC.  August 11, 2011, Bob commented on the financial crisis in Europe.  He said the funding costs for EU banks had risen and banks were “having issues”.  Bob said “we have no idea what these banks have” and cited a bank analyst saying about French bank Societe Generale, “SocGen doesn’t even know exactly what they’ve got”.

Mr. Pisani continued: “This crisis is going to, number one, accelerate a fiscal union in Europe.  Politicians need some kind of crisis to put to their electorate so they can make the changes needed to move toward that accelerated fiscal union.  That’s the good news that’s going to come out of all this”.

Later that day on CNBC’s Power Lunch, Mr. Pisani said “they [EU banks] need a crisis over there to get these deals through the Parliaments, and they’re certainly getting the crisis they wanted.”  So EU banks and their politicians wanted a crisis that would effectively coerce EU citizens to give bailout authority to the ECB.

Huge debts owed by big banks are used to create a crisis that forces legislation like the TARP bailout and Dodd-Frank on taxpayers.  Obama’s finance reform, Dodd-Frank, gives the executive branch permanent bailout authority, and future bailouts will not require a Congressional vote.  This legislation epitomizes taxation without representation. 

Politicians, investors and media blame European “PIIGS” (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) for the EU debt crisis, but this is propaganda.  Like U.S. taxpayers, EU taxpayers have been misled by an insider cabal of politicians and bankers who’ve run up huge debts without informing citizens of the risk.

Simon Johnson, former IMF chief economist, said CEO’s of the six biggest US banks drew 2.6 BILLION in cash out of their banks “before” the 2008 financial collapse.  Hmmm?  Mr. Johnson was clearly suggesting foreknowledge of the crisis.

Bond vigilantes helped bring the EU crisis to a head by making a speculative attack on Italy’s sovereign debt.  This caused the interest on Italy’s debt to go up 200 basis points (2%) overnight, and a government default would have pushed EU banks to the brink of insolvency.

Mark Grant from Southwest Securities was on Squawk Box saying EU banks “can sink the sovereigns” and it will take “10 to 12 Trillion dollars to recapitalize the banks.”  EU banks are putting pressure on German taxpayers to fund most of the bailout with an EU TARP.

Sept. 22, 2011 on Squawk Box, Steven Roach, Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia said German Chancellor Angela Merkel “is concerned about sovereign independence” if the EU TARP goes forward, and Greece is also concerned about “giving up sovereignty.”  Roach said the strategy is not sustainable and “banks have mismanaged risk”.  Bank debt is being shifted to taxpayers.

The deals sought by EU banks equate to monetization of their debt by the ECB, i.e., printing money and loaning it to banks for free, which is a taxpayer bailout similar to TARP.  With a little help from their friends the bond vigilantes, big banks were able to extort the concessions they wanted from sovereign nations.

During a House debate over the $700 billion bank bailout (TARP), Republican Jeb Hensarling said the budget deficit rose 800% to 1.2 Trillion, and taxpayers are on the hook for 8 Trillion due to the financial crisis.  Organized crime is large and in charge.

Wall Street’s method for extorting Trillions from U.S. taxpayers is being used on EU taxpayers, i.e., give us unlimited access to your Treasury or we’ll collapse your economy.  Brad Sherman said members of Congress were threatened with “martial law” if they didn’t pass the $700 billion dollar TARP bailout.

The EU bailout is called the European Financial Stabilization Fund (EFSF), and it isn’t sustainable because wealthy EU countries are not willing to put up the Trillions necessary to recapitalize banks and stabilize sovereign debt.  EU banks and investors want the ECB to monetize their debt, i.e., print unlimited amounts of money like the Fed.  This shifts bank debt onto the backs of sovereigns and individual taxpayers, a.k.a., bank deleveraging.

CNBC’s Federal Reserve boot licker and money printing expert Steve Liesman asked Fed President James Bullard, “should the ECB monetize the debt?”  Bullard replied, “the ECB is already buying sovereign debt, this is a complete violation of the [Maastricht] treaty.”  Liesman’s response was “treaty shmeaty”, i.e, the ECB should violate the law and print money.  Liesman has no regard for the law, the sovereignty of nations, or the rights of individual sovereign citizens.  The previously mentioned comments come a little after two minutes into the video.

Europe’s Maastricht Treaty prohibits the printing of money by the ECB because taxpayers of wealthier EU nations would end up bearing most of the cost.  Just like U.S. taxpayers will bear the cost of the Fed’s toxic asset purchases and 16 Trillion cash injection, much of it into foreign banks.

Bailing out foreign banks is a violation of the Fed’s dual mandate, which applies strictly to stabilizing the domestic U.S. economy.  Why?  The Fed’s decision to bailout foreign banks makes U.S. taxpayers liable for foreign debt. So the US financial crisis was used as a pretext to violate U.S. law, likewise, the EU debt crisis is used as a pretext to violate the Maastricht Treaty. Goodbye sovereignty, hello austerity.

Steve Liesman is CNBC’s Fed expert.  He and other CNBC hosts, Melissa Lee, Andrew Sorkin, Michelle Cabrerra, Jim Kramer, Larry Krudlow, Bob Pisani, Rick Santelli, Joe Kernen, all squeal like stuck pigs when talking about government spending programs for average citizens.  But when markets start to drop, they support the Fed and ECB printing money like drunken sailors, as well as government stimulus.

CNBC’s host of Squawk Box Asia, Bernie Lo, echoed the sentiments of his CNBC comrades.  During a discussion about the Chinese government’s plan to restructure industry, Bernie said “There’s nothing wrong with being a command [communist] economy, it can make things more efficient and make things happen faster sometimes.”  CNBC hosts say they support market driven economies, but their support for the Fed’s intervention in markets and government stimulus reveals their socialist/communist agenda.

Government stimulus and unlimited money printing are the only things propping up big banks, the stock market, and by extension, the parasitic careers of CNBC hosts.  Most of the CEO’s, portfolio managers, and fund managers they interview, spew the same propaganda.  They blame average taxpaying citizens for not living within their means, then they advocate dumping Trillions of bank debt on them in violation of the law.  It’s the free market, i.e., a market free from the rules of capitalism.

President of the KC Federal Reserve, Thomas Hoenig, said Too Big To Fail companies “have the availability of different rules” …. “The United States has been the most successful economy in history…because for the most part over it’s history, it has been bound by the rules of capitalism, which does in fact reward success, but also compels participants in the market to play by open rules…and [participants] are compelled to fail when they make poor decisions”

Sept. 23, 2011, Sean Egan, president of the Egan Jones ratings firm was on Squawk Box.  Mr. Egan said Europe should make up for a “1.5 Trillion euro shortfall” by printing currency, but “Europe has a problem with printing currency because of memories of the Weimar Republic, which led to WWII”.

Money printing by Germany’s Weimar Republic collapsed their currency and facilitated the rise of Adolf Hitler.  Egan said the U.S. will be involved in the solution and suggested sending former Treasury Secretary Paulson to Europe.

Paulson engineered the 700 billion TARP bailout and supports the Fed’s printing of 16 Trillion to prop up the global banking system, so Egan clearly isn’t worried about collapsing the U.S. dollar.  He ended his commentary saying, the problem with the EU is “they’re behaving like separate nation states.”  The U.S. and European countries are separate sovereign nation states but Mr. Egan sees this as a problem, as do most big players in global financial markets.

