Search Blog Posts

Showing posts with label NWO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NWO. Show all posts

Thursday, September 25, 2014

AMERICA's MARXIST TEACHER UNIONS

Molding Our Children into World Citizens for the New World Order

"Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are...[a] National Department of Education...the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society."   - - William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)


"Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent."
  - - John Dewey, 1899, our "father" of education

Many non-governmental organizations have been influential in the orgy of spending tax money to corrupt education, for their selfish interests, while claiming the pure motive of helping our children acquire quality education. The two most powerful of these are the American Federation of Teachers(AFT) and the National Education Association(NEA).
 
The American Federation of Teachers was organized in 1916. From the beginning it has been a militant, Marxist organization, using force, politics, pressure, and propaganda to gain control over teachers and thus build power for itself. The AFT never did achieve a large national membership. Its strength has always been concentrated in a few eastern cities - mainly, New York City. But the AFT influence on public education in the U.S. has been enormous, for two political reasons: first, during the critical period of the 1930s, such people as John Dewey and Norman Thomas were members of the AFT; and second, rivalry between the AFT and the NEA helped induce the NEA to adopt the socialist tactics of the AFT.
 
The National Education Association was organized in 1862. In 1906, Congress conferred upon it a federal charter, to work as a professional organization in the field of education. For a long time, the NEA did operate as a professional group, publishing information helpful to classroom teachers, trying to improve the quality of teachers and of teaching in public schools. But by the mid-1930s, the NEA - like its rival, the AFT - was militant and Marxist. The NEA became the foremost leader of the drive that was begun by John Dewey educationists in the American Federation of Teachers - the drive to create "an educational program for a socialist America," which would be governed by an elite of professional educator-politicians.
 
By the 1960s the NEA had a stranglehold on American public education. Today, NEA officials hold so many key positions in the Department of Education that the NEA practically runs that federal agency, which dispenses billions of tax dollars. NEA influence on Congress, the Supreme Court, and local state senators and assemblymen is also powerful. The NEA works with monopolistic unions, huge tax-exempt foundations, racial-agitation organizations, the National Council of Churches, and similar groups, lobbying for court decisions and big-spending federal and state programs.
 
For years, the NEA pretended that it was not a union, and claimed to be opposed to teacher strikes. The NEA's malign influence and political pressures on elected officials can never be fully measured, but can be indicated by the words of its own spokesmen. In 1970, NEA President George Fischer said: "We will put the fear of God in politicians all over the country. We plan to make it political suicide to vote against kids and educations." And so it came to be.
 
One irony in all this is that the NEA's political lobbying is an open and direct violation of the federal tax law which gives it tax exemption. The Internal Revenue Service has never revoked that tax exemption.
 
Today, we have created the most extensive and expensive educational system that has ever existed in the history of the world. Yet, it graduates thousands of young people who cannot spell, write a correct sentence, work a simple arithmetic problem, or read with understanding. They have no worthwhile skills. They do not even know the alphabet well enough to work effectively as file clerks. The present American educational system has left a generation of Americans largely ignorant of the moral, economic, political, and spiritual principles on which the greatness of our nation is founded. It has brainwashed a generation of Americans into accepting the illegal conversion of our Constitutional Republic into a tyrannical, inefficient socialist-welfare state. It scorns individual excellence and extols mass mediocrity. Can you really be sure your children won't come out any different?

Many a person has supported federal aid to education because he thought that getting "federal money" to help pay for schools in his district would ease his local tax burden. The opposite has happened. As federal and state taxes increase to pay for increased aid, the increased aid creates and mandates more expensive educational systems - which are still financed in large part by local taxes on real estate. Throughout the United States, all taxes are going up because of the costly (and unconstitutional) state and federal programs we have permitted.
 
So, when the teacher unions run full-page ads to "save our schools", we know they really do mean their schools - not ours.

