US Treasury Bonds,The Godfather Of All Bubbles

Synopsis Charles E Carlson The 30-plus-year-old bull market in US bonds, notes and bills may well be the most destructive man-made “Bubble” in all of recorded history.  It will sooner or later implode because it is unsound to the core.  A puncturing of the bubble may start when any of several huge holders sells.  Its implosion will trigger the sale of other overpriced corporate, municipal and foreign bonds, and the dollar itself may well be replaced as the world reserve currency.  The US bond bubble is the Godfather because it is so large that no other investment market can absorb the mass exodus which will come from it.  It is logical that those who have worked so deliberately to create this debt bubble will fight even harder to prevent its collapse.  When it implodes, it will probably bring down lesser bubbles and excesses, including the function of the dollar as a world exchange currency.  A true “Bubble” must result from a successful, planned deception The handling of US Treasury bonds, notes and bills, (“US debt” hereafter) has all the elements that make it a once-in-a-lifetime bubble.  It is much more than an overvalued investment or an idea that has become an exaggerated fad, like the “Dot Com Bubble”.   We have seen many of these come and go and we have survived each one.  A bubble must have the element of planned deception in order to reach proportions monstrous enough to draw in the money of a large body of public to it.  US debt floats on the unreasonable assumption of inflated value.  It deliberately and falsely promotes itself in the face of reality.  Charles Mackey, a Scottish journalist, first published Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1) in 1841, a study of ancient bubbles.  HIs most famous quote is, “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”  The slow regaining of senses is why the bubble takes so long to burst, far beyond what seems reasonable. The eventual loss suffered by Bernie Madoff’s investors was at least $18 billion. “Bubbles” are always recognized by some (one by one) before they finally pop.  This was the case with the scheme of Bernard Madoff, now in prison for life.  Madoff started his famous Ponzi scheme, once called Ascot Partners, which, like the US debt bubble, lasted over 30 years. Several discovered it much earlier and tried to expose Madoff, but no one would listen because of the deep deception Madoff had surrounded himself with.  Madoff even held volunteer positions in regulatory agencies that should have policed him but did not.  He was also designing computer programs to backdate imaginary trades in order to achieve desired results for his customers’ accounts.  He made imaginary investments in real securities, but only on paper, and instead deposited the clients’ funds in his own discretionary account at Chase Bank. [Mechanics of the Madoff Bubble – (2)] Madoff’s reported results exceeded all investment expectations, but investors were too satisfied to worry about it being too good to be true.  Hedge funds, pension plans and mutual funds all invested with Madoff.  His deception was simple: his fund always moved higher and never had a bad year!  This was a sure sign something was wrong, and one by one a few tried to expose him.  The eventual loss suffered by Madoff’s investors was at least $18 billion, although those who got out early reaped gains at the expense of those who stayed in to the end!  Madoff admitted during his March 2009 guilty plea that the essence of his scheme was to deposit client money into a Chase account, rather than invest it.  When clients wanted their money, “I used the money in the Chase Manhattan bank account that belonged to them or other clients to pay the requested funds,” he told the court. A True Bubble requires mass public participation  On April 19, 2015, Bloomberg News reported that public investors, seeking safety, “may sink $350 billion into debt funds globally this year, adding to the $3 trillion they’ve already poured into bonds since 2008.” (3-A) This influx is mostly through banks, mutual finds and managed IRAs. Per a 2015 article, “In U.S.debt auctions this year, bond mutual funds have bought a record 43 percent of newly issued Treasuries, allotment data compiled by Bloomberg show.” (3-A) A bubble-creating deception may be an illegal one, like Madoff’s, or it may be a legitimized deception, such as the Federal Reserve System (FED), enacted by Congress 102 years ago.   The measure of a bubble is not legality, but successful deception.   The modern mutual fund business has learned how to prosper on US debt investments, considered in a previous era to be a dull and prosaic investment.  Mutual funds have added excitement to it by an implied promise of perpetual capital gains on top of meager income.  No word of capital loss potential is every mentioned.  We will detail one such example by fund manager, J P Morgan Chase Bank in this paper. Bloomberg News further points out (3-A), “There are plenty of reasons to be bearish on U.S. government bonds. They pay almost nothing, the Federal Reserve wants to raise interest rates and money managers are largely convinced they’re [bonds] too expensive …[A] record 84 percent of professional investors in a Bank of America Corp. survey released this month said bonds were overvalued.” (3-B) This writer agrees.  Treasury bonds are near the end of a 30 plus year bull market, a “Bubble” based on an unrealistic and  manipulated assumption that US Treasury bonds do or can be made to always sell higher and higher in the market place, translating into ever lower interest payments.  The Treasury keeps its hands clean by looking to the FED to manage the deception that keeps a line of willing lenders ready to loan money to the Treasury at higher and higher prices, (lower interest rates). Three Deceptions that fire the US Debt Bubble The Federal Reserve Bank of NY has its own style of deception, which varies slightly from Madoff’s and is about 1000 times larger.  It is the super-bank franchise dealer for US debt and claims to be the largest single holder of US debt.  