When St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was on Squawk Box, he talked about the speculative attack on Italian debt and resulting interest rate spike that pushed Italy to the brink of insolvency.  He said “one day it will come to the U.S.”, we will have trouble borrowing in international capital markets. Communist China, one of the largest buyers of U.S. treasuries, is dumping US government debt. 

Communist China will be the bond vigilante leading the speculative attack on U.S. debt.  If the interest rate suddenly rises on America’s $19 Trillion debt, like it did in Italy, the U.S. will be on the brink of insolvency.  This manufactured crisis will be used to force radical cuts in defense, Medicare and Social Security, and force the sale of U.S. assets.  This will free up money for interest payments on US debt and for Dodd-Frank, Wall Street’s bailout program.

Washington gridlock is pure political theater, it’s a put on.  The super committee formed to deal with the debt problem was designed to fail.  Why?  US and Chinese leaders describe their governments relationship as a “partnership.”  Partners do not compete, they work together to achieve common goals, like bringing China’s totalitarian model to America.

Bipartisan leaders and their Wall Street partners want to crush U.S. sovereignty so they can continue building their command and control, centrally planned, global “free” market economy.  They want markets free from the rules of capitalism, and free from moral constraints, i.e., global organized crime.  The ideology of Wall Street’s bipartisan cronies is virtually identical their totalitarian partner, Communist China.

For more information click on the pdf file Knowledge is Power.

Most churches refrain from mixing politics with Christian teaching.  Our first priority is spreading the message of salvation via the Gospel and feeding Christ’s flock, but the law was given to Moses by God and governments administer God’s law.  So Christians have a responsibility to see that governments administer the law in a manner that is just and moral.  This is particularly true in a Constitutional Republic based on the consent of its citizens.

Even the apostle Paul stood up for his rights as a Roman citizen and used those rights to advance the Gospel.  Christ overcame the world but we are called to witness to the lost.  By holding up Christian values in in the political process, Christ is raised up and His light can shine on the lost.

Some of the Gospel’s principles were codified in America’s founding documents.  Acts 10:34 says: Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.  This principle of equality before God and his law is fundamental to our Constitutional Republic.  Galatians 3:28 expresses a similar principle: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The principles of the gospel were revolutionary in the first century Roman Empire where 20% of the people were slaves and the Roman Emperor was considered a god.  These principles of equality are expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence, which says all people are created equal, and the Creator endowed everyone with certain unalienable rights.

America was founded on principles of limited government, and there’s Biblical evidence supporting a limit on government’s role in people’s lives.  Prior to the era of kings, the Israelites were ruled by priests and judges.  Samuel was a God fearing judge, but when his corrupt sons came to power, the people demanded a king.  God preferred the limited form of government under priests and judges, and considered the people’s demand for a king a rejection of his rule.

1 Samuel chapter 8 is the story of Israel demanding a king. The moral of the story is, if human beings subject themselves to God’s law, we do not need to cede our freedom and authority to a king or strong central government.  Click on a verse for translations other than the King James.

1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.

2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.

3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.

22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

The Lord’s description of a reigning king sounds a lot like America’s bloated central government.  And the description fits Republicans and Democrats, both of whom govern like a greedy, power hungry king.  The LORD makes it clear that a king, a.k.a. tyrannical central government, is a poor substitute for limited government under the authority of God.

Among Pentecostals, Kenneth E. Hagin is one of the most respected Christian leaders in modern times.  Throughout his childhood, Ken suffered from an incurable heart and blood condition that eventually left him paralyzed, and doctors said he did not have long to live.

One day, Ken’s heart stopped three times, and each time he descended to the gates of hell where he was met by a demonic creature.  In the following teaching, Pastor Hagin recounts this experience, which led him to being a born again child of God destined for heaven.  Having experienced the possibility of going to hell, pastor Hagin spent his life zealously spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which presents the only way to avoid eternal separation from God.

Approximately 19 minutes into the video, pastor Hagin talks about a cardiologist who documented the experiences of patients that were revived after their heart stopped.  Then the pastor talks about his own compelling near death experience.

Listen to Dr. Charles Stanley’s inspiring teaching on how to turn a broken life into a blessed life destined for heaven. 

I was raised as a Lutheran but my uncle and grandfather were members of the Assembly of God church, which is Pentecostal, i.e., they practice the spiritual gifts described by the apostle Paul and the second chapter of the book of Acts.

Lester Sumrall was born in New Orleans in 1913.  His mother was a devout Christian but his father was an ungodly man who disliked preachers.  Lester was like his father until he was miraculously healed of tuberculosis at age 17.  At that time Lester left home and began his life as a preacher.  He preached in 119 countries and came to know many of the pioneers of the global Pentecostal revival.  His story is fascinating and has inspired the faith of many Christians.  In the following video he talks about some of the great men of God he knew during his lifetime.

Listen to pastor Sumrall tell the miraculous story of his life in the following videos.  Even if you are an atheist, you will be moved by the remarkable life of pastor Sumrall.

The following excerpt from Zero Hedge reveals Wall Street socialism that is rarely reported by “conservative” media:

While we hardly have to remind readers that it is Goldman [Sachs] that conceived of the carbon-credit market, and was behind cap and trade, here is an (in)convenient summary of who the true puppetmaster is behind the worldwide infatuation with stopping “global warming”, and who stands to benefit the most as the world is manipulated into doing everything to kill global warming dead in its tracks:

…Fast-forward to today. it’s early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs – its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign – sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.

Gone are HankPaulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm’s co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits – a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade.

The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

The previous excerpt can be found near the end of the Zero Hedge article.  Goldman Sachs is so cozy with big government, the following CNBC video says Washington insiders refer to Goldman as “Government Sachs”.

The organizers of Occupy Wall Street believe capitalism caused the financial crisis, so they advocate for a more socialist system.  But Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks are the opposite of capitalism because a fundamental rule of capitalism is, if you make bad decisions and bankrupt your business, you must be allowed to fail.  Allowing markets to clear failures is essential for an efficient market economy based on merit, not privilege.  So the last thing Wall Street banks want is to be subject to the rules of capitalism.

President of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, Thomas Hoenig, said TBTF companies “have the availability of different rules” …. “The United States has been the most successful economy in history…because for the most part over it’s history, it has been bound by the rules of capitalism, which does in fact reward success, but also compels participants in the market to play by open rules…and [participants] are compelled to fail when they make poor decisions”.

Some say the government’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forced Wall Street to make subprime loans that couldn’t be repaid.  But most subprime loans were originated by lenders exempt from the CRA.  And there’s compelling evidence that the mortgage industry knew they were originating, securitizing, and selling worthless paper.  For evidence of Wall Street fraud, listen to William Black, former Deputy Director of the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.  Mr. Black helped obtain 1000 criminal convictions of “elite” bankers after the 1980’s Savings and Loan crisis.

Listen to KC FED President Thomas Hoenig’s full speech on regulating TBTF companies.  He’s calling for reinstatement of Glass Steagall as a means to break up big banks.  After markets crashed in 1929, Glass Steagall was enacted to curb bank speculation, but President Clinton repealed it in 1999.  The Congressional Budget Office says propping up TBTF banks will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion.  

