Archive for the ‘Government’ Category
September 2nd, 2016 by Vigilo
Internet Free Speech may be nearing it’s end. On October 1 2016, the United States is slated to cede control of the internet.
Lately, we have heard presidential candidate Donald Trump advocating for Americanism over Globalism. If true, this topic of internet free speech must be thrust into his platform. The government handing over jurisdiction (through ICANN) of the internet to the global cabal is the greatest modern assault on free speech. Considering that journalism is dead among major corporate media, we often need to rely on an unshackled internet to get honest news.
Below are three articles concerning the end of internet free speech. “Secret Board Resolution Paved Way In ICANN Internet Globalization Agenda” “UN Could Take Over ICANN, and the Internet, Oct. 1″ and “Leaked Soros Document Calls For Regulating Internet To Favor ‘Open Society’ Supporters”
Forward this to your friends and family. We must not lose internet free speech, we must not allow control to be given to global governance….
Secret Board Resolution Paved Way In ICANN Internet Globalization written by Daniel Taylor
Update: Two years after Old-Thinker News first reported on this story, it has become more important than ever. The Wall Street Journal and others are now admitting that “When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result…”
Corwin: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade passed secret resolutions, used NSA spy leaks as “false premise” to strip control from U.S.
Philip Corwin, Founding principal of Virtualaw LLC, and ICANN watchdog for the Internet Commerce Association, spoke out recently at the 49th ICANN meeting. ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is in charge of assigning domain names and IP addresses on the internet. Until now, the United States has had contractual oversight for the organization.
Singapore hosted the historic ICANN meeting, which discussed the future of internet governance after the United States ceded control. Singapore has a poor track record of internet freedom. Terence Lee writes in a paper for Surveillance and Society that internet regulation in Singapore “… hinges on an ideology of control with the sole aim of producing law-abiding, self-regulated and therefore, economically productive, docile and compliant citizens.”
During the meeting, Corwin expressed his concern that the United States ceding control of the internet was based on the “false premise” that NSA spy revelations required a massive change at ICANN. Corwin also came out against pervasive globalization.
“I am a globalization skeptic, which does not mean that I’m against globalization in the abstract. It means I have great concerns about the quest for globalization that’s going on right now. We are clearly in a time for ICANN of hope and change, that makes me very nervous because hope is not always rewarded and change is not always for the better. I’m also a firm believer in the maxim if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Corwin also revealed that ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade passed secret resolutions to further the goal of “an internet cooperation agenda.” Corwin stated,
“In the last period, particularly in the question which was out there since last summer of whether the NSA revelations undermined trust in ICANN and the Internet and required the type of response we’re seeing. Instead, we saw the establishment of top‐down presidential strategy panels. We saw ‐‐ and I hate to say this ‐‐ a new low point in ICANN with the secret Board resolution last September that authorized the CEO to take many of the actions that have been taken…”
The resolution, issued in September 2013, was published a month after the October 2013 ICANN meeting that pushed for the globalization of ICANN. The October meeting called on members to sign the “Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation”. Corwin notes that “While the Montevideo Statement was signed by ten entities, the actual work of coordinating its issuance was performed by CEO Chehade pursuant to a secret resolution passed by the ICANN Board on September 28th.”
“Whereas, the existing, global, open, multi-stakeholder Internet governance system is under increasing pressure to evolve and adapt to global concerns.
Whereas these increasing pressures cannot be addressed by ICANN alone, but only by a group of similarly concerned organizations and entities acting in concert, ICANN should participate in an effort to form an Internet cooperation agenda (“Coalition”).
Resolved (2013-09-28-C1), the ICANN Board authorizes its CEO to allocate necessary and sufficient time and resources of ICANN and work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition towards the formation of a movement or initiative. The financial resources for building the coalition must be allocated from the already established Strategic Plan funds.”
ICANN’s goal of an open and transparent internet doesn’t seem to coincide with the organization’s recent activities. The move to cede United States control over the internet is concerning for multiple reasons. Now that ownership is being fought for among the worlds repressive superpowers, freedom of speech on the net is in danger.
With ICANN now open to the world, a whole host of anxious governments and organizations are grabbing for the power that is the internet. The European Union, pushing for a “Web 3.0” that will facilitate the Internet of Things, is one potential player. “The European Commission’s position on jurisdiction and choice of law could lead to imposition of the European Union’s approach on data protection, cybersecurity, and other matters on entities outside its direct jurisdiction — including U.S. companies,” writes Corwin.
As former Bush administration State Department advisor Christian Whiton stated, ICANN may end up as part of the United Nations.
Similarly shady activity is taking place with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is seeking to impose corporate controlled internet regulation on its members. Senator Ron Wyden told Congress, “…the majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations – like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America – are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement.”