But, unlike other buyers, the FED is allowed to purchase without investing capital, which explains why it is the biggest lender. The US debt bubble has been produced by three contrived deceptions.  First, dollars are electronically printed on the books of the FED whenever the Treasury sells US debt directly to the Federal Reserve Bank for its own account. The Treasury then spends these dollars by writing checks on its bank account at the FED.  The deception is that the FED does not put up anything of value to acquire this new US debt, rather it uses electronically created dollars that recently have been conceded to be, and are referred to as “printed” dollars.  Thus the illusion is created whenever needed, that demand is outstripping supply, and that there is a constant shortage of US bonds and notes.  Chase Manhattan Bank and Morgan Guarantee Bank were original major stockholders of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank (4), before they merged into the present J P Morgan Chase Bank.  Its money management division helps keep the US debt market creeping upward, as will be discussed later. Second, after issuance, the market price for the newly issued US debt is manipulated, always upwardly, by the Open Market Committee of the FED.  It accomplishes this by making additional purchases in the open market, again with electronically printed dollars. The impact of all this new money on the US debt market produces smooth, little-controlled rises in the US debt’s market value year after year.   Because the interest rate paid on US debt and each instrument’s market price are inversely related, Treasury bond interest is currently at a record low, meaning the market price of the debt is at a near all-time record high.  This happens in spite of the clear fact that new debt is constantly being sold into the market, which should make the market go down, not up.  As with Bernie Madoff’s hedge fund, the illusion is created that the market for US debt can go only one way: UP.  Gradually this bubble becomes accepted as reality!  The madness of Charles Mackey’s crowd is achieved. During the course of this manipulation, according to its own report, the FED has accumulated $2.4 trillion in US debt, for which it paid nothing at all. Third, value in US debt comes from “professional” managers of other people’s money (OPMM), who sell the specious notion that the open market value of US debt always rises enough to make up for the minuscule interest rate bonds and notes pay to the investor.  OPMM keep on buying and trading US debt and are the largest holders by far!  We must examine how this is accomplished in a real world of declining purchasing power for these bonds.  We will use as our example, the J P Morgan Chase Bank, whose two predecessor banks were original owners of the FED (4), and probably still are.  [Because the FED is unaudited, its present ownership is unknown to this author.] As in the Madoff Ponzi bubble, manipulating parties, including the self-serving Congress, have contrived an UP, UP, and ever higher market for US debt that is hanging the least suspecting citizens out to dry.  Consider that the Social Security Trust Fund is invested almost entirely in US debt and that, with similar US agency funds, such as the military pension plan, they hold about 1/3 of all federal debt issued.  What would happen to Social Security checks and health care payments if, say, 25% of their assets evaporated in just a few months? The military-banking complex continues to provide the need for vast sales of US debt with its serial wars in the Middle East, which started in 1991.  US debt expansion also destroys the underpinnings of the US Dollar as the world reserve currency because there is no limit as to how much dollar currency there will be in circulation.  This practice of making war, then printing or borrowing the money to pay for it, is surprisingly similar to the British course of action that broke the back of its economy by 1914 and which forced it off the gold standard for good, and in 1931, the world turned away from the Pound Sterling  as a world reserve currency and opted instead for the Dollar. The British Empire destroyed itself by borrowing for foreign wars it never lost England set the standard for brutality in war in the 1895-1910 era when it invaded and destroyed two far away and very different lands.  They moved into Sudan in 1898, followed closely by their invasion of South Africa in 1902.  Both campaigns were covered by youthful reporter/adventurer Winston Churchill. The war to conquer Sudan was unpopular in England, but the British War Department overcame public objections by fashioning a publicity campaign for revenge on Mahdi Muhammad Ahman  because a year earlier he had led an independence movement that captured the garrison at Khartoum and killed a popular British war hero, Charles Gordon.  The war faction in Britain managed to sub-humanize the black Muslim Sudanese.  English gentlemen have long been conditioned to accept the necessity for killing “wogs” going beck to Rudyard Kipling’s India.   In the slaughter at Khartoum, it was British modern military supremacy against a primitively armed Sudanese independence movement. Propaganda-wise, the Sudanese had two ethnic strikes against them: they were both black and Muslim. The British Empire’s bloody success at Omdurman was recorded in a classic book by British author Alan Moorhead, The Blue Nile (1962). England’s next war adventure was the invasion of South Africa in 1902, which in England turned out to be a very unpopular and expensive war. The Boer War was fought for control of South African gold mines.  It became the straw that broke the Empire.   The Boers were white Europeans, and their casualties included some 40,000 Dutch wives and children of the Boer farmer-soldiers.  Under command of Herbert Kitchener first Earl, the wives and kids were gathered into British concentration camps and starved to death, to force the Boer farmers to yield to a treaty.  It worked.  Back home The British heard about this and could not stomach the facts. The detailed and painful account of this last British war for assets is told by Englishman Thomas Pakengham, in his classic, The Boer War (1979). READ MORE View article...