Some say banks and AIG paid back the 700 Billion TARP bailout. Technically it’s true, but they’re getting near zero percent money from the Fed so the bailout was repaid with taxpayer money.  And the Fed’s QE3 is buying 40 Billion per month of toxic mortgage backed securities from Wall Street, so the bailout continues.  And now (May 1, 2016), the New York Fed President says in the event of another financial crisis, securities firms will need more government support.  It’s socialism trending toward fascism.

Wall Street socialism is further demonstrated by Dodd-Frank (Obama’s finance reform).  Dodd-Frank’s Resolution Authority provides Trillions for future bailouts, without Congressional approval.   Contrary to the media narrative, Obama is a puppet of TBTF banks.  Senator Sherrod Brown said

“the implicit assumption that government will backstop their losses gives companies the incentive to engage in what economists have called LOOTING…Companies can risk bankruptcy at the expense of society rather than bearing the losses themselves….This is not capitalism in any sense of the word”.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz said TBTF banks privatize profits, socialize losses, and have an implicit government guarantee, “this isn’t capitalism.”  Fannie and Freddie were Government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s) which had an implicit government guarantee, just like TBTF banks.  How did Fannie and Freddie work out for taxpayers?  Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron said the TBTF parachute “allowed Wall Street to take a lot of risk and make a lot of money at taxpayer expense, that is not capitalism.”  The ratings agency Moody’s said Bank of America’s debt is rated five notches above what it would be without government support.  This is not capitalism.

So capitalism is not the problem, it’s the solution when subject to moral and legal Constitutional constraints.  The socialist agenda of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is precisely what Wall Street wants.  That’s why corrupt media focus on incoherent blather coming from OWS while ignoring leaders who say TBTF is the opposite of capitalism.  Getting behind the OWS movement is like following horses in a parade, you’ll be stepping in a lot of manure.  They should change their name to the “Bowel Movement” because while socialist elites sip cocktails in Wall Street penthouses, their Occupying  minions push socialist feces through the system.

The ideology underlying TBTF is similar to Hitler’s NAZI party, i.e., the National Socialist German Workers Party.  German industries willingly partnered up with Hitler and created a fascist regime.  How did national socialism work out for German workers and the world? 

In addition to socialist TBTF banks, the CEO of General Electric appointed himself as Obama’s job czar.  He wants a government imposed carbon market to subsidize GE’s “smart” grid and green energy projects.  The CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, is also calling for a CO2 tax to subsidize Exxon’s algae fuels research.  Chevron is running ads about their efforts to save the planet from climate change caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

The wind farm industry needs an extension of the production tax credit in order to keep wind power costs from doubling.  And Federal loan guarantees for solar farms are subsidizing Chinese manufacturing.  But efforts to stop global warming by subsidizing green energy, are based on fraud.

Leaked emails from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), demonstrate that falsified climate data was provided to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).   An excellent site for truth about global warming is climate depot.  On Earth Day (April 22, 2016) the climate depot featured the following link: Weather channel founder John Coleman rips United Nations climate claims: “The basic [global warming] theory has failed”.

EPA director Lisa Jackson admitted to using discredited IPCC data for her CO2 endangerment finding, and that capping U.S. CO2 emissions would have no effect on global warming.  So the cost-benefit ratio of capping CO2 is as follows:  ZERO demonstrable benefit and TRILLIONS in higher energy costs.  The U.S. has a 250 year supply of coal and the cleanest coal plants in the world.  But clean energy mandates force taxpayers to subsidize wind and solar, meanwhile, the EPA has placed a cap on CO2 emissions that effectively bans new U.S. coal plants.

June 2013, Obama announced plans to limit CO2 emission from existing coal plants.  All of these dictatorial policies undermine U.S. global competitiveness and are being implemented even though Cap and Trade was not passed by Congress.  The scientific peer review process has been severely compromised by the fraudulent global warming agenda, and there needs to be criminal prosecution to restore credibility.

Given the high cost of taxing and sequestering CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels, let’s examine the facts.  First, climate models are unproven theories, not settled science.  And a consensus of unproven climate models does not constitute settled science.  Second, CO2 is a trace gas that comprises only 33/1000ths of the atmosphere, and of that 33/1000ths, only 3% is man made.  CO2 emissions have risen significantly during the past 15 years due to China’s fossil fuel driven growth, but there has been no warming during that period.  That’s why climate alarmists have dropped the term global warming and begun using “climate change”.

Bottom line, CO2 is not a pollutant.  Every human being exhales CO2 and every plant requires CO2 for growth.  CO2 levels were 50 times higher when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and life was more abundant at that time.  In spite of the facts, Bill Gates says, in order to save the planet from global warming, the U.S. needs to reduce CO2 emissions to “near zero”.  Starting at 4 minutes into the video below, he presents an equation that will achieve his goal of zero CO2 emissions.  The first factor in his equation is human population.  He said

“the world today has about 6.8 billion people, and that’s headed up to about 9 billion.  If we do a really great job on vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or fifteen percent.”

Think about what he said, i.e., in order to save the planet from global warming caused by CO2 emissions, healthcare and vaccines will be used to reduce the human population.  Bill Gates is a supporter of Obamacare.  So those who think death panels are just right wing rhetoric should reflect on Bill Gates statement.  Using healthcare and vaccines to reduce human population is something Nazi Germany would have done.

Obama did not originate the fraudulent global warming agenda. Those who believe otherwise should watch General Electric’s CEO addressing the National Governors Association.  Mr. Immelt’s address occurred before Obama was President, and encouraged governors to save the planet by subsidizing GE’s clean/green energy.  Not one Republican Governor objected to Immelt’s proposals.  Using climate fraud to restrict our ability to use domestically produced, low cost fossil fuels, is a serious national security threat.  Obama acknowledged oil’s importance to national security during a speech in Ohio.  He said

“an even more immediate and direct security threat comes from our dependence on foreign oil.  The price of a barrel of oil is now one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Tyrants from Caracas to Tehran use it to prop up their regimes, intimidate the international community, and hold us hostage to a market that is subject to their whims.  If Iran decided to shut down the petroleum rich Strait of Hormuz tomorrow, they believe oil would skyrocket to $300-a-barrel in minutes, a price that one speculator predicted would result in $12 dollar-a-gallon gas.”

The comments above come at 2min/42sec into Obama’s speech.  In spite of the security threat posed by dependence on foreign oil, Obama wants to limit domestic oil production by imposing regulations on hydraulic fracturing.  Fracking of oil and gas wells began in 1947 and has a proven safety record.  The left complains about one instance of ground water contamination in Pennsylvania, meanwhile, they ignore the 800,000 thousand oil and gas wells that have been safely fracked in the Ogallala aquifer, America’s largest water aquifer.

T. Boone Pickens cites this information on the safety of fracking at 15:50 into a speech on the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.  At 8 minutes into his speech, he said U.S. natural gas reserves are equivalent to 3 times the Saudi oil reserves. Limiting domestic oil and gas production via fracking regulation would only drive up energy costs and benefit the big oil companies Obama claims to oppose.  Fraudulent climate data is used to undermine U.S. national security, and unfortunately, T. Boone starts his speech saying he believes in global warming.  This threat must be addressed by prosecuting corporate and political leaders for treason.

Peter O’Malley manages mining investments for HSBC.  While on CNBC, he said Afghanistan is the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”.  Lithium is used for electric car batteries and for General Electric’s “smart” grid.  The smart grid will require huge banks of batteries to store the intermittent energy generated by wind and solar farms.  Wind and solar farms are not clean or renewable, and the CEO of Basin Electric said it’s five to seven times more expensive than electricity from coal.  Lithium batteries are highly toxic when damaged and exposed to water, and mining for lithium is no cleaner than mining for coal.