UN Could Take Over ICANN, and the Internet, Oct. 1 written by Joel B. Pollak
The United Nations could take over control of the Internet on October 1, when the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) passes from U.S. administration to the control of a multilateral body, most likely the United Nations International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
While the administration and its defenders have denied that the UN will have authority over ICANN, the Wall Street Journal‘s L. Gordon Crovitz points out that ICANN will need to be run by a state agency in order to retain its antitrust exemption, which makes it almost certainly that the UN will step in to take control.
It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.
Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”
UN control would almost certainly allow tyrannical regimes some degree of control over Americans’ Internet use.
Congress can still act to prevent the transfer: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) have introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which would prevent the transfer of ICANN without Congressional approval.
Aug 29 2016
Very soon, on October 1, 2016, much of the internet’s governance will shift from the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) authority to a nonprofit multi-stakeholder entity, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, also known by its acronym ICANN. As The Gatestone Institute’s Judith Bergmann explains,
Until now, NTIA has been responsible for key internet domain name functions, such as the coordination of the DNS (Domain Name System) root, IP addresses, and other internet protocol resources. But in March 2014, the U.S. announced its plan to let its contract with ICANN to operate key domain name functions expire in September 2015,passing the oversight of the agency to a global governance model. The expiration was subsequently delayed until October 1, 2016.
According to the NTIA’s press release at the time, “NTIA’s responsibility includes the procedural role of administering changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – as well as serving as the historic steward of the DNS. NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and has a Cooperative Agreement with Verisign under which it performs related root zone management functions. Transitioning NTIA out of its role marks the final phase of the privatization of the DNS as outlined by the U.S. Government in 1997″.
According to the NTIA, from the inception of ICANN, the U.S. government and internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary. The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.” The official reason, therefore, is that: ”ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence. At the same time, international support continues to grow for the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions”.
The Obama Administration says that the transition will have no practical effects on the internet’s functioning or its users,and even considers the move necessary in order to maintain international support for the internet and to prevent a fracturing of its governance.
Civil society groups and activists are calling on Congress to sue the Obama Administration – perhaps at least to postpone the date until more Americans are aware of the plan.
However, never one to miss an opportunity, The Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson reports that:
An internal proposed strategy from George Soros’ Open Society Justice Initiative calls for international regulation of private actors’ decisions on “what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain.”
Those regulations, the document notes, should favor “those most supportive of open society.”
The Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) is part of the Open Society Foundations, Soros’s secretive network of political organizations. According to the organization’s website, “The Open Society Justice Initiative uses law to protect and empower people around the world, supporting the values and work of the Open Society Foundations.”
The call for international control of the internet is part of a 34-page document titled “2014 Proposed strategy” that lays out OSJI’s goals for between 2014 and 2017.
The leaked document was one of 2,500 documents released by “hacktivist” group DCLeaks. As reported by The Daily Caller, the section of DCLeaks’ website dealing with Soros has since gone offline for unknown reasons. TheDC saved a version of the 2014 strategy before the site went offline.
In the document, OSJI argues that international regulation of the Internet is needed to protect freedom of expression.
“Our freedom of expression work furthers the free exchange of information and ideas via the media and internet, and proposes to begin to address the free expression and association rights of NGOs. The internet has been a key tool for promoting freedom of expression and open societies — as in the Arab Spring — and is a potential safeguard against monopoly control of information in such places as China and Central Asia,” page 19 of the document notes.
“But it is also presenting underaddressed challenges, including lack of regulation of private operators that are able to decide, without due process procedures, what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain. A ‘race to the bottom’ results from the agendas of undemocratic governments that seek to impose their hostility to free speech on the general online environment. We seek to ensure that, from among the norms emerging in different parts of the world, those most supportive of open society gain sway.”
One of the “Program concepts and initiatives” listed in the document is to “Promote — by advocating for the adoption of nuanced legal norms, and litigation — an appropriate balance between privacy and free expression/transparency values in areas of particular interest to OSF and the Justice Initiative, including online public interest speech, access to ethnic data, public health statistics, corporate beneficial ownership, asset declarations of public officials, and rights of NGOs to keep information private.”
Another initiative is to “Establish states’ responsibility to collect data necessary to reveal patterns of inequality, and define modes of collection that are effective and protect privacy.”
Throughout the document, OSJI’s position appears to be that private actors on the internet must be brought under international control in order to prevent them from suppressing each other’s freedom of expression and speech.
One of the organization’s goals is to “Establish soft law and judicial precedents safeguarding online free expression, including adequate protection against blocking of online content, intermediary liability, user standing, and related issues.”
“One weakness of current efforts to promote online free expression has been the relatively sparse and uneven use of the international human rights law framework, including protections for free speech. This may be due to the paucity of coordinated efforts to generate hard law, and some soft law, in this area, both domestically and internationally,” the document states later, before noting the opportunity for the organization to influence “international free speech law in the online environment.”