Business Chiefs that Abhor Private Property

CEOs Against Private Property

March 31, 2015Ryan McMaken

The governor of Indiana last week signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, modeled on similar federal legislation. The Indiana statute states that a person’s religious beliefs may not be “substantially burden[ed]” by anti-discrimination statutes. In other words, if anti-discrimination laws could be construed as forcing a person to violate his own religious conscience, then the law allows for an exemption in that case to anti-discrimination mandates.

The response from the left has been fierce, and multiple CEOs of major firms, including Apple and Salesforce, have come out against the legislation with Salesforce announcing that it will impose a partial boycott on Indiana.

The actual points of the bill are murkier, and Gov. Pence of Indiana is now claiming that the bill does not actually allow business owners to discriminate.

Rather than get mired in a discussion of the minutiae of the Indiana law and similar laws, let it just be said that if the law allows for greater discrimination — and thus, enhances private property rights and lessens the load of government regulations — then it is good. If the new law does not do this, then it’s difficult to see what the point of it is except as a scheme to gain favor with some right-wing religious groups.

Exclusion Is a Foundation of Private Property

Even if the bill does allow for greater control over private property on the part of the owners, the new government-allowed discretion would still be far too restrictive since it would apply only to religious objections. After all, religion is merely one criteria that a property owner might employ to determine how he or she wishes to use his or her property. If an owner wishes to dispense with religious motivation in favor of the pure avaricious pursuit of profit, or wishes to use the business to forward the goal of restoring the Russian monarchy, why should those motivations be any less respected than religion?

By framing the debate as a religious matter, the advocates of regulated discrimination are able to portray many of the advocates as zealots. Meanwhile, the supporters of religious freedom in this case have reduced their argument to a discussion about the motivations behind how one uses private property, when they should really be advocating for the unhampered exercise of full private property rights.

Indeed, the debate has much in common with the Obamacare debate in which Obamacare advocates and opponents sparred over whether or not a business should be mandated by law to provide certain types of health care coverage. At the time, I noted that the while the media attempted to portray the controversy as a religious matter, it was really a debate over wages and contracts. 

Similarly, once we strip away all the culture-war grandstanding and claims of supporting enlightened free thought over Dark-Age superstition, what we find is that the debate over the Indiana law is a debate over the nature of private property, pure and simple. One group in this case advocates for a (regrettably limited) expansion of private property rights, while the other side argues for increased government regulation of private businesses and enterprises. 

Tom Cook and Marc Benioff, CEOs of Apple and Salesforce, respectively, have come out in favor of government regulation because they fear the possibility that someone somewhere might use his property in a way that Cook and Benioff find offensive. But at the core of their position is that it is good and legitimate for government to regulate the use of private property so it can be used only in ways that reflect the values of Cook’s and Benioff’s favored religious or socio-economic groups.

In spite of the perception of Cook and Benioff as capitalists of some sort, their grasp of the nature of private property appears shaky at best. If the concept of private property is to have any meaning at all, then ownership must include the ability to exclude others from using that property. In other words, if an owner of a plot of land or a device cannot exclude others from using that land or that device, then the owner does not actually own it. 