The “green” energy industry will also require vast quantities of copper.  PBS did a documentary on a proposed copper mine in Alaska, the title is Alaska Gold.  The mine will create a multi-billion gallon tailings pond the equivalent of battery acid, and it will require costly maintenance, forever.   A scientist appearing on the program said electric cars require 50% more copper than conventional vehicles.  But they’re good for the environment, right?

HSBC’s Peter O’Malley also said companies owned by China’s Communist government are mining Afghan lithium.  So the lithium will be transported to China where GE and it’s communist partners will build batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels for America’s smart grid and electric cars.  And this is what our socialist leaders call energy independence.

While our troops are in Afghanistan fighting and dying in the first war for “clean energy”, America’s fossil fuels are being exported to fuel China’s growing industrial economy.  In reality, clean energy is part of a fascist takeover of the U.S. economy.  Bipartisan leaders work with multinationals to extract wealth from the U.S. and use it to subsidize Communist China.  As this Wall Street Journal article indicates, many US leaders prefer China’s command and control economic model.

Wall Street is a driving force behind Cap and Trade, which will force the export of U.S. fossil fuels to Communist China.  And what a coincidence, the Occupy movement is a big supporter of  Cap and Trade, a CO2 tax, GE’s smart grid, and a phony green economy that will enable Exxon and BP to monopolize “clean” energy.  Check out the book Climategate.

Obama is just a corporate front man doing the dirty work needed to bankrupt U.S. coal plants, thereby forcing coal exports to their Communist partners in China.  And Obama has admitted his energy policies will cause electricity costs to skyrocket.  This will be a backdoor subsidy for Big Oil’s alternative energy projects that cannot compete with low cost fossil fuels.

The notion that Obama opposes Big Oil and Wall Street fat cats is ludicrous.  According to Open Secrets, Obama received nearly double the campaign contributions from Wall Street as John McCain.  And it’s Wall Street banks that finance Big Oil.  Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first chief of staff, was living rent free in a Washington DC apartment with a British Petroleum adviser.

And Obama appointed Steve Koonin, a former BP exec as Undersecretary of the Department of Energy.   Rahm Emanuel’s “roommate” developed BP’s new green image and the name change to “Beyond Petroleum”.  Thanks to Obama, Big Oil is positioned to monopolize the phony clean energy market, and in the process, extract Trillions of tax dollars to subsidize their fascist agenda.

Many citizens are attracted to the “liberal” rhetoric of the Occupy Movement, and many are attracted to the rhetoric of “conservatives” like Rush Limbaugh.  Unfortunately, the left/right paradigm is designed to divide and conquer America on behalf of fascist elites.  Rush repeats the mantra, big government is bad and big business is good.  Amy Goodman is a prominent media leftist.  She says big government is good and big business is bad.  The truth is, totalitarian regimes have always been partnerships involving big government and big business.

Before the American Revolution, it was king George III and the British East India Company.  Nazi Germany was a product of fascist political and industrial leaders.  Today, China’s Communist government owns a controlling interest in most major industries and has partnered with US multinationals.  Amy Goodman’s show is called “Democracy Now, The War and Peace Report”.

Amy’s show is considered independent because it’s allegedly not part of the corporate media.  But she’s supported by billionaire leftist George Soros, the global poster boy for corporate fascism. That’s why I call her show “Hypocrisy Now, The War IS Peace Report”.  Amy Goodman and Rush Limbaugh work together to divide America and create a nation controlled by corporate fascists and their political cronies.   

To a degree, the U.S. economy has always been a public/private partnership.  President Thomas Jefferson used government to acquire the Louisiana Purchase, which may have been the most successful economic development policy in U.S. history.  The Homestead Act returned government land to private individuals who had a vested interest in protecting and growing the domestic economy.  But today, under the guise of a “free” market, Wall Street fascists are selling America off to totalitarian governments like China and Saudi Arabia.  Check out Saudis, China, and Arab Emirates Own Critical U.S. Energy Infrastructure.

Our founders wanted a market economy, not a free market, i.e., a market free from legal and moral Constitutional constraints.  By placing the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, they made market principles subordinate to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Markets, and the people who run them, are not free to make America dependent on totalitarian regimes.  Why not?  Our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms depend on America being a nation of laws, and a market “free” from moral and legal Constitutional constraints is nothing more than organized crime.

For more info, check out the post US Trade Subsidizes Communist China’s Forced Abortion and Torture, and the section on the EPA in Knowledge is Power.

This post provides evidence that the Saudi government funds a global network of Islamic madrasses (schools) exporting Wahhabism, the Saudi State’s official sect and radical ideology of al Qaeda.  This global network provides an endless supply of recruits for terrorist operations including the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, jihadists in North Africa, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and Chechnya where the Boston Marathon bombers received training.  This information is important because the US government claims the Saudi State is an “ally” in the War on Terror.

Curtin Windsor, former U.S. Ambassador and Special Emissary to the Middle East during the Reagan administration, wrote an article on Saudi funding of terrorism.  It’s well sourced with many footnotes and is titled “Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism”.  On page 5 under the heading “Exporting Hatred”, Windsor says “the Saudis have spent at least 87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades.”  The footnote referenced security expert Alex Alexiev.

In 2003, Mr. Alexiev testified before the U.S. Senate and predicted the current situation with ISIS in Iraq.  There’s a link to the Senate hearing later in this post.  Also, check out the section titled “Causes of American Inaction” on page 8 of Mr. Windsor’s article.  Windsor says Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan…

“was also instrumental in the growth of what Daniel Pipes has called a culture of corruption that renders the executive branch of the American government incapable of dealing with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the farsighted and disinterested manner that US foreign policy requires.

Pipes points to a revolving door syndrome afflicting senior diplomats and policymakers who deal with the Saudis in their official capacities.  Very often, they have enjoyed lucrative post-government careers working as consultants for Saudi businessmen…”

In the PBS documentary Black Money, Prince Bandar plays a central role in global corruption.  During the opening segment, Prince Bandar says “I would be offended if I thought we had the monopoly on corruption”.

During Alex Alexiev’s testimony before the Senate in 2003, he said al Qaeda was only a symptom of Saudi Arabia’s global network of Islamic extremism.  And if the Saudi State is allowed to continue as the financial and ideological sponsor of groups like al Qaeda, the rise of a group like ISIS would be inevitable.  In spite of Mr. Alexiev’s warning to top Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan leaders say the emergence of ISIS was unforeseen.

Numerous sources, like this article in the UK Independent, cite Saudi Arabia as the primary source of funding for ISIS in Iraq.  While Saddam Hussein was in power, the Sunni minority controlled Iraq, but after the US removed Saddam, the Iranian backed Shiite majority took power.  This is unacceptable to the Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is fighting a proxy war with Iran.  The article in the Independent cites Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain’s intelligence Service.  The next five paragraphs are from the UK Independent’s article.

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar told Dearlove: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”  The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. 

Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasized the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.  He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the ISIS surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Iraq’s Sunni majority provinces, are beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with ISIS without their consent.  