“One reason for this failure may be that the leading digital rights groups/movements have developed separately and at a certain distance from the traditional free speech groups (though this is beginning to change). The Justice Initiative, working with other OSF programs that fund leading players in both sub-fields, is well placed to help bridge that gap and promote the use and development of international free speech law in the online environment.”
The U.S. is set to cede control of the internet, stoking fears that the internet could eventually be subject to the United Nations instead.
OSF previously called DCLeaks’s release of the documents “a symptom of an aggressive assault on civil society and human rights activists that is taking place globally.”
August 17th, 2016 by Vigilo
The Deep State. It can be described as “the state within the state.” Those who are politically literate can see it well in the United States kleptocracy. It’s the shadow government that runs behind the scenes.
The revolving door between government and mega corporations could be mentioned. There have been hundreds of cases where federal workers in the Obama administration get jobs within Google, and vice versa. We see Monsanto trade players with the very people who ‘enforce’ laws upon it.
The pay to play scheme’s could be mentioned as well. Recently, links have been shown between the Clinton Foundation and the United States Department of State.
While it ensures that the things previously mentioned are maintained, the Deep State is bigger and deeper than that, and it isn’t even confined to any one nations borders. However, as the Deep State feeds off of the very class of people it strangles…..it does so at the risk of overreaching. This brings us to Charles Hugh Smith’s “The Deep State’s Catch-22.”
What is the Deep State’s Future? Is it’s grip entrenched forever, or will it collapse along with the system it leeched?
The Deep State’s Catch-22 written by Charles Hugh Smith
What happens if the Deep State pursues the usual pathological path of increasing repression? The system it feeds on decays and collapses.
The Deep State in virtually every major nation-state is facing a form of Catch-22: the Deep State needs the nation-state to feed on and support its power, and the nation-state requires stability above all else to survive the vagaries of history.Catch-22 (from the 1961 novel set in World War II Catch-22) has several shades of meaning (bureaucratic absurdity, for example), but at heart it is a self-referential paradox: you must be insane to be excused from flying your mission, but requesting to be excused by reason of insanity proves you’re sane.
May 3rd, 2016 by Vigilo
If you have been paying attention for the last several decades, the United States of America has been hollowed out. Morally, financially, spiritually….in just about every way. The crescendo of this hollowing may reach it’s breaking point leading up to the Presidential Election of 2016.
What do you think?
At this point, nothing would surprise me. Having personally attended a ‘Trump rally,’ I have seen a first hand preview of what the communist mobs will bring. They flash their private parts, block roads, damage other’s private property, and have no regard for people who don’t hold their demented views.
These mobs could very well be unleashed on America. Will we see riots? NDAA powers enacted? Martial Law? Civil War? Suspension of elections? An Obama extended term? ….. Only God knows.
We could do well do defend ourselves. Stock up on some food, ammo, silver, gold, cash, and other essentials. Read the article of Michael Savage’s comments below. But most of all, put your trust in God and follow His statutes.
If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination and defeats likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in November, President Obama will sabotage the economy in his final months in office, predicts talk-radio host Michael Savage.“If Trump wins – and I think he will – there will be an economic crash,” Savage told listeners of his nationally syndicated show, “The Savage Nation,” Monday.
“The reason I say that is not because of his policies, but because of what Obama will do on the way out the door.”
Savage said that if anyone thinks that a President Trump will be able to easily “turn this huge ship around, you don’t know much about navigation in turbulent waters.”
“Wait until you see what happens in the last few months if Trump wins,” Savage said.
“Wait until you see what that nice guy in the White House does.”
After the show, Savage elaborated to WND in an email on what he thinks the lame-duck period between the election and the inauguration might look like if Trump wins.
“(Federal Reserve Chairman Janet) Yellen ups interest rates, Obama and his band of unmerry pranksters – Sharpton and company –unleash the mobs,” Savage said. “(George) Soros makes a last-ditch effort to distract Trump and the new Justice Department from currency manipulation and other financial games he may have been playing. Spends tens of millions on social agitation.
“Obama floods the U.S. with Central Americans, Syrians and Africans, mainly Muslim, mainly young males, and grants pardons to 10,000 more Central American drug dealers,” Savage continued.
“Let’s see what else might these decent Americans do? Release a few more billion pork barrel ‘green’ projects? You can guess!”
‘Fidel in a dress’
Prior to his remarks about Obama’s final days in office, Savage told his listeners he believed Trump would defeat Clinton in a landslide, describing the former secretary of state, senator and first lady as “Fidel Castro in a dress.”
Savage cited the new Rasmussen poll of likely voters showing Trump with a 41-39 lead over Clinton nationally.