Furthermore, without the right to exclude, the “owner” is reduced to little more than a regulated caretaker.

Every Economic Act Involves Discrimination

In practice, the decision to exclude is always based on some type of discrimination. The type of discrimination can run the gamut from “you’re banned from my store because you groped customers” to “I don’t serve your (racial) kind.” In everyday life, the merchant, salesman, clerk, or owner of any kind must — because time is scarce — make constant discriminatory decisions as to whether or not he will do business with client A or client B. Indeed, every single economic act requires this sort of discrimination. A person may prefer to do business with more attractive people, or people who are friendlier. Or he may wish to work only with his co-religionists or citizens of his own nation-state. On a fundamental level, everyone knows this is the case, but many accept that it is the legitimate role of the state to decide which types of discrimination are acceptable and which are not. Hence, discrimination against unattractive people remains acceptable. Discrimination against certain racial groups is not.

Regardless of what groups end up being favored, the effect of any anti-discrimination law is to curtail the freedom of the owner and to increase the size and scope of government’s coercive power over the lives and livelihoods of property owners. Moreover, since anti-discrimination law is heavily dependent on proving intent and motivation, such regulation also puts the government in the position of investigating the thoughts and opinions of owners. Sometimes, owners make this easy for regulators by stating their motivations outright, but in other cases, private owners are investigated and inferences are made as to the feelings and views of owners. This is necessary because, since every business transaction requires some sort of discrimination, the mere act of not entering into a business transaction is not sufficient to prove not-government-approved discrimination.

The Effects of Discrimination Depend on Monopoly Power

 Finish reading

Please Don’t Awaken the Sleeping Church

Posted on March 25, 2015

By Al Benson Jr.

Recently on http://www.thedailybeast.com I read an article entitled: A Global Slaughter of Christians, but America’s Churches Stay Silent. It was written by a Kirsten Powers. I don’t know anything about this lady but she did posit some thoughts that American Christians should be thinking about and probably haven’t a clue about.

Anyone who has read my material in recent years realizes that I have grave questions about what the Church in this country is doing (and isn’t doing). The Church today seems to be submerged in what I would call a wait for the rapture, just be nice, the Lord’s in control and so we do nothing theology. 

That’s about the briefest way I can describe it and keep it civil.
Powers states in her article: “Christians in the Middle East and Africa are being slaughtered, tortured, raped, kidnapped, beheaded, and forced to flee the birthplace of Christianity. One would think this horror might be consuming the pulpits and pews of American churches. Not so. The silence has been nearly deafening.” She noted further down in the article an event that took place in Nairobi, Kenya that killed more than 70 people. She said: “The Associated Press reported that the Somali Islamic militant group al-Shabab ‘confirmed witness accounts that gunmen separated Muslims from other people and let the Muslims go free.’ The captives were asked questions about Islam. If they couldn’t answer, they were shot…In Syria, Christians are under attack by Islamist rebels and fear extinction if Bashar al-Assad falls.” It’s interesting that weve been told what a bad guy Assad in Syria is and yet Christians, it seems, have been safe under his government and they realize that if he goes, then their safety net is gone.

It’s the same game they played in Iraq a couple decades ago. We were all told what a scumbag Saddam Hussein was, and I will agree, he was no Sunday school teacher, but yet under his regime, Christians in Iraq were left alone. You can’t say that has been the case since. Christians in Iraq now are an endangered species. I find it interesting that in these instances, regimes that have not harassed Christians are the ones that our government has targeted. Any pattern here?

Powers has observed that: “American Christians are quite able to organize around issues that concern them. Yet religious persecution appears not to have grabbed their attention, despite worldwide media coverage of the atrocities against Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East.”

So what’s the problem with America’s churches? And what “issues” do they organize around that are so important that they easily overlook what happens to their brethren in other areas? Some organize to combat abortion. That’s good. No problem there except that not enough are doing it and not enough are concerned.
I am a Reformed Christian and so I expect I will make some folks mad with my comments, but I feel I have to say what I am saying here. This is a subject I have struggled with. Many churches and Christians today, and for over a century have been caught up in what I call “the rapture cult” (there was a book written by that same name around 30 years ago). The main idea is that the Lord could come back anytime now and so why be involved in anything political, educational, or culture changing because we won’t be here anyway—so just sit back and do nothing and don’t worry about it. You have to wonder where the rapture was for those poor folks getting slaughtered in the Middle East, or for all the martyrs over the centuries that have died for their faith, some of which are still dying for it. It almost seems that this rapture concept was invented for American Christians to keep them on the couch, and therefore doing nothing. Now understand, when I question the “rapture cult” I am not questioning the Lord’s second coming. Scripture says He will return and I believe that. I just don’t think it will happen in the next ten minutes like some of these folks do. Their belief in this neutralizes them.