The forecast by Prince Bandar, that the 100 million Shia in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni majority, will convince many Shia that they are the victims of a Saudi-led campaign to crush them. “The Shia in general are getting very frightened after what happened in northern Iraq,” said an Iraqi commentator, who did not want his name published.  Shia see the threat as not only military but stemming from the expanded influence over mainstream Sunni Islam of Wahhabism, the puritanical and intolerant version of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia that condemns Shia and other Islamic sects as non-Muslim apostates and polytheists.

Drawing on past experience, Dearlove sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia, its Wahhabist faith, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s ISIS. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.  Click on the previous link to the UK Independent for more on this story.

In 2003, the U.S. Senate held a hearing titled “Wahhabi influence in the United States”.  It demonstrated the Saudi government’s role in funding terrorism and the Wahhabi threat to America.  Republican Jon Kyl chaired the hearing, the following is an excerpt from his opening statement.

“The problem we are looking at today is the State sponsored doctrine and funding of an extremist ideology that provides recruiting grounds, support infrastructure, and the monetary lifeblood of today’s international terrorists. The extremist ideology is Wahhabism, which is a major force behind terrorist groups like al Qaeda…Many questions have been asked about the role of Saudi Arabia and it’s official sect, a violent form of Islam known as Wahhabism…

All 19 hijackers [on 911] were Wahhabi followers and 15 of the 19 were Saudi subjects…Journalists and experts have said that Wahhabism is the source of the overwhelming majority of terrorist atrocities in Morroco, Indonesia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Chechnya…[Wahhabism] enjoys immense financial and political resources thanks to support from a sector of the Saudi State…”

After Chairman Jon Kyl’s opening statement, Democrat Charles Schumer said the Saudi’s “made a deal with the devil”.  He was a referring to the Saudi government’s support for Wahhabi clerics.  Schumer talked about Wahhabi infiltration of the U.S. prison system and the Pentagon, which have placed Wahhabi extremists in positions of influence.  Senator Schumer concluded his opening statement with the following:

“The process to counter this hateful ideology [Wahhabism] begins with Saudi Arabia….  The Saudi government must repudiate the Wahhabi extremism that is the source of much of this violence.  That means stopping the funding of extremist madrasses and purging the hate filled textbooks that populate Saudi schools….  If the Saudi’s do not end the funding and teaching of extremism, the cycle of terrorist violence wracking the globe will get worse.”

Unfortunately, Senator Schumer engaged in the kind of double talk that has allowed Saudi Wahhabism to morph into groups like ISIS.  Schumer repeatedly said Wahhabi preaching of hatred and violence against America is protected “free speech”.  Given Senator Schumer’s admission that Wahhabi preaching causes terrorism, I believe his decision to classify Wahhabi teaching as protected free speech, is treasonous.

Security expert Alex Alexiev testified during the Senate hearing.  He said “an astounding amount of money is being spent [by Saudi Arabia] for the specific purpose of preaching Wahhabi hatred.”  The Saudi State funds 10,000 extremist madrasses in Pakistan where approximately “1.7 million children are taught to hate”.  They don’t acquire marketable skills but are “perfectly prepared for a career in Jihad”.

Alexiev said more than 40 Wahhabi mosques have sprung up in northern Iraq and “we’re going hear from them”.  Twelve years after this prediction, the 40 Wahhabi mosques are located in territory claimed by ISIS.  Oops!  Alex suggested that US leaders tolerate Saudi funding of extremism and concluded his testimony with the following statement:

“The evidence of Saudi Wahhabi sponsorship of extremist networks is so overwhelming in my view, that for us to continue to tolerate it, guarantees that we are not going to be able to make meaningful and lasting progress in the war on terror for a long time to come”.

Six years after Mr. Alexiev told Senators that Saudi Arabia funds 10,000 extremist madrasses in Pakistan, Obama’s special envoy to Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, testified before Congress.  Rep. McCaul said Pakistan was the “epicenter” of the 911 attack, and asked about efforts to shut down Taliban madrasses teaching hate and violence in Pakistan.  Holbrooke said Pakistan and the US had done “almost nothing” to shut down madrasses, “but here we are, we have to start again”.

After dodging Rep. Rohrabacher’s question about Pakistan’s AQ Khan, who allegedly gave nuclear weapons technology to terrorists, Holbrooke said some Taliban funding comes from Saudi Arabia, “but we don’t have a program to shut that down now”.  This hearing was six years after Senator Jon Kyl said Saudi Arabia is the “monetary lifeblood of today’s international terrorists.”  But Bush and Obama had no program to shut down Saudi financing.

Furthermore, the Taliban movement has always been based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.  So the US invasion of Afghanistan will never end the terrorist threat originating in Pakistan, which like Saudi Arabia, is another US “ally” in the war on terror.  When asked if Pakistan’s military supports the Taliban, Holbrooke said US and Pakistani intelligence (ISI) helped set up terrorist organizations, and “there may be some serious legacy issues”.

Treasury Department lawyer, David Aufhauser, testified before Senator Kyl’s committee in 2003.  He acknowledged the role of Saudi charities in funding terrorism and said dialogue with the Saudi government “resulted in a far reaching charities initiative, at least a pledge of one…”.  But six years after the pledge, Saudi charities were still funding Islamic extremism, and the US still had no program to shut down Saudi funding.  Mr. Aufhauser emphasized the importance of stopping the funding of Islamic extremism and said…

“Much of the evidence in this shadow war is suspect, it’s the product of torture, rewards, betrayals, and deceits.  But a financial record doesn’t lie, it has singular integrity in the War On Terror…I now know after the mission given to me after 911, that preventing a dollar from being misapplied [to fund terrorism], is perhaps the surest singular weapon we have to make sure that the homeland is secure.”

Given the US government’s indifference to Saudi funding of Islamic schools producing terrorists, it’s difficult to believe US officials are serious about stopping terrorism.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of U.S. troops have been maimed or killed fighting terrorism.

While testifying before the Senate in 2003, Alex Alexiev said the Saudis were funding extremist mosques in northern Iraq, and “we’re going hear from them”.  Northern Iraq borders Syria, and now al Qaeda in Iraq is on the march in Syria, trying to overthrow the Assad regime.  Al Qaeda was being linked to Saudi Arabia, so now US leaders protect their Saudi “allies” by referring to al Qaeda as ISIS.

All al Qaeda had to do was say they’re not backing ISIS and Western leaders took them at their word.  But that’s understandable, al Qaeda only killed 3025 Americans with their 911 attack, and al Qaeda only killed a few thousand U.S. troops in Iraq.  So why wouldn’t US leaders take al Qaeda leaders at their word?

The Syrian terrorists go by the name al Nusra, but they’re associated with Saudi Wahhabism like ISIS and al Qaeda.  Before the Wahhabists moved into Syria, they were preceded by Syria’s version of the Arab Spring, i.e., for months the Syrian people peacefully protested the Assad regime.  But brutal oppression by Assad opened the door for Wahhabists claiming they were defending the people from Assad.

Prince Bandar is now the head of Saudi intelligence.  He threatened Russia because it opposed the jihadists in Syria and supported Assad.  According to an article in the UK Telegraph, Bandar offered Russia a secret deal to control the world’s oil in exchange for ending support for Assad.  Bandar’s meeting with Putin was full of dire warnings but Putin said:  “Our stance on Assad will never change.  We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters,”  Putin was referring to video footage of a jihadist eating the liver of a Syrian soldier.