“And this is only an early poll,” Savage noted on his show Monday. “I said a long time ago that when it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton, he would win by a landslide, 60-40, 59-41, something like that.
“No matter how many illegal aliens Obama tried to flood into this country, Trump will win by a landslide,” he said.
In February, Savage warned that the banking deregulation under the Bill Clinton administration that led to the 2008 recession appears to be on the verge of impacting the economy again.
“We’re being set up for an economic meltdown similar to the one that triggered the Great Depression,” he said.
This time, however, Savage continued, “it’s going to occur on a global scale, and it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to recover within even the next several decades, once it happens.”
In the 2016 presidential election, he said, the subtext for most Democratic votes is a distrust of big business and banks.
“And they think that their savior is Bernie the Commie,” Savage said.
But Sanders is and always has been a politician, Savage said.
“If you have faith in him, you’re a fool. If you actually have faith that he’s going to do something different than the others, you’re crazy,” he said.
“You’ll get more of the same. You’ll get the same nonsense.”
“He’ll do nothing to the banks, because they control the presidency.
March 20th, 2014 by Iliya
Preface: I'd like to use this post as an addendum to the Ukraine 101 article. So many times we see foreign interventions starting up revolutions. Ukraine during 2013, and into 2014 is no exception. There may be a large quantity of people who legitimately want change, but ultimately, somebody else is paying for it....and they expect a hefty return on their investment, no matter what befalls the people. -Travis
So the Russian revolution was planned and paid by hostile foreign powers, for no other purpose than economic colonization. That is what the newly released information shows, quite clearly.
Through the prism of this new insight, I am now seeing familiar, accepted and “boring” aspects of history in a totally new light.
In essence, I don’t believe that there can be such a thing as a revolution – an uprising of the people which succeeds in overthrowing an unpopular regime. I can only think of one event that possibly answers that description in four thousand years of recorded history.
Occasionally, rebels succeed in weakening an unpopular monarch, extracting some concessions or simply dying a more worthy death than their lives otherwise allowed. Very rarely did a rebellion result in a regime change – a coup precipitated by an inadequate response to the uprising or a foreign invasion. History records many events we know as rebellions. This is a populist uprising, possibly against a hostile foreign power – usually out of desperation, with little chance of an actual overthrow. The only likely outcome is a brutal suppression with reprisals – a major negative sum gain.
This is because a rebellion by the genuine population (as opposed to a faction of the ruling class backed by some of the armed forces) has very few chances of success. It’s a very unequal battle because the rebels lack the resources and the organization of the state. Forming such structures on the run is an unlikely recipe for success – the usual rule is that the government destroys the rebels first.
There is a high personal cost for participating in a rebellion. As one’s activities are usually well-known in the parish, the former rebel and his family has to run. Their fate is unenviable – migration to a frontier society, subsistence in a difficult terrain that is difficult to police, or life on the fringe of society as an outlaw or a mercenary.
For that reason most rebellions were little more than desperate riots that managed to form up into a military force capable of surviving a few initial engagements. Once the government forces were marshalled in earnest, the rebellion was doomed.
Such was the case in medieval Europe, where kings were not only entrenched in power, but also had the backing of the church. Most of them were safe from any anger of the common man, fearing only those who had a credible power base, such as relatives and military commanders.
Then came along the Reformation.
All of a sudden each nation in Western Europe had leaders with two mutually exclusive sources of legitimacy – Catholics and Protestants. For the next century the region was riven by brutal civil wars, which resulted in few compromises – most fights between the two confessions were to the death.
It was the first era when war could be waged by unconventional means. Instead of sending your own army to bleed and freeze in another country, you could support a side in a civil war. That opened vast new possibilities – very little money went a very long way. You only needed to pay a few provocateurs, smuggle arms and throw around a little money – a tiny percentage of what it would cost to keep a regular army yourself. The Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 only cost the German crown a few million marks – a pittance compared with the costs of fighting the Russian army.
Crucially, your state organization could be lent to the rebels of another nation, assisting them with major logistics (for instance, sea transport), expertise they could not attract to their cause (military advisers, for instance) and refuge in your own country – a more dangerous strategy, but one that worked well enough even in the twentieth century. All of a sudden a government fighting sponsored rebels was up against the resources of a fellow state, and that changed the equation entirely.
Furthermore, you could modulate your effort to suit the circumstances. You could feed the rebellion at full throttle, to a final victory. Or you could trickle the support, pleading a lack of resources, to result in a prolonged exsanguination of the entire target state. The worst example of this strategy is the Russian civil war of 1918-1923.
Not only that, but a rebellion may be multi-faction, and you may choose the faction(s) you support to suit your means. China did this in Cambodia for two decades preceding the takeover by the Khmer Rouge.
Returning to the turbulence of Reformation – it was not all it seems to us today, an act of righteous outrage against the corrupt Vatican. Strap on your seatbelts.