Then there are the “just be nice” folks who don’t want to offend anyone, anywhere, at anytime and to call sin by its real name they’d have to do that, and so they don’t—anytime. Now admittedly, Christians shouldn’t run around trying to be ornery, but stop and think a bit. Obviously Jesus “offended” the Jewish religious establishment or they would not have schemed to get the Romans to nail Him to the cross. If you read the Gospels, Jesus spent quite a bit of time offending the Jewish religious establishment—and He did it not only by healing and helping people, often on the Sabbath, but He did it by telling that establishment the truth about Himself. They weren’t having any of that. Three years after He started His ministry they proved it. And they continued to prove it all the way through the Book of Acts if you care to read about it. Jesus told them that their religious establishment had become apostate and revolutionary and that He had come to inaugurate God’s Kingdom and do away with their religious establishment and that really ticked them off. It ticks off some Christians today, too, who feel that Christians ought to support political Zionism no matter what. This is a complicated subject and I will try to do another article on it later.

And, last but not least, at least for me, come the folks, many of them Reformed, who say “The Lord’s in control of it all, so why worry or get upset, just let Him take care of it all.” Again, let me state that I have never said the Lord wasn’t in control of all things. I don’t doubt He is, but, again, lots of folks use this as an excuse for doing nothing. If the Lord’s in control then He will sort it all out and I don’t have to do anything except go along for the ride. 

Another great neutralizer! The Lord’s in control, therefore, I don’t gotta do nothin’. I’ve talked with some of these folks and put forth the novel concept that, while the Lord is in control, maybe, just maybe, He wants to exercise some of that control through His people. That doesn’t go over real well. They don’t like that idea anymore than the Pharisees liked the idea of Jesus healing someone on the Sabbath.

I recently heard a minister say that maybe God is allowing Islam to do what it’s doing in this country and in Europe because the church is basically asleep, or so concerned about non-essential issues that it doesn’t have any time for what’s important. That might explain the great big yawn American Christians give when they hear about horrendous atrocities being committed against their brethren in the Middle East and Africa.

Somehow, American Christians seem to have been neutralized to the point where they really think “it can’t happen here.” They don’t realize that as long as they sit and do nothing about anything it will happen here and is happening while they enjoy spiritual slumber.

Between the Scofield Bible Notes, bland evangelicalism, and unconcerned “Reformers” the Church is in serious trouble in this country and in others as well.

 https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/please-dont-awaken-the-sleeping-church/

▶ AIPAC -- The Israeli Lobby - YouTube

Uploaded on Apr 3, 2011

The United States supports Israel in a variety of ways. We give them all sorts of military and economic support, roughly 3 billion dollars a year. Israel, despite the fact, it is a relatively rich country, receives more foreign aid than any other other country in the world. We veto resolutions in the United Nations all the time that are critical to Israel. Is one allowed to question that reality, or is the pro-Israel lobby so strong, financially and politically, that the relationship with Israel is taboo and therefore unmentionable? And what happens to those who dare expose the unmentionable?

In March 2006 the American political scientists John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to support and protect present-day Israel. Together with the power shifts in Congress and the increasing doubts about the current Middle-East policy, this could become the fuse in the powder keg. Backlight talks to the people concerned in this 'new realism' debate.

The documentary sheds light on both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the strong tie between the US and Israel (Neocon Richard Perle, televangelist John Hagee, and lobby organization AIPAC), and those who were critical of it and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby. 

Member of Congress Earl Hilliard from Alabama advocated a rapprochement with the Arab world and was promptly ousted by a political adversary who had the support of Aipac money. 

Historian Tony Judt, who tried to maintain that Israel was becoming a belligerent and intolerant ethno-state, driven by religion, found a lecture cancelled at the last minute. And Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth was personally attacked after he had criticised the violence Israel had used in the mini-war against Lebanon last summer.
 