 


More Sketches: Building Enemies|ACLU|IPS|CNSS|Rhodes|Fulbright|CDI|FOR|NLG|FRB|AFSC

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

US Govt Cover-up of Israeli False Flag Attack on US Navy Ship, 1967

USS Liberty after being attacked by Israel Air Force June 8, 1967 (file photo) - I was stationed in Turkey at the time with the USCG and I assure you the Turks, being Moslem,  were very displeased (understandably so) with us! [for the US response to Israel's unprovoked attack on our Navy ship, go here]
Posted By Justin Raimondo On January 15, 2012

Will Israel succeed in dragging us into war with Iran?

If not, it won’t be for lack of trying. Their influential lobby in the US has been agitating for a US strike since the last year of the Bush presidency, when they almost succeeded in pulling it off: fortunately for us, Bush demurred, perhaps because he didn’t want his legacy to be two unwinnable and disastrous wars instead of just one.

Israel was to be the spearhead, with the US providing back up support, as the Guardian reported at the time:

“Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.”
 
Deterred from firing the first shots of World War III, the Israelis didn’t give up. Instead, they turned to other less direct means to achieve their goal. As Mark Perry reports on foreignpolicy.com:

“Buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush’s administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives – what is commonly referred to as a ‘false flag’ operation.”
You bet those memos are buried deep – lest Americans discover that their faithful “allies” are trying to implicate them in war crimes.

Jundallah is a terrorist organization, Sunni-oriented and linked to al-Qaeda, that has murdered Iranian civilians in bombings and other attacks within Iran: their ostensible goal is to “liberate” Iranian (and Pakistani) Baluchistan. According to the memos, the Israelis recruited these terrorists right out in the open in London, where Mossad operatives – posing as CIA officers – met with Jundallah officials. “It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with,” Perry quotes one intelligence officer as saying. “They apparently didn’t give a damn what we thought.”

Of course not – and why should they? After all, we’ve given them a pass every time: when Jonathan Pollard stole what US officials described as the intelligence community’s “crown jewels” and passed them off to the Russians; when they stole our trade and military secrets and passed them off to China: when they were tracking the 9/11 conspirators and didn’t tell us what Mohammed Atta and his crew were up to. They took our “foreign aid” with one hand, and stabbed us in the back with the other.

What did we do about it, and what were the consequences for the Israelis?

The answer is: nothing, and none: nor has the story changed much this time around. Perry reports:

“A senior administration official vowed to ‘take the gloves off’ with Israel… but the United States did nothing – a result that the officer attributed to ‘political and bureaucratic inertia.’”

“’In the end,’ the officer noted, ‘it was just easier to do nothing than to, you know, rock the boat.’ Even so, at least for a short time, this same officer noted, the Mossad operation sparked a divisive debate among Bush’s national security team, pitting those who wondered ‘just whose side these guys [in Israel] are on’ against those who argued that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’”
 
Oh well, I suppose you could call the cancellation of those planned joint US-Israeli military exercises more than nothing. Although Washington is claiming the cancellation is due to a desire to dial down tensions in the region, that didn’t stop them from ordering their warships to the Persian Gulf. In any case, the cancellation of “Austere Challenge 12” will hardly stop the Israelis from pursuing their plan to provoke the Iranians into attacking US facilities and/or personnel in the region. After all, since there are never any significant consequences attendant on their bad behavior, what have they got to lose?

The Americans don’t dare come out in public and take Tel Aviv to task: the powerful Israel lobby would have the President’s scalp, and Congress – aptly characterized as “Israeli-occupied territory” by the politically incorrect Pat Buchanan – would probably pass a resolution condemning their own President if Obama dared step out of line. And then there is all that campaign money the Democrats hope to scarf up this worrisome election season: taking the Israelis out to the wood shed would enrage the big money-bags who make unconditional support for Israel the price of their support.

Why should the Israelis care that their actions put US personnel in jeopardy, inviting attacks in kind from Tehran? Iranian attacks on US military personnel stationed in Iraq could easily inflict thousands of casualties, and this is especially true now that the US footprint is considerably reduced – but that would be the Americans’ problem. The Israelis, for their part, had the perfect “false flag” operation going: neither the Iranians nor top Jundallah cadre knew where the support was really coming from.