The Protestants received heavy support from… The Ottoman Empire. It was no mere fomenter of trouble, but a major ally – there was even a Franco-Ottoman treaty. Without Turkish help Charles V would have crushed the Lutherans. William of Orange openly sent for Turkish help. England took on Spain in alliance with Barbary states, and plans were made for a combined invasion of France by Huguenot and Ottoman forces.
The Turkish motive was transparent – Catholic Austria, Hungary and Spain blocked Turkish expansion, and the knights of St John wrought havoc on the Turkish side of the Mediterranean Sea. Of course, little imagination was required – Western Europeans heavily backed the Ottomans in the war against Byzantium. The object, yet again, was economic colonization of the Eastern Mediterranean.
Those who find it incredible that Trotsky was financed from Wall St and sent to Russia with a specific list of corporate orders should think back to the heady days of the Turkish advance – neither side hesitated to support the armies of a rival faith to meet short-term objectives. If Genoese sailors could transport Ottoman troops and teach them how to build ships, and Protestant stalwarts could accept assistance from Suleiman I to slaughter fellow Christians – Trotsky’s ideological differences with his banker uncle are surely just digressions of fashion.
I believe that this type of warfare gained widespread acceptance at Reformation. Every event known as a revolution in conventional textbooks needs to be re-examined in that light. Yes, there were always malcontents and the aggrieved on the ground – but who was really pulling the strings?
As usual, all one needs to do is follow the money. Who were the real beneficiaries of the bloody English Revolution? Was it really about Charles I, given that Charles II resumed most of his father’s obnoxious habits, or was it a simple property grab?
Was the French Revolution a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed, or was it carefully planned and financed from overseas – like the Decembrist mutiny in Russia? The Decembrists were heavily financed from Britain – this was freely confessed by the leader of the rebels. That leader was elected in advance, and he had a prepared manifesto. The Decembrists planned laws and other actions that were chillingly familiar to the students of the French Revolution. They picked a good moment – when the royal succession suffered a hiccup between two brothers. Only one man – the newly crowned Nicholas I – stood between them and the scenario of 1917. Nicholas I delivered on the oath to his nation. The rebellion was crushed.
The French and British revolutions need to be re-examined with a magnifying glass. Those two nations are the origin of the fiat system – financing economic growth with candy wrappers, redeemed at the expense of distant colonies or major advances in technology.
The very same system which is now destroying the Western civilization. How that disease was introduced into those two nations is how we, today, are being undone.
This form of fighting needs to be viewed as a kind of biological warfare. It needs to be banned and severely punished. Handing out pounds and dollars to passers-by for participation in a street protest against Putin needs to attract retribution a la McCarthy – a process which America failed to follow through, leading to a resurgence of its fifth column in 1960′s. There should not have been an Alinsky or a Frank Davis – at the very least, they should have been driven insane by constant surveillance. Politics on foreign money should be a total anathema.
Like biological warfare, fomenting revolutions is a double-edged sword. The British socialist victory of 1945, an event from which Britain had never recovered, was a result of a concerted Soviet effort of the preceding two decades. But this was little more than the Russians finally learning the lesson, after two centuries of British meddling in Russia. Instead of entering into combat with the British Empire, they destroyed it from within. That operation outdid all of the British efforts of two hundred years combined, with socialists rushing to abandon India (to its fate), only two years after their victory. Modern UK is a tiny stump of its former glory pre-1945.
America too is struggling for survival. The Soviet infiltration of its opinion makers began very early – from late 1920′s, and it took a long time to bear fruit. However, it too succeeded unequivocally, with an entrenchment of a Marxist in the White House in 2008. In all likelihood, his successor will be even worse. Nobody in the world should gloat about that – a collapse of United States will trigger a global tsunami. No one will escape the consequences.
That is the trouble with spreading disease – in the end it always comes back to the perpetrator, and no one ever proves to be immune.
November 11th, 2013 by Vigilo
Most conventional November 11th posts offer up a lame ‘happy’ and ‘thanks,’ but we’re going a different route. Part of this is because a web page doesn’t really do veterans all that much justice. But most of this is because we need to honestly call out all of the lip service and Veteran’s Day hypocrisy.
Those in government will no doubt pay the veterans ‘respect’ and hold nominal ceremonies on Monday. Yet, it was just a few weeks ago that the ‘Greatest Generation’ of veterans from World War II were locked out off their memorial. By the end of this post, I hope to raise awareness on a few other issues, and not say a hollow “thanks,” but a heartfelt “Sorry” to all the veterans.
Veterans March on Washington of 2013
Riot police, Mounted Police, humvee, dozens of police vehicles, helicopter with snipers, spotters/snipers on the White House roof… Sounds like a scene out of a movie, right? Wrong. That is just the response from the government towards a group of it’s military veterans. It wasn’t 1932, but the 2013 Veterans March on Washington also forebodes a dark story. The scenes from both of those years are ones we should remember during all the Veteran’s Day hypocrisy.
