America is a Republic, Not a Democracy

Anthony Freda Art

Ron Paul

Last week marked the conclusion of the grand taxpayer funded spectacles known as the national party conventions. It is perhaps very telling that while $18 million in tax dollars was granted to each party for these lavish ordeals, an additional $50 million each was needed for security in anticipation of the inevitable protests at each event. This amounts to a total of $136 million in taxpayer funds for strictly partisan activities - a drop in the bucket relative to our disastrous fiscal situation, but disgraceful nonetheless. Parties should fund their own parties, not the taxpayer.

At these conventions, leaders determined, or pretended to determine, who they wished to govern the nation for the next four years amidst inevitable, endless exaltations of democracy. Yet we are not a democracy. In fact, the founding fathers found the concept of democracy very dangerous. 

Stand Strong and Do Not Despair: Some Thoughts on the Fading Student Movement in Quebec

By: Andrew Gavin Marshall

As eight of the fourteen CEGEP preparatory schools have voted to return to class, and thereby end the strike which began in February, Quebec is beginning to witness the fading away of the first phase of the student movement, mobilized by the planned tuition increases, and which expanded into a broader social movement known as the ‘Maple Spring.’ As some students have returned to class, they were met with a heavy police presence, no doubt to ensure ‘order’ during such a “dangerous” situation in which students enter school property. After all, Bill 78, which was passed by Jean Charest’s government back in May (now known as Law 12), made student protests on (or within 50 metres of school property) an illegal act.

Bill 78 was, quite accurately, described as “a declaration of war on the student movement,” and included an excessive amount of violations of basic rights and freedoms. Regardless of the specific details of the illegalities of the Law, we – the people – do not need even our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to tell us what is right and wrong, just or unjust. The legal system itself, after all, has very little to do with ‘justice’, and far more to do with legalizing injustice. Not only was the Law a violation of legally guaranteed rights and freedoms, such as freedoms of assembly and expression, but it was an affront to a very basic sense of decency, an insult to a very common sense of democracy, and an attack on a very basic conception of freedom.

This Law remains in effect. The tuition is set to increase. And as students vote to end the strike, some are mourning the seemingly vanishing potential of the student movement to effect a real, true, and lasting change. But all was not for nothing, all is not lost, and resistance is not futile. We have witnessed but the starting actions, initiative, determination, and voice of a generation which, around the world, from Egypt, to Greece, Spain, Chile and Mexico, are standing up, taking to the streets, innovating new actions and forms of collective resistance and even revolution. Our generation is beginning – and only just beginning – to awaken our wider societies to resist and challenge a system which, in the wake of this new great global depression, which in the wake of new wars of aggression, has revealed its true nature: all for the powerful, and nothing for the people. It is a system which benefits the few at the expense of the many.

10 Steps to Defeat the Corporatocracy

The only way to overcome the power of money is regain our courage and solidarity. Here's how to do that.

Bruce E. Levine
AlterNet

Many Americans know that the United States is not a democracy but a "corporatocracy," in which we are ruled by a partnership of giant corporations, the extremely wealthy elite and corporate-collaborator government officials. However, the truth of such tyranny is not enough to set most of us free to take action. Too many of us have become pacified by corporatocracy-created institutions and culture.

Some activists insist that this political passivity problem is caused by Americans' ignorance due to corporate media propaganda, and others claim that political passivity is caused by the inability to organize due to a lack of money. However, polls show that on the important issues of our day - from senseless wars, to Wall Street bailouts, to corporate tax-dodging, to health insurance rip-offs - the majority of Americans are not ignorant to the reality that they are being screwed. And American history is replete with organizational examples - from the Underground Railroad, to the Great Populist Revolt, to the Flint sit-down strike, to large wildcat strikes a generation ago - of successful rebels who had little money but lots of guts and solidarity.

The Very Existence of the Queen Is Against Any Notion of Democracy

This is just one of a number of compelling charges set down by Morrissey in an article written for Hot Press, to coincide with the Queen's visit to Ireland

Morrissey compares Queen to brutal
 dictators, says she's Fascist.

Morrissey
Hot Press

The Queen's visit to Ireland is part of a new Palace PR campaign to re-invent the Windsors. The message from the Queen will be the same as ever: who we are born to is more important than what we achieve in life.