It’s no accident that the Syrian people are left with a choice between a brutal dictator and Islamic fascism.  Leaving populations with a choice between two evils is a pattern being repeated in every country that experienced the Arab Spring.  This pattern seems to be a plan to spread the Saudi Wahhabi model of Sunni theo-fascism.  All around the world, political leaders use the resulting threat of terrorism as a pretext to restrict individual liberties.  Coincidentally, this also provides a steady stream of revenue for defense contractors.

President Obama allegedly opposes Assad’s mass murder of civilians so he proposed bombing the Syrian regime as a remedy.  But he backed down and took political cover behind Putin’s suggestion to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons.  Meanwhile, Assad continues to slaughter civilians with no attempt by the international community to hold him accountable.

Assad’s actions clearly constitute crimes against humanity punishable by the International Criminal Court (ICC).  But the liberal US media, which supports the ICC, doesn’t mention the ICC option because Obama could also be charged with war crimes.  The leftist media was screaming about Bush’s alleged war crimes, but when Bush passed the baton to Obama, talk of war crimes faded into the background.

The ICC, like the U.N., is controlled by corrupt globalists who oppose national sovereignty and individual rights, but the ICC should be used to prosecute Assad for crimes against humanity.

The Saudi monarchy backed Egypt’s military coup and removed President Morsi, the democratically elected member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  This article from The Guardian cites Dr. Maha Azzam’s analysis of Saudi motives: “What they had was a lethal equation, democracy plus Islamism, albeit under the Muslim Brotherhood.  That was a lethal concoction in undermining the [Saudi] kingdom’s own legitimacy in the long run.  They know full well they do not want democracy, but to have another group representing Islam was intolerable”.

The increasingly totalitarian US regime and Saudi monarchy differed on the method for installing a totalitarian regime in Egypt.  Obama’s support for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood effectively cloaked his totalitarian agenda in democracy, but the Saudi’s opted for a military coup.  Either way, they advance their totalitarian agenda.

Compelling evidence demonstrates the Saudi government’s role in funding a global network of Sunni Islamic extremism.  This network produces a constant supply of violent jihadists for ISIS, the Taliban, al Shabaab, Boko Haram, al Nusra, al Qaeda, and other Sunni extremist groups.  The Counter Jihad Report documents Saudi financing of Islamic extremism in Chechnya, which is where the Boston Marathon bombers were trained and radicalized.

But Bush and Obama insist the Saudi State is an ally in the War on Terror, and Obama supports Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.  These treasonous alliances allow the US and Saudis to play both sides of the War on Terror, and the resulting chaos, including the flood of refugees fleeing ISIS, provides a pretext for creating a global police state.

The Saudis and Gulf States spend Billions financing Islamic extremism, and wink wink, nod nod, the US spends Trillions fighting terrorism.  American citizens must condemn the US/Saudi alliance as treason, and demand accountability for the resulting loss of American lives, treasure, and freedom.

Presidents Obama and Bush put U.S. troops in harms way while allying themselves with regimes that fund the terrorists killing our troops.  Obama and Bush should be prosecuted in U.S. courts for aiding the enemy.  Why?  Their “allies”, the Saudi and Pakistani regimes, are financial and ideological safe havens for al Qaeda a.k.a. ISIS, and the Taliban.  A conviction for aiding the enemy carries a possible death sentence.

Creating order out of chaos is the tyrant’s method of choice.  Consider the US government’s actions since 911.  The Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, Homeland Security, TSA, and indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process.

The intended result of the US/Saudi alliance is a clash of civilizations that generates wars for profit, and a geopolitical framework that only leaves citizens with a choice between two evils.  Iraq and Syria are prime examples.

Afghanistan is another example of creating order out of chaos.  And true to the pattern emerging from the Arab Spring, the order being created is a choice between two evils.  According to a report by John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Afghan opium production has exploded, which supports (choice #1) the Taliban, along with (choice #2) organized crime.  

The explosion in opiate production, unaffected by the $7.5 billion spent by the US since 2002 to combat it, puts “the entire US and donor investment in the reconstruction of Afghanistan at risk,” special inspector general John Sopko told a Senate panel in January.

Sopko said, “All of the fragile gains we have made over the last twelve years on women’s issues, health, education, rule of law, and governance are now, more than ever, in jeopardy of being wiped out by the narcotics trade which not only supports the insurgency, but also feeds organized crime and corruption.”

During his farewell speech as President of the United States of America, former Army General, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned Americans about the danger posed by a military industrial complex.  The link is a short video clip of President Eisenhower’s speech to the nation.

The US also plays both sides of the Sunni-Shia sectarian war via the US-China partnership.  The US turns a blind eye while China arms Iran with chemical, ballistic and nuclear weapons technology.  Iran then helps arm Syria and Hezbollah.  For more info check out this post on Communist China.

During the Clinton administration, John O’Neill was Director of Counter Terrorism at the FBI.  He repeatedly warned of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil, but frustrated by US officials who ignored his warnings, he went to work as head of security at the World Trade Center.  Mr. O’Neill was killed during the 911 attack.  To hear his story, watch the PBS documentary, “The Man Who Knew“.

ABC aired a film titled The Path To 911, which portrays the Clinton administration’s failure to stop the growing threat of al Qaeda.  It aired once and then was effectively banned.  There are a few clips available on Youtube.

Many families lost loved ones in the 911 attack.  And due to compelling evidence implicating the Saudi State, some 911 families refused payments from the US government and filed a Trillion dollar law suit against the Saudi government.  The Texas law firm Baker Botts represented the Saudi government against 911 families.

James Baker is a partner in Baker Botts, and he’s the former Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush.  Baker Botts succeeded in defeating the suit brought by 911 families.  It’s the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, or in this case oil, rules.

But the U.S. doesn’t need any Middle Eastern oil.  New technology like horizontal drilling has greatly increased U.S. reserves of natural gas and oil.  America’s natural gas reserves equate to three times the Saudi oil reserves.  And with natural gas already piped into millions of U.S. homes, natural gas could become our primary transportation fuel.

American gas and oil reserves, combined with coal deposits that would power the U.S. for hundreds of years, should make us totally energy independent.  But….  Check out the post Saudi Arabia, China, and United Arab Emirates, Own Critical U.S. Energy Infrastructure.

Before the Senate passed Obamacare in December 2009, physician and former chairman of the Democrat National Committee, Howard Dean, said the bill should be “killed”.  Why?  During an interview on MSNBC, he said the healthcare bill was written by Democrat staffers on behalf of insurance companies.  Information from Newsmax, which leans conservative, supports Dr. Dean’s statements.

This Newsmax article says Obamacare gives insurance companies a Trillion dollars of subsidies.  The following excerpts from the article say Obama is promising even more subsidies for insurance companies due to changes in the law, i.e., to cover Obama’s lie that people could keep their policies, the law was changed to subsidize extensions of policies that would have been canceled:

“In an effort to extinguish a firestorm on another issue, the administration has offered to compensate insurers as an incentive for them to extend individual policies that were to have been canceled Jan. 1…

The administration said it could provide financial assistance to certain insurers through a program under which the government will share in their losses and profits for the next three years…

That financial boost would be on top of an estimated $1 trillion in federal subsidies the government already plans to pay insurance carriers to make coverage more affordable for low- and middle-income people.” 

Rush Limbaugh says the government objective is single payer, and he’s correct.  But single payer does not mean government will be the sole provider of healthcare services.  Charles Boorady is co-head of Credit Suisse healthcare investments.  When the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare a Constitutional tax, he said the law would increase healthcare spending by two Trillion dollars and the law will “create winners and losers”.