The Veterans March on Washington (2013) was in response to President Obama’s Department of the Interior order to close the nation’s parks. Upon realizing this specific fallout from the United States Government Shutdown, the House passed a resolution to reopen the National Parks. The Senate, nor President Obama would act on the resolution. Caught in the crossfire were World War II veterans, many of them wheel chair bound and physically unable to jump the ‘Barrycades.’
Reaching the end of their lives, they are embarking on the final opportunity to see the World War II Memorial, and pay respect to their fallen comrades. Honor Flight is the organization that make this all possible. However, with the Department of Interior continually barrycading the memorial, these men were shut out.
So ahead of Honor Flight’s Oct. 13 arrival in Washington, DC, a rally was planned. The 2013 Veterans March on Washington would see the people, many of them veterans, physically remove the Barrycades. This was the only action which allowed the World War II veterans to experience THEIR memorial. Inevitably, some of these Barrycades would end up at the White House, where they were likely conceptualized.
This event really helped illustrate where we are as a nation and further demonstrated Veteran’s Day hypocrisy.
- Those in power are so petty as to prevent old men from accessing an area that, under normal circumstances, is open 24 hours with unessential staff.
- The police are instructed to block roadways only for political reasons.
- Veterans are viewed by the government as a threat.
- Intimidation and provocation tactics are used on vets.
What about 1932?
Oh right, one of the forgotten episodes in American History. You know, the one where the military was ordered to “Charge!” it’s own veterans. The attacked vets (and joining groups) were known as the Bonus Army. The ‘official’ casualty total was 4 dead and 1,017 injured.
Excerpt taken from Wikipedia:
The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, “Shame! Shame!”
Many people who were stateside during WWI made a higher wage than soldiers on the frontline. So in 1924, the veterans of World War I were finally awarded bonuses to make up for the wages they would have otherwise earned in civilian jobs. The caveat was that the certificates could not be redeemed until 1945. The Bonus Army was formed as the veterans of World War I were desperate to redeem their bonus payment ‘early,’ especially in the face of the Great Depression. And so the Veterans March on Washington of 1932 was the result. Whether or not you sympathize with their plight, the fact remains, the US Army attacked US Veterans. I doubt this episode will be mentioned during the Veteran’s Day hypocrisy.
Veterans Need Not Apply
Rumors of foreign troops on U.S. Soil, those in law enforcement who will break their oath, and then those in the prospective National Civilian Security Force are more examples of Veteran’s Day hypocrisy. These may be in the speculative stage for now, but it’s obvious that each can be used against veterans.
Rumors, Just Rumors
You may see rumors of DHS organizing 15,000 Russian troops for an emergency. We definitely have 15,000 of our own troops at home and abroad who can handle an emergency. There are more than 15,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who could enlist to help in an emergency as well. But a novelist might conclude that such a government would be anticipating an event in which their own military and veterans may not follow orders. I wonder what it means in real life.
Or there is that other rumor of the Communist Peoples Republic of China Army being on the ground….. in the U.S.A.! This, of course, is for ‘simulating’ an ‘emergency drill.’ The Nov. 12-14 drill will be centered around testing the resiliency of the power grid.
Conspiracy theorists or novelists might think that the Chinese could have spies who would be able to report on the weaknesses ib the United States’ infrastructure. Or others might even think that these troops could have some other nefarious intent.
Is this a good time to bring up President Obama’s purging of the military? Reportedly 197 officers in his 5 years? He isn’t executing them like Stalin, but the impact remains. The latest on the Purge (as of this writing).
But rest assured you fear-mongers, snopes.com has pointed out that there is no threat.
Just Following Orders | Oathkeeper vs Oathbreaker
As was seen during the Veterans March on Washington 2013, the line is thin between the oathkeepers and the oathbreakers. Surely many of the law enforcement would have rather spent their Sunday somewhere else. However, ALL of them reported for work and followed orders. They were there to intimidate and provoke the veterans and protesters…..in my opinion.
If things got too testy, what force would they have been ordered to use? Would they follow the order? How many of them would even use force beyond the order as Gen. MacArthur?
In Hitler’s Germany, they were just following orders. In Russia’s Gulag, they were just following orders.
Obama’s National Civilian Security Force
That’s right! We haven’t forgotten the talk before the 2008 election. You know, the one calling for a civilian force that will be ‘just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded’ as the military.
With economic calamity approaching, this could be a very useful group, eh? Imagine a scenario where preppers, anti-tax folks, and the like, are actually deemed anti-government. We already see evidence of this happening in numerous memos. Would those who rely on government assistance to feed their families end up joining such a force? Would they hesitate to shoot on you?