Finally the question arises to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's ex chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House. The lobby, Congress, the White House and Israel itself seem to have ended up in a suffocating embrace: will it ever change and how could it? Tony Judt and Richard Perle conclude by raising the crucial matters: what is the alternative? And what other friends can Israel count on?
Related Articles
The Israel lobby in United Kingdom - Who Runs Britain?
Israel Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran!
Defamation - Behind the Scenes of the ADL
The Dark Side of the Anti-Defamation League

For more documentaries: http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com/

Israeli Flag Flies in Texas

How can an elected US representative sworn by oath to support and defend our Constitution still purvey allegiance to another? She's what they're calling a "conservative Republican" these days. Many would regard her as a traitor and counterfeit Christian. You decide.

February 23, 2015   AFP  

By Trevor LaBonte —

AUSTIN, Texas—“Blessed are you, Lord God, Creator of the Universe. You have supplied us all that we need for life and productivity. I pray that you will bless Israel, especially in oil productivity. Father, I ask that you will lead the engineers to find the riches of the world hidden deep beneath the surface of the Earth. May all those involved have ears to hear your voice as you lead them to the vast oil fields in Israel. 

In Jesus name I pray, amen.” So go the words of Texas state representative and “Christian Zionist” Molly Suzanne White, on the Zion Oil and Gas Facebook page in 2014.

Why did Representative White feel the need to ask God to bless an Israeli company? According to financial disclosure reports, she is also an investor in the Israeli company. This is the same Texas state representative who was recently caught up in considerable controversy when she decided to place an Israeli flag on the reception desk in the entrance of her state office.

“Today is Texas Muslim Capital day [sic] in Austin,” White explained in a statement on the Internet. “The House is in recess until Monday. Most members including myself are back in district. I did leave an Israeli flag on the reception desk in my office with instructions to staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws. We will see how long they stay in my office.”

Whatever one may think about Islam, White’s ridiculous demonstration shows she understands little of what is going on in the Mideast.

White wants everyone to accept United States law, so why not place a Texas flag on her desk? Or simply Old Glory?

Her obvious political and financial ties with the illegitimate, border-less, constitution-less, usurping Zionist entity more than call into question her own commitment to America and Texas.

Her explanation was that she wants Muslims to apologize for terrorism, even though considerable evidence proves that Israel, not Muslims, was behind the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington. Osama bin Laden was never charged with the attack officially because the Federal Bureau of Investigation could not produce evidence that he had anything to do with it.

In addition, this newspaper has been reporting that other Islamic terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Jahbat al Nusra and Islamic State have been armed, funded and trained by the Israelis and their proxies. Their mission has been to terrorize and weaken the region to make way for the “Greater Israel” project, which allows Israel to completely absorb Palestine and spread beyond its current borders into Egypt and Jordan.

Representative White is clearly playing along with the Jewish state’s propaganda, but she faced an intense firestorm of criticism by outraged Americans who are aware of Israel’s many deceptions.

And while White would like to blame all terrorism on Muslims, she neglects to mention the long history of bloody terrorist acts carried out by Israel over the last century, including Israel’s long history of treacherous false-flag operations blamed on Muslims. These include the King David Hotel Bombing, the “Lavon Affair,” the June 8, 1967 USS Liberty attack and, of course, 9-11.

This reporter reached out Representative White’s office as well Texas Governor Greg Abbott for a statement. After repeated attempts to contact them, neither could be bothered to respond.

Trevor LaBonte is a writer and musician who lives in Austin, Texas. 

Posted in: National News

"Standing with Israel" is Anti-Christian, Anti-Jewish & Anti-American (32m Documentary)

Christian Zionism: The Tragedy and The Turning, Part I (Full Documentary) from WHTT on Vimeo.

"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person." - Socialism

Republican Think Tanks - Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing & Evangelist Cleric Attire

By J.B. Williams
February 25, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Today’s Democratic Party is run by numerous left-wing think tanks set up to infiltrate and hijack the party, moving it further and further left, making it the greatest threat to American sovereignty and security today. 

From Rockefellers Trilateral Commission to avowed communist Roger Baldwin’s ACLU, the Council on Foreign Relations to the Democratic Socialists of America and their congressional progressive and black caucuses, the DNC is run entirely by international leftists hell-bent upon destroying America’s Constitutional Republic.

Through these groups, today’s Democratic Party has progressively evolved into America’s Communist Party, as explained in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Although many American democrats are completely unaware, reality is inescapable at this stage of progression. The DNC is now our nation’s most powerful anti-American political organization.