Jundallah’s leader, Abdolmalek Rigi,was captured by the Iranians and executed in the summer of 2010: before he was offed, however, he did an interview with Iranian media in the course of which he recalled a 2007 meeting in Morocco with a group of individuals who were supposed to be “NATO officials: “When we thought about it,” said Rigi, “we came to the conclusion that they are either Americans acting under NATO cover or Israelis.”

Rigi was just another pawn in the game as far as Israelis are concerned: they aren’t too particular about the types of unwitting allies they recruit. Rigi personally murdered his brother-in-law for disobeying orders, cutting his head off while Dan Rather’s cameras rolled.

Kidnappings are a Jundallah favorite, along with videotaped decapitations. The Israelis have a whole collection of such charming types: they are arming and training the separatists of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), who conduct terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Turkey, and are doing the same for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a weird Marxist cult formerly succored by Saddam Hussein, which has carried out terrorist attacks in Iran.

These are the allies and proxies of “the only democracy in the Middle East”!

The tactical objective behind Israeli support for Jundallah is simple: magnifying tensions between the US and Iran takes us farther down the road to war. When Rigi was captured and “confessed” on Iranian television, he averred that he was a tool of the CIA and claimed he had recently been on a US military base in Afghanistan: no doubt the Israelis were well pleased with their “student.” He had learned his lessons well.

Israeli sponsorship of Jundallah, the PKK, and MEK all point to Tel Aviv’s underlying strategic perspective, and that is a policy of sowing chaos whenever and wherever possible. If the idea is to atomize Israel’s neighbors, and reduce them to a condition of internal chaos, then this is surely the best way to go about it: by sponsoring every separatist and violently crazed sect that will take their cash.

“Flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports,” as Perry put it, the Israelis arrived in London on the lookout for recruits. We know where those American dollars came from – straight out of the pockets of American taxpayers, who are forced to shell out over $3 billion every year in “foreign aid” to Israel. But what about those American passports? Maybe they came from the same place these passports originated. In the brouhaha over the Mossad’s theft of passports in New Zealand, Great Britain, Ireland, France, and elsewhere, no mention was ever made of any “cloned” American passports – but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

The Israelis cannot take out Iran all on their own: they need the US to deliver the death blow and execute a program of “regime change” on the ground. Then and only then will their goal of regional hegemony be realized. That’s why they’ve mobilized all their resources, including their numerous and vocal political allies in the United States, to pull out all the stops and provoke a shooting war between the US and Iran. That such an event would lead to an economic downturn that would make the present one seem relatively prosperous is irrelevant, from the narrow perspective of a rabid Israeli nationalist. And that is precisely who is making policy in Israel today: the most extreme right-wing ultra-nationalist government since the founding of the Jewish state.

To these extremists, the Americans are an obstacle rather than a valued ally. And they have increasing power in Israel, in the government and in society at large. Fundamentalists are pushing the separation of the sexes, and the powerful religious parties are campaigning for expanded “settlements,” i.e. more provocations aimed at the downtrodden Palestinians.

Isn’t it time we gave our “special relationship” with Israel a second look? As Israeli agents covertly seek to incite the peoples of the Middle East – including the Iranians – against us, one has to wonder, like those intelligence analysts cited above: just whose side are these guys on, anyway?
 
The answer is: they’re on their own side. The question Perry’s scoop ought to raise in the mind of every American is: when are we going to start being on our own side?

Source

You might like this: DC Appeals Court Brief Claims AIPAC is an Israeli Foreign Agent in Violation of IRS Regulations

Friday, September 12, 2014

Communists, Socialists, Republican Neocons & DSA Conspire to Merge the US in the NAU under Tutelage of CFR

Treason to be sure, but why is your state legislature so reticent to inform you why they are coalescing to surrender their citizen's liberty? Would be nice to hear how the state national guards feel about being sold out at the top.