In keeping with the lame government acronyms, we will call them the Special Homeland Internal Troops …. aka SHIT.
We see the government becoming more and more hostile towards it’s citizens and veterans. Through orders, bills, and propaganda; we even see some members of government labeling strict Constitutionalists as ‘terrorists.’ Does that mean the government is anti-constitutional? Well anyway, it’s interesting considering the openness for interpretation of things like the NDAA. Who or what constitutes the ‘terrorist’ of tomorrow is anybody’s guess. Are these the warning signs that the Jews failed to see before the Nuremburg laws….the Russian peasants before Dekulakization?
Is the Veterans March on Washington (2013) just a benign event where the government overstaffed? Was it’s lack of coverage in mainstream news, a news story itself? Was the government hoping for just one protester to overreact to the police presence?
In the face of the Veteran’s Day hypocrisy, it is a
Happy Sad Veterans Day to all who have served.
Though we have allowed our government to attack/fire upon/kill you, we believe to make up for it with a worded “Thanks!”
Though we didn’t appreciate your sacrifice in Vietnam, we will sport a flag lapel pin in your memory.
Though we allow your veterans programs to be underfunded, we will still raise a flag in your honor.
Though we ignore your dozens who commit suicide DAILY with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, you can feel good knowing that we will wear a camo ribbon for you this week.
Instead of Happy Veterans Day, maybe it should be Sorry Veteran’s Day. So for at least one day, this website will take the time to say sorry to the veterans. I only hope that this post will raise some awareness, because it definitely won’t serve enough justice.
ACTION during Veteran’s Day Hypocrisy
While all the Veteran’s Day hypocrisy is going on this year, you can apologize to the vets by considering a donation in their support. Below are a few groups of which I have no connection. You can research additional organizations if you are so compelled.
If you know of anyone who may suffer from PTSD, clicking HERE may be a good start.
Thunder Road Film - An epic war drama for a defining generation that Hollywood is too afraid to make.
Helios Warriors - Provides therapies to ALL veterans. specializing in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), or military sexual trauma.
Pets For Vets – Pairs dogs with America’s veterans who could benefit from a companion animal. (especially those with PTSD)
Honor Flight - Helps every single veteran in America, willing and able of getting on a plane or a bus, to visit THEIR memorial.
Defending the Blue Line – Actively works to ensure that children of military members are afforded every opportunity to participate in the game of hockey.
Forgive us for the Veteran’s Day hypocrisy. Oh look! There is a sale over there!
With God’s Will.
October 3rd, 2013 by Vigilo
This week’s Thursday Thought revolves around Wealth Confiscation and safeguarding one’s wealth. Obviously, it came to me while being in the company of people who have earned themselves wealth. But while this Thursday Thought has them in mind, it is really for everybody who has any type of savings or retirement plan.
This concern of Wealth Confiscation came while attending a Cadre event in Washington D.C. Cadre is a group of successful entrepreneurs who are more interested in HELPING and ADDING VALUE, then they are interested in throwing a sales pitch at a networking event. In fact, Cadre stands for Connecting Advocates. Deepening Relationships. Exclusively. So that pretty much sums it up.
At this particular event, we heard talks from James Altucher and Jay Baer. James has been mentioned on this site before regarding his book “Choose Yourself.” It’s about the ever changing world and why it’s time to Choose Yourself in this new era. And Jay authored a book titled “YOUtility,” which has to do with marketing using a ‘HELP’ mentality, as opposed to a ‘HYPE’ mentality. After they spoke, the Cadre members (and non-members) then gathered up on the balcony for an UN-networking event. There is where the Wealth Confiscation Thursday Thought was formed.
Those in the Cadre group are admittedly further along in the journey as am I. However, even there, I got the same bewilderment concerning gold and silver as I do from Joe Schmoe on the street. In fact, only James Altucher was on the same page regarding silver. Now, I didn’t talk to THAT many people about it. But the lack of knowledge on the subject of those I did speak, was a bit disconcerting to me. These are very successful people, and to not even have considered their Wealth Confiscation seems irresponsible and/or naive. What about Cyprus? Poland? Or all of the other latest red flags around the world….
Consider that the troubles facing the United States are far larger and more globally reaching than these little canaries. Are the most connected and most successful businessmen and women among us really not prepared for what’s coming? They have never given even a thought to Wealth Confiscation?
There are people who really believe they can change the world. I include myself in that group even as I write from the humble abodes of the ‘not-quite-there-yet’ Procinctu. But if 25% of any one’s wealth is taken overnight, wouldn’t that limit their effectiveness? What is half was taken? 75% ? You get the picture. And the picture is starting to come into focus regarding Wealth Confiscation.