So when single payer becomes a reality, it will funnel Trillions of dollars into a highly consolidated cartel of price fixing healthcare providers.  Evidence of this came a few days after the Supreme Court ruling when CNBC reported that healthcare giant Wellpoint acquired Amerigroup.  Wellpoint paid 4.9 billion, a 43% premium over the previous trading day’s stock price.  On the same day, Morgan Stanley’s healthcare index was up over 9%.  

CNBC reported that Wellpoint’s acquisition of Amerigroup will significantly increase their share of the healthcare market.  So Obamcare is directly responsible for further consolidation in the healthcare industry, which means less competition and higher prices for consumers.  Oops!  There goes the affordable part of Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act.

Jim Chanos is a hedge fund manager and founder of Kynikos, a large investment firm specializing in short selling.  In a recent interview, he said after looking at Obamacare, “we covered our shorts” because the bill was going to be positive for healthcare providers.  He said the U.S. pays “twice” as much for healthcare than any other country and attributed this to the healthcare industry.

Chanos said the industry gets “over 50% of its revenue” from government, and “they have profit margins twice that of the S&P 500″.  In other words, the health care industry makes profits double that which the market can bear because they receive massive government subsidies.  His comments on healthcare come at 13min 5sec into the interview.

Even though Obama repeatedly said Obamacare was not a tax, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because it’s a federal tax.  But who controls the federal government?  Is it average citizens who impose their will through elected representatives?  We know members of Congress didn’t read the healthcare bill, so they could not have written the legislation.  Who wrote it?

Before the Senate passed Obamacare in December 2009, former DNC Chair Howard Dean said the bill should be “killed” because it was written by Democrat staffers on behalf of insurance companies.  And the facts from both left and right news sources prove this to be true.

Lobbyists and party staffers wrote the healthcare bill, which means lobbyists have the power to tax.  So the Supreme Court ruling gave socialist corporations and their bipartisan cronies power to tax U.S. citizens.  The DOW rose 277 points the day after the Supreme Court ruling.  In my opinion, traders were celebrating a victory for socialism.

From the beginning, the objective of Obamacare was to create a cartel of price fixing healthcare providers subsidized by taxpayers.  And single payer will give socialist cartels direct access to the U.S. Treasury.

Republican Louie Gohmert, a conservative Congressman from Texas, says insurance companies engage in monopolistic practices because they are exempt from anti-trust law.  Rep. Gohmert said the House voted to remove the exemption but the Senate has not.  If you support the concept of competitive markets, contact your Congressional delegation and tell them to remove the anti-trust exemption. 

Obamacare supporters claim the objective is affordable healthcare for all Americans.  Opponents say it’s a leftist attempt to put the “private” healthcare industry out of business.  We know the left is lying because healthcare is becoming less affordable.  We know the right is lying because they falsely portray the healthcare industry as private, helpless victims of big government.  Private industries do not get over half their revenue from government and make profits double that of the S&P 500.

Obamacare is a prime example of the left and right working together to deceive and rob citizens. They spread half truths intended to divide and conquer citizens on behalf of big government and big business socialists.  As a conservative, I hope my fellow Republicans realize that Rush Limbaugh is playing them for a fool. 

There’s an interesting connection between Obamacare and the fraudulent global warming agenda.  Bill Gates says, in order to save the planet from global warming, the U.S. must reduce CO2 emissions to “near zero”.  In the video below, he presents an equation that will achieve his goal of zero CO2 emissions.  The first factor in his equation is human population.  He said:

“The world today has about 6.8 billion people, and that’s headed up to about 9 billion.  If we do a really great job on vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or fifteen percent.”

A little after 4 minutes into the video, Bill Gates says healthcare and vaccines will be used to REDUCE the human population.  Using healthcare to reduce human population is something Nazi Germany would have done.

Bill Gates supports Obamacare, so it’s no surprise that the next link says a form of death panels are part of Obamacare. This article titled “Obama Dooms Seniors to Ravages of Aging”, says seniors will have a lower chance of survival under Obamacare.  The article is addressing section 3000A, which awards bonuses to hospitals that spend the least on elderly patients, and gives demerits to hospitals that spend more on seniors. 

Click on climategate for the truth about global warming.  For real solutions to affordable health care, check out the section on Obamacare in the pdf Knowledge is Power.

The following text is from the World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1969:

The Boston Tea Party was a raid by American colonists on three British ships in Boston Harbor on Dec. 16, 1773.  A band of citizens disguised as Indians threw the contents of 340 chests of tea into the bay.  This was one of the incidents that led to the Revolutionary War in America.

Many colonists were determined not to pay taxes to the British government.  Formerly, the tax on tea imported from England was so high that the colonists usually drank smuggled Dutch tea.  In 1767, the British decided to levy a lower duty of three pence a pound on tea, and to collect it.  More people bought the cheaper tea, but independence groups agitated for tax removal.

In 1773, the British government allowed the British East India Company a substantial tax rebate on tea shipped to America, to keep it from bankruptcy.  Soon tea was on its way to Boston, consigned to individuals who were given a monopoly on its sale.  Colonists feared the tea monopoly would put local merchants out of business, and that other retail businesses might also be made into monopolies.  (end of excerpt)

The King of England had given the British East India Company a monopoly on the sale of tea, so this, as well as taxation without representation, was a major factor leading to the Revolutionary War.  It’s clear our founding fathers viewed the tyranny of private sector monopolies, backed by the British government, as a threat to their liberty and prosperity.

As a conservative, I believe market capitalism gives citizens the greatest amount of freedom to conduct business.  But a market that’s “free” to create monopolies that can buy judges, politicians and elections, and eliminate competitive markets to the detriment of our nation, is a betrayal of the men and women who’ve fought and died for American ideals.

After the American Revolution, corporations remained small institutions chartered at the state level for specific purposes.  By law, they could not make political contributions, could not own stock in other companies, were required to serve the public interest, and could only exist for a limited time.  And owners were responsible for losses and crimes committed by the corporation.

Initially, government protected individual rights and competitive markets by limiting the power of corporations.  But Robber barons like John D. Rockefeller led efforts to change laws requiring corporate owners to serve the public interest and be liable for losses and crimes.

The American economy grew rapidly during the first 100 years and soon monopolies like Rockefeller’s Standard Oil began to threaten competitive markets.  Many corporations formed trusts that controlled market prices and destroyed competition.  Farmers and small businessmen demanded government protection from monopolies and trusts.

The Sherman Antitrust Act, fulfilling one of President Harrison’s campaign pledges, outlawed trusts or any other monopolies that hindered trade.  Fast forward to 2014, and the U.S. economy is again being controlled by government backed monopolies, a.k.a. Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks.  The Congressional Budget Office says it will cost taxpayers 8.6 TRILLION to prop up failing banks.

The fourteenth amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside…”. The intent of this language is to confer citizenship on individuals, not businesses.

Even though businesses are made up of individual citizens, businesses did not have legal status as citizens until the late 1800’s.  That’s when Rockefeller and others filed law suits claiming their organizations were “persons” under the law.  The courts recognized their businesses as corporate citizens entitled to core Constitutional rights.  But if the framers of the Constitution considered political and business organizations persons under the law, why did Rockefeller and others have to sue states to change the law?