Faux Conservatives Defend the North American Union

Written by  Daniel Sayani

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 2005 report “Building a North American Community" not only clearly outlined how George W. Bush’s lax policy on illegal immigration served to build the foundation of a North American Union, but also revealed the extent of Republican influence toward the creation of the NAU. 

Republican task force members who authored the blueprint for the NAU include Heidi Cruz (Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice), Richard Falkenrath (Bush’s Deputy Homeland Security Adviser and fellow at the neoconservative Brookings Institution), and Carla Hills (a former Assistant Attorney General and U.S. Trade Representative under Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush).

Most revealing among the group is William Weld, a stereotypical Establishment Republican: socially well-heeled, wealthy, Anglo-American, Episcopalian, and socially liberal, in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller. A former prosecutor under the Reagan administration and Governor of Massachusetts, Weld authored an op-ed, “North America the Beautiful,” in the Wall Street Journal of March 23, 2005, advocating a North American Union, and coached Bush during his 2004 debates against John Kerry. He helped steer the judicial structure of Massachusetts in a pro-gay marriage direction through his appointment of African National Congress-linked Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court (the ANC is a member of the Socialist International). Weld himself also moonlights as a gay marriage celebrant, and offers his services pro bono to the Log Cabin Republicans.

Weld endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, and was internationalist President Bill Clinton’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Mexico in 1996. Then-Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) courageously blocked Weld’s nomination because of his pervasive liberal stances, as reported by "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer":

Senator Helms does not like what this governor stands for when it comes to drug policy, doesn’t think it’s appropriate to have [as] the United States ambassador to Mexico, where we have one of the biggest problems, that is, the importation of drugs from Mexico, a man who is more than soft on drugs. He [Weld] is a libertarian on drug use, believes that drugs should be de-criminalized or legalized.

His record as a United States attorney ranked him, I think, in the bottom two or three when it came to drug prosecutions, so his personal philosophy on drugs carried over to his official duties, so it’s argued. 

On top of that, conservatives in the Republican Party would be displeased to see a man like Governor Weld [as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico], who has been so in-your-face about his views compared to those of what Republicans like to think of as their mainstream conservative views.

Helms, notably a good friend of Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga.), was the only senator to open an inquiry into the Soviet shoot-down of KAL Flight 007, which claimed the life of McDonald, who was formerly the Chairman of The John Birch Society.

Not surprisingly, Weld’s comrade, Governor Paul Cellucci (R-Mass.), also a social liberal in the Weld form, is another advocate of the North American Union. In a 2006 speech before the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute, Cellucci argued for North American economic integration and the inevitable supranational entity it would create:

Incrementally, we will continue to integrate our economies because I believe it is in each of our national interests to do so. And along the way, I think we’ll do a couple of things and I think that, well more than a couple of things, but ... I think we’ll ... 10 years from now, or maybe 15 years from now we’re going to look back and have a union in everything but name.

It is this philosophy of government which provides a theoretical foundation for those who advocate a North American Union, which will seek to impose such socialistic policies. Rather than American ideals of limited government leading the way, neo-socialist Red Tory ideals of social democracy will provide the building blocks of such a regional entity.

A Socialist North American Union

Aside from the near-socialistic policies revered by Segal and Bush masquerading as “conservatism,” avowed socialists, too, have been proponents of a North American Union (although, the fact that the NAU effort is being led by leftists masquerading as conservatives is deeply revealing, and serves to deceive the American people).

For instance, former Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.) has been another leading advocate for the NAU, and his record shows his leftist tendencies. Bonior founded the American Rights at Work union advocacy group, and was honored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in December 2008 for his policies. Unsurprisingly, he was also appointed to President Obama’s Economic Advisory Transition Team, and was previously a keynote speaker at DSA’s annual convention in 2003, where he spoke on the virtues and merits of a North American Parliamentary Union:

NAPU — short for North American Parliamentary Union — is an attempt to create a structure where there is wider participation in this decision-making. It would be a democratic structure to enfranchise all citizens in the NAFTA countries. A North America Parliament, with Mexico, Canada and the United States, with people — probably first appointed, but eventually elected like they are in the European Parliament — so we can begin to raise these issues of human rights, civil rights and labor rights and immigration, which never get talked about here.