We cannot afford to overlook the propaganda machine of the international left either, without whom, they could never convince Americans to commit national suicide in the election booth. This machine includes academia, the news agencies and the entertainment industry. When the oldest Communist Publication in America, Mother Jones, becomes the primary source of information for all American news agencies, the death of the free press has already happened.

But what about the Republican think tanks? Are they really any less dangerous? What are they really promoting?

Far worse than any overt enemy, is a covert enemy operating within… The one thing that is worse than the known enemy down the street is finding out that your wife has been sleeping with that enemy, feeding them information, while misdirecting and undermining your efforts to defend the family against that enemy.

Operating as public policy research centers, these organizations were developed and formed by inside the DC beltway power-brokers, with the aim and intent of influencing public policy at the national level. Today’s most influential Republican Think Tanks are Heritage Foundation and evangelical Christian David Barton’s Wall Builders.

Each of these organizations claims to be “conservative” policy research centers, and each has been increasingly influential in Republican Party policies for several years now.
 

Tina Benkiser, Josh Flynn, David Barton of Wallbuilders

Yet, most conservatives across the country agree that the Republican Party no longer represents the true will of American conservatives, those who still revere our Founding documents, principles and values as the key to freedom and liberty via a Constitutional Republic. How did this happen, with “conservative policy research centers” like Heritage Foundation and Wall Builders advising inside the DC beltway Republicans and the Republican National Committee?

The enemy you know is much less dangerous than the enemy masquerading as your friend. Inside the beltway gadflies, concerned only with their own level of influence with the political rich and famous in DC, have turned out to be our most dangerous enemies of all and they too, have a massive propaganda machine in the Republican talking heads.

In a Constitutional Republic, all power is inherent in the people, all governments derive their power from the people, and all governmental powers are balanced between enumerated federal authority, states’ rights, local authority and individual rights, all defined by the U.S. Constitution and each State Constitution, protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights.

A conservative organization will be focused entirely upon conserving, protecting and preserving these fundamental foundational precepts, upholding and defending the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our Republican form of government, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Is that what the Republican Think Tanks are doing today?

The answer to this question can be found in these organization’s position papers on topics like States Tenth Amendment Rights. The trick is to frame the discussion around a red herring label, like nullification, and then cherry-pick quotes from Founders and court opinions (which have no constitutional force of law) that destroy states’ and individual rights via destroying the red herring.

Like all rights protected by the Bill of Rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are either enforceable, or they don’t exist at all. There is no such thing as inalienable rights which we cannot enforce. If they are not enforceable, they don’t exist.

The 9th states – “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – This means that all authority not delegated to the federal government via enumerated powers in the Constitution, remain under the authority of the people.

The 10th states – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – This means that all political powers not delegated to the federal government via the U.S. Constitution, remain under the authority of the people and the states.

Every American conservative reads these powers as clear, unconditional and absolute. But this is not the position of the Republican Public Policy Centers today.

Heritage Foundation stands opposed to states and individual rights in their red herring arguments against nullification, using a special blend of false history and cherry-picked court opinions and quotes to proclaim that the states and the people are entirely subservient to federal authority under an unbridled “supremacy clause” which establishes a despotic federal power, protected by a nine-member unelected and unaccountable oligarchy, the Supreme Court.

Evangelical history revisionist David Barton and his Wall Builders agree, the states and the people have no right to enforce states or individual rights, other than in the voting booth.

Both use red herring arguments, such as “Democrat President Andrew Jackson wanted to shoot the nullifiers…” – so what, who cares? Democrat President Bill Clinton wanted to shoot Monica Lewinsky for hanging on to that stained dress too… Nixon wanted to shoot the people who caught him in Watergate. Big deal…

If Barton and Heritage Foundation are right, that the states and people have constitutional rights, but no way to enforce those rights, then the states’ and the people have no rights at all. 

If the Republican Think Tanks are right, that states and individual rights are somehow “unconstitutional,” then what we have today is not a Constitutional Republic, but rather a despotic federal authority protected by an unelected and politically motivated nine-member oligarchy.

Continue reading...

UN Guidelines: Recruiting Religious Leaders as “Agents of Change” for One World Religion

Posted by Charleston Voice, 05.23.12

Be sure to visit our blog on Abortion & Warren Buffett's Role as Sponsor

 

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
May 23, 2012

In its 2009 Guideluines for Engaging Faith-based Organizations (FBO’s) As Agents of Change, the UNFPA put out specific tricks to reach congregations unwilling to go along with the UN’s population control programs:

“UNFPA has found that leaders of faith ‐ and interfaith ‐ based organizations are open to discussing reproductive health, if issues are addressed with care and sensitivity.”