It should be remembered by the Irish people that as recently as the turn of the 1980s the Queen supported Margaret Thatcher by not dismissing Thatcher as she allowed hunger strikers to die at the Maze Prison, most famously Bobby Sands, who was 27 years old. As Sands starved to death in protest at being tagged a 'criminal' and not a 'political prisoner' by the Thatcher government, the Queen sat in her Palace and said nothing. If the Queen had any human feelings for the Sands family or other hunger strikers then she did not express them.

The full meaning of the Monarchy is, like the Queen herself, a complete mystery to most people. It is protected from any investigations by ridiculous stories of trivia and wedding dresses and on-again-off-again soap-drama romances. The most revealing statement came from Commander Christine Jones of the Metropolitan Police last month, when she warned that any British people carrying anti-royal placards who are "seen in the vicinity of the royal wedding would be removed under the Public Order Act." This means that any political dissent in England is silenced in order to protect the royals, which in itself goes against every principle of democracy.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

The Illusion of Democracy to Depopulate the Planet: Voting For Your Own Death Sentence

By Neil Foster – The Sovereign Independent

Isn’t it nice to know that ‘democracy is coming to Egypt? I wouldn’t be so sure.

You see, it isn’t about giving people the right to do anything anymore than it gave those of us in the West the right to do anything. All it did was give us the ‘right’ to vote for a select band of criminal politicians to rule over us and to rob us of any semblance of rights we may have thought we ever had and it’s worked very well indeed.

A simple recent example of this were the decisions made across the Western world to bail out the private banks who have deliberately, through the manipulation and control of the greed culture amongst individuals in the financial services sector, to the cold and calculated crash engineered by those at the top; the world’s banking elite. This has served to help bring about the complete downfall of Western society to push us another step forward to their vision of a totalitarian world government run by a ruthless, unelected elite.

Did any of you get the chance to vote for that? No you didn’t because you wouldn’t have voted for that would you?

The article below tells us exactly what kind of ‘democracy’ is waiting in the wings for Egyptians and it certainly won’t be in their best interests. Once the puppet regime of Mohamed El Baradei or whoever the power elite decide upon, the course of Egyptian democracy has already been worked out.

The Globalists' Egyptian Gambit: ElBaradei

From the Council on Foreign Relations to the Brookings Institute, Globalists agree. Mohamed ElBaradei for (Egyptian) President 

source

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer

Activist Post 

 It was previously reported that Mohamed ElBaradei, the self-proclaimed leader of the unfolding Egyptian protests, is actually sitting on the Board of Trustees of the Zbigniew Brzezinski/George Soros globalist think-tank, the International Crisis Group.

The mainstream media has been backing ElBaradei's ownership of the protests, hailing this Nobel Laurette and former UN IAEA director as the potential next president of Egypt and the "hero" of the protests. The New York Times refers to him as the "Nobelist" portraying him as standing "toe-to-toe" with hundreds of riot police and promising to run for president if and only if elections were "free and fair."

While ElBaradei poses as a critic of the United States, it is not because of their meddling with Middle Eastern affairs, it is because they are not meddling enough. ElBaradei berates the United States for not intervening in what he calls "social disintegration, economic stagnation, and political repression" in Egypt. Apparently ElBaradei isn't the only one who thinks so either.

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) senior fellow, Project for a New American Century signatory, and Bush wrangler Elliott Abrams elaborated on the sort of "intervention" the United States should be committed to in his piece "Less 'Engagement,' More Democracy" in the New York Times. In his piece he criticizes the current policy of engaging with nations he deems repressive regimes as equals and calls for a revisit to George Bush's "freedom agenda." In other words - the export of "democracy" that has brought America the trillion dollar military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan at the cost of thousands of US soldiers' lives and the lives of millions of foreigners killed, maimed, or displaced.

America's Misconception of Freedom

S. Paul Forrest
Activist Post

America was founded in an attempt to escape the oppression of not only religious expression, but also the misrepresentation from a monarchist system that cared only for the proliferation and interests of the elite class.  After 250 years, we have found ourselves in the same position as those who left Europe for these shores so long ago: oppressed by a system that only wants to serve itself before the citizens that support it.  They say history repeats itself, and nowhere is this more evident than in the case of modern America’s politicians, putting their corporate puppet masters and damaging agenda of faux patriotism before the needs of the people.

To understand how we have been led to the erroneous conclusion that America is somehow a free nation, one must come to an understanding of what type of political system exists in this country and how it adds to or detracts from our social system as set up by our forefathers.  We also must recognize the erosion of our system under the watch of the overzealous quasi-patriotism which has served to initiate the current Police State in place and growing in America.