Another prominent socialist advocate for the NAU is Stewart Alexander, former U.S. Socialist Party Vice Presidential candidate in 2008, who proposed a common U.S.-Mexican currency (i.e., the Amero that is being planned as a common currency for the North American Union, similar to the Euro), as well as a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) for working people on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.

To accomplish his goal, Stewart Alexander says it will be necessary to restructure the entire banking industry: All banking and financial institutions would be socially owned, and operated by a North American Banking Authority that would be democratically controlled.

Yet another such advocate is former Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Jorge Castaneda Gutman, previously a leader in the Mexican Communist Party. An advocate of social democracy, he who wrote the following glowing approbation for the NAU:

Well, my sense is that we’re moving closer and closer to forms of economic integration with the United States and Canada and conceivably Central America and Caribbean could become part of that in the coming years. I don’t see Mexico as a Latin American country. 

Too much of trade, investment, tourism, immigration, remittances, absolutely everything is concentrated exclusively with the United States. So, Mexico has to be part of a North American community, a North American union, which at some point probably should include some type of monetary union along European lines with a free flow of labor, with energy being on the table, etc.

Castaneda is also best known for his stealth work advocating the deceptive, nuanced principles of Eurocommunism as a means of accomplishing subtle, stealthy communist revolution. In his 1993 book Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War, Castaneda argues that in order for communism to succeed in the 21st century, it must shed its former image of street revolution and totalitarian violence in favor of more palatable mechanisms of communist change, including new social movements, transnational governments, elections, and the same principles identified by Segal, such as social democracy. Castaneda, incidentally, has co-authored several books with Professor Robert Pastor, who is considered the father of the North American Union.

Whether the NAU is publicly advocated by Republican neoconservatives or outright Democratic Socialists, history demonstrates that those who favor such transnational, regionalized governments are also advocates of an expansive government, the welfare state, and nationalized industry.

Interestingly, history demonstrates that regional governments along the lines of the North American Union, the African Union, and the European Union have been long-desired goals of the communists: If national borders are eradicated, and nations consolidated into continental blocs, than the goal of a one-world government is more easily attained. Morris Zeitlin, a writer for the Communist Party USA’s Daily World, observed in a 1975 editorial:

Planning is Socialism’s trademark. The USA has no regional government and no comprehensive regional planning to speak of. In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic social progress.

Likewise, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev on March 23, 2000, in London, referred to the European Union (EU) as "the New European Soviet.” KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, in his book New Lies for Old, revealed that the creation of a European Parliament would result in a neutered, socialist Europe, and former British intelligence officer Christopher Story properly identified the communizing aim of the European Union in his exposé, The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States.

The North American Union would be yet another collective regional government, a new North American Soviet, that would clearly be the enemy of United States sovereignty. (NAU proponent Segal’s damning critique of the very foundations of the United States are a clear example of this phenomenon at play.)

Unsurprisingly, it is a coalition of overt socialists and leftists masquerading as conservatives that is leading the drive toward the North American Union, as evident in the latest push for continental integration being led by all shades of faux conservatives — the Red Tory “progressive conservative” Hugh Segal, moderate Republicans William Weld and Paul Cellucci, and “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush, all of whom are ideological peas in a pod.
Source TNA

Monday, September 8, 2014

NATO Being Positioned As Police Force for New World Order

Could our worldwide crisis actually not be an Islamic war on Christianity, but an unbridled  Islamic resistance to the rapidly shaping NWO of which the US is the leading sponsor, financially, materially, and manpower (casualties) - - - Hmmm....what are you thinking? 

Not to be overlooked is we have established ourselves with a strong presence on the African continent under AFRICOM. (America’s Expanding Secret War in Africa)
Again, all our money and debt which is in the trillions now.


   
JBS CEO Art Thompson's weekly news video update for September 8 - 14, 2014.