These “agents of change” should also be recruited to protect and promote the overall agenda “through countering misinformation campaigns and building social support within the governments for the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development).”

Christianity and the State

Adapted from Christianity and the State

The original constitutional settlement did not propose a "separation of Church and State," although that phrase is increasingly used by the courts to sum up the constitutional position. Because all the states had their own religious settlements or establishments, the First Amendment simply barred Congress or the Federal Government from entering into an area where jurisdiction was reserved to the states. 

The states had the right to make such establishments or settlements as they or their subordinate bodies, the counties and cities, chose to make. Only after the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to all states was there a denial of the power of the states to make such establishments. To return to the so-called problem of "Church and State," there is no possibility of any resolution of the basic issue until the question is properly formulated. To speak of a church and state problem is to foreclose any solution.

What then is the basic problem? Not only is every church a religious institution, but every state or social order is a religious establishment. Every state is a law order, and every law order represents an enacted morality, with procedures for the enforcement of that morality. Every morality represents a form of theological order, i.e., is an aspect and expression of a religion. The church thus is not the only religious institution; the state also is a religious institution. More often than the church, the state has been the central religious institution of most civilizations through the centuries. The war between the Roman Empire and the early church was a religious warfare, a struggle between two claimants who represented rival religions and wanted to order society in terms of their faith. The claims of each faith were total claims, as all religious claims are. Thus, American Puritans held that the Bible is "the revealed truth and the source of all reason and morality." Similarly, humanists today believe that the affirmation of the autonomy of man and his mind constitutes the source of all true reason and morality.

To return to the basic problem today, the real issue is not between church and state, but is simply this: the state as a religious establishment has progressively disestablished Christianity as its law foundation, and, while professing neutrality, has in fact established humanism as the religion of the state. When the religion of a people changes, its laws inevitably reflect that change and conform themselves to the new faith and the new morality. There has been deception on the part of the courts, by their profession of religious neutrality, as they have substituted one religion for another, humanism for Christianity. The basic reason, however, has been the theological collapse of the churches, and this has been true of all of them. In the dominant evangelical circles, this collapse came first. Hudson has referred to this as "the deeper malady,...the theological erosion which had taken place during the nineteenth century." In evangelicalism, "Doctrinal definitions tended to be neglected in the stress that was placed upon ‘heart religion' and the ‘conversion experience'." This theological collapse led to the untenable belief in religious neutralism and to the surrender of Christian schools for statist education. As a result, humanism became the established religion of state and school, and, by infiltration, of the churches as well.

As a result, in most countries today, and no less in the United States, humanism is the established religion of the state and is progressively the source of legal revisionism.

Humanism is also the established religion of schools and most churches, and most of society. Christianity is quite logically progressively excluded from state, school and church and has a weak and scarcely tenable position in modern life. It probably lacks extensive and organized persecution in most countries because orthodox Christianity has become progressively weaker and less and less relevant.
Any revival of Christian strength will thus precipitate major conflict, in that it will constitute a threat to the humanistic establishment. In recent years, few have feared the church, because the church has been impotent and itself an ally of humanism. There are evidences now that this may change.
Unless the state is under the triune God, there is no hope for freedom for either the church or men. If the state is its own god and its own source of morality, then the state can do no wrong, and no man has then the right or freedom to differ from or to challenge the state.
Again, if the state is equated with government, there is then no freedom for man, because freedom is inseparable from self-government under God.
 
Thus, the Christian community must assert the priority of God’s law-word as binding on all of life, including church, state, and school. Christians must once again take over government in education, welfare, health, and other spheres. Basic to this take-over is tithing.
At times in the past, the conflict between church and state has been an institutional conflict, sometimes for power, and often for very principled reasons of jurisdiction. It is more than a jurisdictional dispute now: it is religious conflict, and a war unto death. The modern humanistic state is history’s most jealous god, and it will tolerate no rivals. 

Hence, its war against Christianity. In this struggle, however, the state has taken on a power far greater than itself. As the humanistic world powers take “counsel together against the LORD, and against His anointed,” planning to overthrow His law and government, “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision” (Ps. 2:4). He shall break His enemies with a rod of iron.

via  Christianity and the State