First and foremost, it is important to understand that we do not live in a democracy as most people have been led to believe; America is a republic where we are granted the opportunity to elect representatives to make decisions for us.  Our forefathers were learned enough to understand that a pure democracy was not possible in a complex society, especially the one they were setting up.  In a democracy, although touted as the ideal system for freedom of the people to decide all matters of State, the minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.  In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group, whereas in a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person.

The problem with a republic, though, is that the inherent rights of the people are surrendered upon the casting of a vote for representation.  After this action has taken place, our fate lies in the hands of politicians who, with the innate human deficiency of sin, represent our interests.  This type of system was set up because the idea of a complex society deciding all aspects of government and the minority becoming unrepresented was unrealistic.  The thought that we the people could effectively be served by those who are concerned not with the continuation of our liberty but with the development and proliferation of self-service has been greatly discredited by the reality of this, our modern model of representation.

To understand our freedom, or lack thereof, it is important to recognize what type of political system exists within our social structure into which we put our faith each election period.  This country is currently run and controlled by a two-party system that determines for us, the “free” voters, who we can vote for.  The choice of candidates is determined by the parties themselves as the proper representatives of their interests, rather than the interests of the American people.  Even the self-labeled “freedom party” or Tea Party, is just an extension of this old, two-sided coin.  We can either vote for the lesser of the evils, or suffer the consequence of others doing the voting for us.

Regarding words by James Madison on the American political system, Jack N. Rakove of Stanford University writes:

Madison assumed politicians . . . would be able to command the allegiance of large numbers of voters. Once in office, they would act with a broadmindedness that would elevate the very quality of public life.  They would think not in terms of the immediate interests of their constituents, but of the larger public good which was synonymous with the concept of the public itself.  The virtue which could no longer be expected to reside in the populace might still be found, he hoped, in its rulers.

It is clear from today’s system that this assumption was wrong.  Our modern politicians are largely self-serving, and the quality of our lives is directly relative to our freedom to vote for true representation.

Madison obviously had great confidence that an elected official through the ages would think similarly as he and his colleagues with regard to intellectual consideration of the established hierarchy.  The effects of this representation was, in theory, to contribute to the ongoing freedom of the people.  With the issuing of the Constitution, he and others like him believed they had established a system that would endure the natural tendencies of corruption that had ended with the oppression of the masses in so many other social systems.  The reality, as proven with our modern institutional malfeasance, is these representatives eventually become corrupt in the position of power they hold over the people.

The limited choice of representation has fostered a governmental system of insular thinking and the gradual erosion of our own national freedoms.  The two-party system, with its inbred philosophy of elitism, has been taking our freedom from us bit by bit with innumerable laws and initiatives to foster control.  The decay of our Constitutional freedom has been exacerbated by such legislative initiatives as the Patriot Act and its associated nullification of habeas corpus, while labeling some citizens concerned with the direction of our government as dissidents.

Some would argue this action is necessary to protect the security of the nation, but it only stands as proof of the intrinsic dilemma of our current democratic representation.  As stated by the Constitutional Society:

 . . . governments must be vested with a certain degree of power.  It is this power that can be most dangerous to the liberties of the people.  To find out who committed a certain crime, police must be able to question suspects and witnesses, and be able to search for evidence.  In a society where the government is omnipotent, the powers of the police to detain, question, and search are unlimited.  In fact, the power to determine guilt would be unlimited. 

In the modern era of terrorist influence and the over reaction of associated governmental propaganda, a police state, initiated by our increasingly corrupt system, has expanded control and the violation of our rights to a writ of habeas corpus rather than allowing it to remain.  It makes certain that any dissonance or suspicion of anti-patriotism is answered by restraint pending conviction.  Guilt before proof of innocence has become the mantra of modern justice in the evolving decay of the American political system.

Ease of movement and civil rights are also largely questionable in this system.  One only need look at the new TSA screening process, public face recognition programming and intelligence agency policy of Net watching to know these are not applicable freedoms in modern America.  If we want to travel, we are forced to endure a violation of our rights and forced to endure molestation by security screeners.  In an effort to protect our “democracy”, under the new American Police State, we are robbed of our innate, individual rights.  These new, national security measures have only served to imprison us all within the realm of paranoia driven, political propaganda.