In this week's analysis behind the news video, JBS CEO Art

Thompson discusses how a photo in the Wall Street Journal for September 5 reveals a Russian cargo plane being loaded in Germany with supplies bound for Communist Iraqi Kurds; and how news stories from around the world the past couple years reveal the positioning of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a United Nations subsidiary organization, to become the police force for the New World Order.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

THE WAR PRAYER - Mark Twain *vid*



Uploaded on Apr 13, 2011 
Featured at Animation Film Screening at OSA Archivum in Budapest, Hungary to commemorate UN Human Rights Day, December 9, 2010. 
From OSA Program: The War Prayer (Markos Kounalakis, USA, 2006, 14 min) Based on Mark Twain's piece "The War Prayer," a short story written in the heat of the Philippine-American war of 1899-1902 offering a poignant reflection on the double-edged moral sword implicit to war. 

Followed by discussion with Markos Kounalakis, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Media and Communication Studies at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary and President and Publisher Emeritus of the Washington Monthly. Moderator -- Oksana Sarkisova, Film Historian, OSA Archivum. 

From Wikipedia Notes: "The War Prayer," a short story or prose poem by Mark Twain, is a scathing indictment of war, and particularly of blind patriotic and religious fervor as motivations for war. The structure of the work is simple, but effective: an unnamed country goes to war, and patriotic citizens attend a church service for soldiers who have been called up. The people call upon their God to grant them victory and protect their troops. Suddenly, an "aged stranger" appears and announces that he is God's messenger. 

He explains to them that he is there to speak aloud the second part of their prayer for victory, the part which they have implicitly wished for but have not spoken aloud themselves: the prayer for the suffering and destruction of their enemies. What follows is a grisly depiction of hardships inflicted on war-torn nations by their conquerors. 

Robert Welch in 1974 reveals NWO - *vid*

To many of you this brief video clip will be familiar, for other patriotic Americans it's a must view. Convince me the goals outlined in 1974 aren't still at hand and on our plate.


Uploaded on Oct 26, 2008


In 1958, then later here in 1974 at the John Birch Society dinner, Robert Welch reveals the NWO agenda to induce the gradual surrender of America's sovereignty to various international organizations.


Sunday, August 17, 2014

The Unwinding of Western Economies and the Next Golden Bull

Jay Taylor
Jay Taylor on the Unwinding of Western Economies and the Next Golden Bull
With Anthony Wile - August 17, 2014
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Jay Taylor
Daily Bell: Hi, Jay. Thanks for sitting down with us again. What's new with you? Any publications or conferences you want to mention or special appearances? What are you focusing on in your radio show lately?

Jay Taylor: I am now more focused on the gold and silver mining sector than I have been in a long time because I believe this is the most exciting time to pick up junior gold and silver mining stocks that I have seen since I began covering this sector back in 1981. 

The perfect storm for gold is very near, as many decades of lethal socialist economics is destroying capital and capitalism. When the fragility of the global monetary system is recognized by all, value will rapidly flee fiat currencies and return to gold. Thus, the holders of gold will hold true capital in the form of honest money, namely gold and to a lesser extent, silver. We are in a process of massive deleveraging of the financial system and historically, we know from over the past 300 years that when that takes place, the real value of gold rises dramatically and with that the gold mining industry enters a prolonged gold bull market. We are nearing the final leg up in the gold bull market, which I believe will take place over the next five years. With that, I believe fortunes will be made by those invested in gold and silver mining shares.

So given this view, I am staying focused on the gold and silver mining sector and I'm also using my web-based radio show, "Turning Hard Times into Good Times," to try to help as many people as possible learn about what the real reasons for our economic malaise is and what is actually true about American foreign policy. Both economic and foreign policy are so afflicted by an Orwellian fog that most American voters at best have the IQ of a moron when it comes to understanding the important issues – which is by the design of our establishment. So with the help of countless fabulous guests the message is getting across not only in America but around the world. My show can be listened to live on the Voice America Business channel every Tuesday between 3:00 and 4:00 PM and you can download each show the following day at JayTaylorMedia.com. I have a long list of amazing guests like Jimmy Rogers, David Stockman, Ron Paul, Marc Faber, Doug Casey, Eric Sprott, John Hathaway, Edward Griffin, Howard Davidowitz, Ian McAvity, James Turk, Mish Shedlock, Richard Maybury, Rick Rule, Robert Prechter, and Lewis Lehrman to name a few.