Canaries in the Mineshaft
It was only last March that Cyprus held a bank holiday. Subsequently, Laiki bank was closed, and the Bank of Cyprus was recapitalized. If you had an uninsured account totaling more than 100,000 Euros, say goodbye to a large chunk of your wealth. This was all for a ‘bail-out/bail-in’ of course. And what was the government’s loan requirement to address it’s deficit spending and the bailout…..only $10 billion Euros. Compare that to the almost 17 trillion USD debt. I’ll write it out so we know what it looks like… $16,743,920,719,890.75.
Then earlier this month, Poland announced it would transfer (confiscate) it’s citizen’s private pension fund bond holdings to the state. Roughly half of their life savings (if it’s in those funds) are to be nationalized! So here are just two of the most recent forms of Wealth Confiscation.
Same Old Story
The story is the same for every nation with this problem….TOO MUCH DEBT. So we see the United States’ large debt amount written above, but that doesn’t even include future obligations like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc. What’s that, hundreds of trillions? The only reason the U.S. has been able to blow the bubble larger and larger is because of it’s Global Reserve Currency Status and the Petrodollar.
In the U.S., the Federal Reserve has been performing quantitative easing for quite some time, like since 2008! That is, they are currently buying $85 billion dollars worth of bonds every month. What happens when they stop? Where will the banks ‘liquidity’ come from? Will the government ‘creatively’ force it’s citizens to buy the bonds instead? Will the whole economy come to a screeching halt? Will we see Wealth Confiscation in the name of patriotism?
These are questions we all need to ask ourselves. If your money is in an account, it is quite easy for it to be taken out Cypriot-Style. However, if you have your wealth in modern unconventional holdings, like gold and silver, you make it a bit more difficult for them to steal.
Gold and Silver
Physical gold and silver NEED to be an everyone’s portfolio, even if there wasn’t a threat of Wealth Confiscation. Understand that it’s not fool-proof, especially if you don’t diversify it internationally. They can even add an insanely high windfall tax on silver and gold if they want, BUT you can prepare for that too. Just know that you increase your chances of keeping your wealth if you have some gold and silver.
Again, it’s easy to confiscate a bank account’s holdings, it can be done from someone’s bed. But to confiscate physical gold and silver? They have to get out of bed, drive to their facility, strap on their riot gear, load all the guns, get gas, drive to your house, spray a bunch of bullets, etc. You see, it’s totally not worth the hassle. That can of course happen eventually, but it likely won’t be the first option in Wealth Confiscation. At least not when so many other people DID leave ALL their wealth in a bank and conventional ‘savings’ fund.
How much and when?
O.K. I didn’t put TOO much thought into this analogy, but hear me out. You are on a train. You can see the bridge is out ahead. You don’t know exactly how long until you make it to the bridge, but you know that you need to get ready to exit the train. However, you can’t jump just yet, because there are marauders chasing your train. You will need to time the jump between outrunning the marauders, and also getting off the train before it speeds off the cliff. So prepare now and jump when it is time for your best chance of survival.
Translation. Prepare now by putting a comfortable amount into physical gold and silver. Personally, I obviously put a larger percentage, but for beginners, 5-10% would be a good start. At least it’s much better than 0%. There may be one big final smack down in the ‘paper price’ of gold and silver before their actual value is finally realized. THAT is the time you are going to want to go all out for it. 20% or 25% of your wealth, even more if you are totally convinced. This will give you the best chance in fighting the battle life will present you and any Wealth Confiscation will be less likely to harm you. Again, nothing is certain, but probabilities need to be weighed.
This is already too long for a Thursday Thought, so I’m just going to wrap it up and say that if this Wealth Confiscation talk was mildly engaging, feel free reach out. You can send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org and just say you would like to know more. This can be explained further, and there are also steps to take in not getting ripped off. You can also check out the money section of this website for information about the horrible fundamentals of the U.S. and global economies. The main point is, no matter how much you have saved, do you really want to lose your life’s savings because some politicians spend other people’s money beyond the means? If the answer is no, there are ways to protect yourself.
Before leaving, if you do happen to be a successful entrepreneur, and are looking to add value to others of your mindset, then check out Cadre to see if it suits you. It is predominantly based in Washington D.C., but you can decide for yourself if you want to inquire further.
We’ll finish with the closing from Zero Hedge…
“But best of all, in the aftermath of Cyprus, we now know what the two most recent European blueprints for preserving the myth of solvency are: bail-ins, which confiscate deposits, and pension fund “overhauls”, which confiscate, well, pension funds.
And now, back to the global recovery soap opera.”
If you think “It can’t happen here,” then I’ll be the one to bring you the bad news. It can happen here. In time, wealth confiscation probably will happen here. So, do you want your wealth, for which you worked so hard, to just be another character in the soap opera? Or do you want to create your own non-fiction with it? It’s up to you.
With God’s will..