The U.S. Government, in the eternal quest of total control of the people, has led the charge in the deception and misconception of our freedom.  In the ever increasing amplification of Al Qaeda’s desire to terrorize our country, America has expanded the control of the people through the Patriot Act, legislation that was pushed though Congress under false pretenses and nationalist plasticity.  This Act was an orchestrated move in response to a false, immoral war begun and promulgated by the United States and has added a fascist element to our Republic.

It is vehemently argued from the creators of this control that steps must be taken to protect our borders and our citizens, but the American people are not the ones who started this war.  It was begun by greedy politicians in an effort to obtain oil rights and control over an area that largely supplies the world’s fuel needs.  The death of whatever freedom we may have previously enjoyed occurred with the initiation of this legislation and the paranoia associated with its inception.

The reality of it all is that our choices are limited, our politics contrived, and our country controlled by corporations fed by an American obsession with excess; America's political puppets no longer represent citizens, but rather their own interests.  We are all slaves to a predetermined mentality of competition for monetary acquisition and zealot-controlled governmental fascism that provides us with 4,000 new laws per year.  Our choice is to conform to these laws, or else be controlled by the bars of a real prison.  We are coerced daily to live silently within a system that is corrupt, or we can pay the price for not following the rules of its deception.

This country is not the model of democratic individualism most of us were taught it was.  From our schools to our media sources, the decay of our American rights has been continuously fed in the name of faux patriotism.  Until we all wake up and see these truths of deception, the constant move to add to the growing state of total control will destroy not only the fabric of this nation but the last freedoms that we do possess.

There once was a dream that was America.  With the ever increasing intrusion of Big Government and its media propaganda, we are slowly falling into the realm of fascist machination, the end result of which will spell the death of the dream of those settlers who first came here to establish a free society.

The time has come for Americans to realize how little control they have in daily choices and to awaken to the fact that we are now suffering from a very damaging misconception of our freedom.  Until we collectively stand together and let our representatives know we will no longer allow their destruction of this wonderful country, the erosion will continue.

John Locke had once declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of its citizens and to replace the government with one that served the interests of those citizens.  In the recent years, our governmental representatives have not acted in any interest save their own.  It is time that the system is corrected and even more importantly, it is time for America to come to terms with its misconception of freedom else lose all that this great nation stands for.  The revolution is near and unless the in-place system comes to realize its errant ways, they will find themselves thrown from the Ivory towers they have built upon the backs of America.

Many Americans also falsely believe the Constitution, set up to combat the decay of the system, guarantees certain freedoms such as speech.  The argument is that we, as American citizens, have the right to speak our minds without consequence.  This belief is so erroneous it physically pains me to think about how many believe it to be true.  We can indeed say what we want, but the ramifications of our statements can result in condemnation by a system that believes in the proliferation of lies and propaganda over truth.

Other articles by S. Paul Forrest
Beware The Rising Ire of a Forgotten Generation 

Death of The American Dream

A Liberal's Perspective of the Tea Party

A Liberal's Awakening to the Reality of ObamaCare

Genetically Modified Foods and The Monsanto Initiative

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

What is Freedom?

Energy Grid Magazine

FREEDOM is self-determinacy; it is the condition of minimal constraint. Naturally, in a society or community, there has to be some constraints — the burglar cannot have the freedom to steal, the thug cannot have the freedom to mug, and the businessman cannot have the freedom to excessively pollute and pay no taxes. But get the balance between personal freedom, social order and ecological integrity right, and the vast majority of citizens can live happily with moderate personal freedom and minimal constraints.


Our freedom and constraints are formalized by a very long written agreement between individuals (or legal entities such as companies) and between individuals and the society of which he, she or it is a part. This formal agreement, called the law or legal system, is a constantly evolving and changing as new situations and circumstances arise. (Parts of this legal system, usually those dealing with human rights, are deliberately less changeable and are sometimes called constitutions.) So our freedom (and lack of) is defined by the legal systems, and different legal systems give us different levels of freedom depending upon which one we stand under.

A common fallacy regarding freedom is to automatically assume that it is a byproduct of modern democracy. In fact, the "only" freedom that a democracy bestows practically on its members is that they have the right, every few years, to vote for one of a set group of representatives who will run the country on their behalf.  Whilst modern democracy is an indispensable foundation for free societies, it does not guarantee freedom. That job falls to the legal system, which is not so readily influenced by our periodic voting. (Which is why freedom campaigns often involve legal challenges.)