To help on the geopolitical side in terms of what is actually happening, as opposed to the mainstream media version, I have Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity with me almost every week. But aside from Daniel, other outstanding guests along those lines have included the likes of John Perkins and Daniel Estulin. And I also frequently have the GATA guys on my show because I think there is little doubt but that the gold markets are being capped to keep a frenzy out of paper into real money because the day that happens, it will be the end of the Anglo-American empire.

Given my extreme bullishness on the mining shares that is, of course, the main focus of my newsletter, "J Taylor's Gold, Energy & Tech Stocks," which can be accessed here.

As far as appearances are concerned, most of the venues where I had been speaking have either shut down or have cut back so my traveling and public speaking has been significantly reduced. The reason the venues have shut down is that the gold mining industry has been in a depression starting mid-2011 so junior mining companies do not have funding available for the various mining show conferences. I take that as one sign that the bottom is all but in for the junior gold and silver mining sector.

Daily Bell: Okay, some nuts and bolts. Is there more deflation in store for the US? Have the imbalances been wrung out?

Jay Taylor: What we have had is a massive inflation of what I call "debt money" because actually, debt is the raw material from which fiat money is manufactured. You can see from this Debt/GDP chart below that there has been a very modest reversal of total debt (public and private) to GDP in the U.S. post-Lehman Brothers, but it still remains north of 340%. That is far greater than the previous extreme during 1932 of 295% and hugely out of line with a range from 1870 to the mid-1980s of between 120% and 180%. If this isn't a picture of growing insolvency, I don't know what is.


(Click on chart to enlarge. Source: GlobalEconomicAnalysis.com)

The problem is that we have all been brought up on the Keynesian lie that all we need for progress is excessive spending and "animal spirits." No need to save or delay any consumption your little heart desires. No need to worry about balance sheets. Just spend, spend, spend even if it means debt is growing exponentially while income is stagnant or declining. I guess we have come to this point because somehow humankind loves the big lie. I guess many people simply command themselves to ignore reality and believe in fairytales. 

Believing in Keynesian economics is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.

Daily Bell: You once told us the West is on a steep and slippery slope. Now mainstream economists speak of a recovery. Were you wrong?

Jay Taylor: Yes, they speak of a recovery just like they think animal spirits and excess spending funding by excessive printing press money is all you need for prosperity. Unfortunately, nothing was learned from the 2008-09 experience. No, the West continues on a steep and slippery slope. Some, like Robert Prechter, think we are approaching another Dark Age. We can only hope and pray he is wrong but I fear he may be right.

Daily Bell: Is reflation working? Is the Fed going to tighten? Is QE really over?

Jay Taylor: Reflation is working only to the extent it is holding back powerful forces of deflation caused by the creation of debt money. The system if left alone would implode into a deflationary insolvency the likes of which the world has never seen before. The Fed is fighting against that powerful force by creating more money but the problem is that what we have is not simply printing press money, but money that is manufactured by debt, and debt is growing much more rapidly than the income they hope to create by printing more money.

Daily Bell: Are we still headed away from a democratic environment, as you have indicated in the past, especially in the US?

Jay Taylor: No question about it. You and many people who read this excellent format may not agree, but I think we are losing our liberties because our statist educational system, in a very self-serving way, has eliminated from the minds and hearts of Westerners the notion of a Creator or Supreme Being. If the universe was not designed with a purpose and self-sustaining balance by an intelligent designer then we turn to Caesar, Bush, Obama, Putin or Stalin for answers to life's burdens. Creating the myth of evolution across speciation is a very clever but total falsehood that has convinced most Americans, especially those with higher degrees, that there was no intelligent designer and that there is nothing higher than man in charge of our fate. That was a very clever design of our statist politicians.