Most people have heard of the Supreme Court decision involving Citizens United.  Citizens United is a political action committee (superpac).  They argued that their campaign donations equate to free speech protected by the first amendment, so they should be allowed to buy elected officials with unlimited campaign contributions.  The Court ruled in their favor, but this violates the Spirit of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were created to protect the unalienable rights of individual citizens, not lobbying groups like Citizens United.

One objective of this website is to reestablish  the definition of citizenship as intended by America’s founders, i.e., only individual human beings are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.

Some say corporate citizenship is justified because corporations are made up of individuals.  But union and corporate leaders making decisions about campaign contributions, do not necessarily reflect the intentions of individual members and employees.  And if unions and corporations were stripped of all Constitutional rights, individual members and employees would retain all their Constitutional rights.  In fact, their rights would be enhanced because they would not be competing with organizations that may not share their political views, and may not even be loyal to the United States.

Corporations, owned by foreign governments, have increasing influence over U.S. elections.  Thanks to the Citizens United decision, China’s communist Party can influence U.S. legislation.

The U.S. is not a democracy, but our legislative bodies makes decisions based on majority rule, so the U.S. is a democratic Republic.  Unfortunately, the most powerful minority in America has usurped majority rule.  This minority is made up of foreign and domestic multinational corporations, which by definition are not loyal to any country.  In fact, they have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders that prohibits loyalty to any particular nation.  And yet, they’ve been given core constitutional rights that give them a controlling interest in the political process.  It’s the Golden Rule: He who has the gold rules.  The result is socialism trending toward fascism.

Free trade agreements designed by multinationals are selling America off to Communist China.  A recent example is America’s largest pork processor, Smithfield Foods, which was sold to a Chinese State owned company.  Most recently, the Chicago Stock Exchange was sold to the Chinese group Chongqing Casin.  But the exchange’s CEO, John Kerin, said he doesn’t know who owns Chongqing Casin, and the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, as it is in most large Chinese businesses.

As the US and China work out a bilateral investment treaty enabling more Chinese state-owned enterprises to purchase American companies, the acquisition of Smithfield Foods serves as a preview of what could eventually be the norm.

The corrupting influence of corporate money on legislation is demonstrated by Obama’s finance reform bill, Dodd-Frank.  It was supposed to eliminate future bailouts of Too Big To Fail banks.  But in true Orwellian fashion, it did just the opposite.  Congressman Brad Sherman said it gives Obama authority to spend Trillions on future Wall Street bailouts, without Congressional approval.  This is accomplished by Dodd-Frank’s Resolution Authority, which institutionalizes TARP and provides Wall Street with a blank check.  F.Y.I., most of the original 700 billion TARP bailout went to foreign banks.

Politicians say banks and AIG paid back bailout money and taxpayers made a profit.  Technically it’s true, but they’re getting near zero percent money from the Fed, so in reality, bailout money was paid back with taxpayer money.  And the Fed’s QE3 is buying 40 Billion per month of toxic mortgage backed securities from Wall Street banks, so the bailout continues.

April 22, 2010, Rush Limbaugh cited an Investors Business Daily article saying “despite the commitment of nearly 20 Trillion in taxpayer funds to prevent another crisis, lending has stalled or shrunk”.  Between the Federal Reserve and Federal government, 20 Trillion taxpayer dollars are propping up the stock market.  That’s why it has nearly tripled in value since the 2008 crash, meanwhile, growth of the U.S. domestic economy is stagnant.

So why isn’t the U.S. taxpayer’s investment producing domestic growth?  While on CNBC, billionaire leftist George Soros said EU and US banks are the largest supplier of credit to emerging markets.  China is the largest emerging market, so bailed out US banks are financing communism while the U.S. economy is starved of capital.  The Wall Street Journal article “China’s Superior Economic Model”, demonstrates that many US leaders favor China’s totalitarian economic model.

The absolute numbers for big foreign banking systems’ exposure to China are as follows:

In spite of the 20 Trillion dollar commitment to prop up banks and the stock market, many say the US government’s unfair treatment of big business is driving investment to emerging markets.  I guess they think bankrupting the U.S. government to subsidize socialist banks and corporations isn’t enough, we need to cut their taxes as well.

But Republican tax guru Grover Norquist said, “corporations don’t pay taxes, they collect them from you and me…”.  Grover says corporations pass tax liabilities onto consumers by raising the price of their products.  He doesn’t mention that small businesses, which may be corporations, bear the full cost of regulation and taxation because they have limited ability to shift costs to consumers.

Simon Johnson is a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund.  He’s currently a member of the Congressional Budget Office council of advisors and professor of entrepreneurship at MIT.   In a Senate Budget Committee hearing, he cited JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who say they expect another financial crisis in 3 to 7 years.

Based on their prediction, Johnson said Too Big To Fail banks represent a short term budget liability equal to 40% of GDP (5.6 Trillion), and CBO rules require this be scored in the budget.   Ranking Republican Judd Gregg replied “We don’t score a lot of things around here.”  In other words, they’re cooking the government’s books.

During a presentation on his book “13 Bankers”, Johnson said the few hundred people running the six largest banks have “captured the state” and have power to “extort” money from government.   Rep. Sherman said members of Congress were told the U.S. would be placed under martial law if TARP wasn’t passed.  Sounds like extortion to me.

During debate over TARP, Rep. Marcy Kaptur said “high financial crimes have been committed, these criminals have so much political power, they can shut down the normal legislative process of the highest law making body in this land.”   Wall Street tyrants and their bipartisan cronies have eliminated a core Constitutional principle, i.e., no taxation without representation.

The 2014 Federal budget is a prime example of taxation without representation.  The following text and next paragraph are excerpts from a USA TODAY article:  The nearly 1,600-page spending bill includes all 12 of the individual annual spending bills packaged into a $1.012 trillion “omnibus” spending bill.  The bill will have gone from unveiling to law in just six days, while the normal appropriations process is structured to take months and allow for more lawmaker input.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., holding up the thick bill on the House floor, criticized the House for voting on a bill “that nobody has read.”  McGovern cited a concern held by lawmakers in both parties that the details of the omnibus are likely to trickle out after the bill has become law.  “I’m willing to bet in a week or so we’re going to read an article about something being in the bill that nobody knew about,”.  Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, characterized the bill as a “monstrosity.”  She said “while Americans suffer the consequences of Obamacare, Congress is trying to rush through another massive bill before reading it.”

If representatives aren’t reading spending bills, they’re not representing the interests of their constituents, i.e., taxation without representation.  American citizens are being subjected to tyrannical conditions similar to the pre-revolutionary colonies.   King George III had given the British East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade to save it from bankruptcy.  Taxes were used to extract wealth from the colonies and grow other parts of the British empire.

Now, the US government and it’s corporate partners are extracting wealth from America and subsidizing China’s totalitarian regime.  Multinational corporations and unions prefer the centrally planned, communist economic model.  I consider this treason.  Click here for a brief history of corporations in the United States.

When enough citizens are empowered with the truth, it will be possible to restore representative government.  This was true when our nation was founded.  Without publications like “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine and others, our founders would not have had the groundswell of support  necessary for revolution.  The first step toward liberty is informing the public.  Knowledge is power.

For more info and solutions, check the posts on globalization and Fast and Furious.  Another interesting source is the book Godonomics, which illustrates the Biblical principles behind private property rights and market economies based on moral principles.