Democracy can only be an agent of freedom if it gives people meaningful voting choices (not just a choice of 2 or 3 parties with only cosmetic differences), and if it ensures that the people have the unbiased and undistorted information necessary to make a choice that is in their interest (which can only happen with a mass media and educational system free from undue governmentand corporate influence). Of course, sometimes the majority may want to use their democratic rights to restrict freedom (for example in the areas of gun ownership, stem cell research, GM foods, pedophilia, the "war against terror" or fox hunting). This is because different freedoms often conflict with each other.

For example, the freedom to have clean air requires restriction of the freedom for factory owners to produce cheap goods by not having to clean up the pollution generated as a by-product. So the freedom for us all to have clean air conflicts with both the freedom of the factory owner to make larger profits (by having to clean up) and the freedom we all have to buy cheap goods. So freedoms do not necessarily conflict between different groups of people, but often with the same group of people. So the support for freedom is always a balancing act, usually between our collective long-term interests and the short-term interests of not only society, as a whole, but also of particular groups of people (which includes corporations and political groups).

Another example of this conflict might be in raising a green tax on large 4x4 vehicles to off-set their greater ecological impact. Many of us, especially 4x4 drivers, consider this an affront to our personal freedom to drive our own choice of car, and yet such a tax is likely to be in the interest of future generations, including the very children of those 4x4 drivers. Which freedom is more important? That should be obvious to anybody, but because so many decision makers are taking short-term and selfish perspectives, long-term public interests are not being respected and freedoms are not being chosen wisely.

We live today in democracies that are increasingly hostile to long-term interests and collective freedom. Our choice of political party at election time is quite restrictive (and becoming increasingly cosmetic), with politicians focused almost exclusively on their own political and financial interests rather than the long-term interests of the country as a whole. Better to promise tax-breaks today to get into power, then austerity to try to lessen the burden on our children. And when politicians are done in public office, they almost invariably move to the boards of the large corporations whose agendas they promoted when they had political power. (Politics and big business have a symbiotic relationship with each other, a symbiosis that is most certainly not in our collective interest.)

And because the mass media is entirely corporately-owned and largely dependent upon corporate advertising, it has become the propaganda machine for corporate interests, significantly under-reporting stories that might wake the people up into realizing that their freedom to have happy, healthy and fulfilling lives, not only for themselves but also for their children, seriously conflicts with the freedom of the corporate world to maximize profits by enslaving us financially (by careful control of the money supply) and selling us goods and services which we largely do not need.

As a consequence, we have become slaves to the corporate interest, where the freedom to make high profits has come to dominate all other freedoms. And this collective enslavement is dressed up by the mass media as freedom, so that anyone who criticises, for example, the Federal Reserve for enslaving America soon finds themselves accused of being "Anti-American" or a "Communist". After all, how can the people be slaves when they live in the "Land of the Free". It is all media propaganda.

This corporate control of the mass media means that the mind of the people is being strongly manipulated to make voting choices that are not actually in their best interest, but in the short-term interest of corporations and politicians.

The two main legal systems in most Western democracies are: Common or Civil Law (also called Law of the Land); and Commercial Law (Maritime Admiralty, Banking Law, or the Law of the Sea).

Common or Civil Law is what normal people think of as law — an accumulating body of formalized rules made by judges in court mostly regarding our behaviour towards others in the interest of keeping society civil. The judges use common sense and previous court decisions (legal precedence) to reach their decisions. This law tends to be country-specific, and all people in that country are automatically obliged, whether they consent or not, to follow those laws, or pay a penalty such as a jail term or fine if they choose not to.

Commercial Law, on the other hand, deals with commercial agreements between two consenting parties; it is the law of business transactions. If you do not consent to standing under this legal system in any situation, then it has no legal hold over you and you cannot be legally penalized for non-conformity. That said, our birth certificates automatically bind us into a commercial agreement with the State and the banks that control the State; so our parents basically signed us away at birth into bondage to Commercial Law.

Whereas Civil Law is largely concerned with the issue of fairness in society, Commercial Law is used to bind (enslave) people into legal contracts with organisations that have their own interests at heart (invariably profit and control). It is under Commercial Law that the banks have ended up controlling almost every aspect of society, and it is under Commercial Law that we slave away in order to pay the rent or mortgage.

Commercial Law also drives the international political agendas that are rapidly eroding individual freedoms, and what is most concerning is that these agendas are immune to the people's choice of political party. Organisations (actually corporations) taking control of the world using Commercial Law include the United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organisation, World Health Organisation, World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the European Parliament… all of which "the people" have little influence over.

The only way to counter these agendas is either through the courts (by appealing to Common or Civil Law), by knowing enough about Commercial Law so that we do not consent to it in the first place, through mass consumer choice, and through public protest and disobedience (although any form of violence is strongly discouraged as it is counterproductive).

What is concerning, however, is that with their massive lobbying power and money, corporations are now able to disproportionately influence legislative procedure, which results in a society increasingly bound by Commercial Law and the freedoms of corporations to pursue their business (world-domination) agendas with minimal government and legal interference. This destroys the very fabric of human society. And people are so hoodwinked by the propaganda flowing from the mainstream media, that they honestly believe that supporting corporate freedom has something to do with their own freedom, democracy and interests! That is the consequence of very successful propaganda!

In light of these threats, it is important that we unite to defend encroaches on collective freedom by the "pseudo-freedoms" of special interest groups such as corporations. We need to have public debate about which freedoms are in the collective long-term interest and which are not, and which individual freedoms we are not prepared to surrender. After 9-11, for example, is it really in the collective interest to introduce the Patriot act? Short-term, that is debatable; but long-term, definitely not. After 9/11 we saw shameful intolerance within the US to anybody who opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had ostensibly played no part in 9/11, posed no threat to any of the invaders, and had no weapons of mass destruction. In the "land of the free", you would think that people would respect each other's right, indeed duty, to voice disapproval of misguided government policy, but that is not what happened… patriotism reared its ugly head and sheep-mentality prevailed.

Public freedom and civil rights are seriously compromised by fervent patriotism. In the words of Leo Tolstoy, "The subjection of men to government will always continue as long as patriotism exists, for every ruling power rests on patriotism — on the readiness of men to submit to power." Judging by the staggering number of "freedom" organisations and sites that are plastered with national flags and emblems, there is widespread confusion between patriotism and freedom. Patriotism serves only to pervert government accountability, allowing reprehensible behaviour to go unchallenged, even where that behaviour is directed at the people themselves. This is why governments waste no opportunity to stir up patriotism… it gets them off the hook and back in control.

Finally, it is important to remember that the freedom that so many of us now take for granted didn't just come about because everybody agreed that it was a "good idea". Previous generations literally risked their lives for freedom — that is how much they valued it. Those in authority generally don't give up that authority willingly; freedom needs to be taken from them (preferably, as Gandhi did, by peaceful means).

We are now the generation that has become the custodians of freedom. Will we allow it to languish because we have more important things to do like watching TV and shopping, or will we take up the responsibility, as our forebears did, and fight for freedom and civil liberties so that the world is a better place for ourselves and our children?

But to do that effectively we have to make choices between conflicting freedoms. We will need to favour certain freedoms over others, so the fight for freedom includes the restriction of freedom as well. This is the paradox and there is no simple formula or easy solution to this balancing act. But be warned: if you do not consciously make that choice yourself, it is unconsciously being made for you as you sit each evening in front of your propaganda screen (TV). Remember that there are many different organisations out there spending large amounts of money influencing that decision because the freedom balance has huge financial consequences.

We are either awake, making choices that are in the collective long-term interest and that of our children, or we are asleep, drifting with the rest of the sheeple towards enslavement — in the name of freedom of course!

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

The Perfect Storm

Robert Reich
RSN

It's a perfect storm. And I'm not talking about the impending dangers facing Democrats. I'm talking about the dangers facing our democracy.

First, income in America is now more concentrated in fewer hands than it's been in 80 years. Almost a quarter of total income generated in the United States is going to the top 1 percent of Americans.

The top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now earn as much as the bottom 120 million of us.

Who are these people? With the exception of a few entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, they're top executives of big corporations and Wall Street, hedge-fund managers, and private equity managers. They include the Koch brothers, whose wealth increased by billions last year, and who are now funding tea party candidates across the nation.


Which gets us to the second part of the perfect storm. A relatively few Americans are buying our democracy as never before. And they're doing it completely in secret.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into advertisements for and against candidates - without a trace of where the dollars are coming from. They're laundered through a handful of groups. Fred Maleck, whom you may remember as deputy director of Richard Nixon's notorious Committee to Reelect the President (dubbed Creep in the Watergate scandal), is running one of them. Republican operative Karl Rove runs another. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a third.

The Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission made it possible. The Federal Election Commission says only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed.

We're back to the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. The public never knew who was bribing whom.

Read Full Article

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

World job crisis is a threat to democracy, says IMF head

International Monetary Fund meeting dominated by fears that US job crisis will add to currency tensions with China

Larry Elliot
Guardian

The International Monetary Fund was seeking to defuse growing tensions over global currencies yesterday amid fears that the US will respond to its stubbornly high unemployment figures by slapping tariffs on Chinese goods.

With China refusing to bow to pressure from the US and Europe to revalue its currency, the annual meeting of the IMF was dominated by concerns that Washington is on the point of losing patience with Beijing. Finance ministers and central bank governors gathered in a gloomy mood, expecting no quick fix to the problem – despite a warning from the IMF that failure to tackle the global jobs crisis could threaten democracy.

Latest figures for the American labour market, released on Friday, showed 95,000 jobs were shed in September, adding to the problems of the Obama administration ahead of next month's mid-term elections.


The poor outlook for jobs in the US has alarmed the Federal Reserve, which is expected to announce a fresh wave of quantitative easing next month, and added extra spice to the row between Washington and Beijing.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF's managing director, warned that "we face the risk of a lost generation", adding: "When you lose your job, your health is likely to be worse. When you lose your job, the education of your children is likely to be worse. When you lose your job, social stability is likely to be worse – which threatens democracy and even peace. So we shouldn't fool ourselves. We are not out of the woods yet. And for the man in the street, a recovery without jobs doesn't mean much."

Tim Geithner, Obama's treasury secretary, said: "The United States believes that global rebalancing is not progressing as well as needed to avoid threats to the global economic recovery.

Read Full Article


Globalization and Its Discontents

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Rothschild and CIA Publications Attack “Constitution-worshipers”

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 25, 2010

The editors of the Economist have declared constitutionalists mentally ill. “Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshipers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century,” the editors wrote on September 23. “When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim.”

	Following the Constitution is infantile behavior, according to two publications produced by the Rothschilds, the CFR, and the CIA.

The Economist is owned by members of the Rothschild banking family of England. It is run by the Economist Group, a known CIA front.

According to the Economist, the framers were aristocrats who “did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote.” The Constitution does not address the “hard questions thrown up by modern politics,” namely should gays be allowed to marry?

The Economist argument against the Constitution is the same one used by liberal academics. The document is antiquated, the product of a bygone era. The founders were afraid of “democracy taking hold,” so they crafted a document designed to exclude the common people and preserve their aristocratic position.

Globalists love democracy. It is an easy enough task to fool the people, especially these days with 24-7 media and satellite television. It is a relatively simple matter to have the benighted masses vote away their natural rights under some cooked up false pretense. “Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote,” wrote Marvin Simkin. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Soon after the Economist article appeared, the establishment publication Foreign Policy posted an article slamming the idea that we should follow the Constitution. Joshua Keating writes that he suspects “most Americans don’t realize quite how old the Constitution is by world standards,” that is to say globalist standards. In order to make his point, Keating cites an article published in the Onion, a popular satire publication.

Foreign Policy was established by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank created by the “internationalist” Andrew Carnegie, who took his advice from Elihu Root, who worked to make the Council On Foreign Relations possible.

As Carroll Quigley noted in Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, the CFR, modeled on the British Round Table Group, “penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and… foreign policy,” and peddled its globalist influence through five American newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times. “The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established,” Quigley explains.

In 2008, Foreign Policy was bought by the Washington Post Company. The Washington Post is the crown jewel of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner, who ran the Office of Special Projects — later to become part of the CIA — recruited Philip Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, to run Operation Mockingbird and subvert the free press in the United States.

The CFR wants “to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States,” Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the CFR, warned. In order to realize their one-world government scheme, the CFR and the ruling elite must undermine the sovereignty of the United States.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

It must also undermine and subvert the Tea Party movement and the popular move to restore the constitutional foundation of the country.

The twin articles appearing in the Economist — at the behest of Rothschild and the City of London banking elite — and Foreign Policy — controlled by the Council On Foreign Relations — are designed to make constitutionalists appear to be not only infantile idealists who idolize an archaic document that the globalists argue has no relevance in our modern era of gay marriage, but also as dangerous people who suffer from mental illness.

–

Kurt Nimmo edits Infowars.com. He is the author of Another Day in the Empire: Life In Neoconservative America.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page