"Trust in me," Obama says, and so the people willingly give up a voice in government. Americans don't even seem to care that everything they say and do now is recorded by our government and can be used against us if we disagree with policy. The misplaced logic seems to be, "I'm not a terrorist so I have nothing to worry about." Trouble is, by assuming humans possess attributes like omniscience and omnipotence, you pave the way for dictators. Of course, we now know that Big Brother's cousin, NSA, has one godly attribute, namely omnipresence. So he knows what you are thinking and doing, and depending on the definition of a "terrorist" you may just be one by virtue of opposing your government's policies.

Daily Bell: Give us an update on the euro. Is the EU going to split up or has the crisis been weathered?

Jay Taylor: It's all about how much longer the existing ruling elite can hold the existing global monetary system together. Of course, all the currencies these days are counterfeit but as long as the U.S. military remains supreme, I suspect the dollar will be the last one to go. However, as the parasites that run American continue to consume all the remaining capital, I think the Anglo-American Empire is now approaching desperation, which is why all manner of false flags are being used to con Americans and Europeans to beat the hell out of any country that doesn't want to use the dollar. 

At some point there will be a tipping point. I thought the Ukrainian conflict might pull Europe away from the U.S. but then, just like a false flag last year in Syria, I suspect we just witnessed another in the Ukraine with the downed Malaysian airliner. Only NATO and the puppet government established in Ukraine by the U.S. intelligence operation stood to benefit from such a tragedy. 

Whether we witnessed a false flag or not, the outcome was the same.

But as the global economy continues to contract we will see how long the geopolitical winds favor the U.S. and NATO. Indeed, Mario Draghi just noted that sanctions against the Ukraine are helping to push Europe into a recession. At some point, it's hard to see how the financially and morally bankrupt Western world won't implode or explode with nations seeking to look out for their own interests in defiance of the move toward a one-world government. 

But until that day arrives, I think the dollar remains the strongest currency and the linchpin and support of the Euro.

But as economic problems become more acute in Europe, we may very well see the Eurozone yet pull apart. Or perhaps the Fed will continue printing money to fund Europe, as it did in the recent past. 

That way, Europe will continue to be indebted to the U.S. What better way for the Anglo-American empire to lord it over Europe? 

The cracks are there to drive the Eurozone apart and to drive Europe from the U.S. But it's impossible to say when a tectonic shift will occur or what will be the catalyst that results in more decentralization around the globe. The powers that be are leaning hard against it because they are parasitically feeding off of what is left of the middle classes.

Daily Bell: Where is Britain headed? Out of the EU?
​Read more from Daily Bell



Friday, July 25, 2014

▶ Who are the NeoConservatives?: Know Thy Enemies Within *vid*



Published on May 1, 2014
For a more in-depth look at NeoConservatives click on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icrat... to watch NeoConservatives: Changing American Politics.



Thursday, July 24, 2014

How War Has Transformed the American Dream into a Nightmare

I. How War Has Transformed the American Dream into a Nightmare

The first World War and American intervention therein marked an ominous turning point in the history of the United States and of the world.

Those who can remember "the good old days" before 1914 inevitably look back to those times with a very definite and justifiable feeling of nostalgia. There was no income tax before 1913, and that levied in the early days after the amendment was adopted was little more than nominal. All kinds of taxes were relatively low. We had only a token national debt of around a billion dollars, which could have been paid off in a year without causing even a ripple in national finance. The total Federal budget in 1913 was $724,512,000, just about one per cent of the present astronomical budget.

Ours was a libertarian country in which there was little or no witch-hunting and few of the symptoms and operations of the police state which have been developing here so drastically during the last decade. Not until our intervention in the first World War had there been sufficient invasions of individual liberties to call forth the formation of special groups and organizations to protect our civil rights. The Supreme Court could still be relied on to uphold the Constitution and safeguard the civil liberties of individual citizens....

In our own country, the traditional American foreign 'policy of benign neutrality, and
the wise exhortations of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and
Henry Clay to avoid entangling alliances and to shun foreign quarrels were still accorded
respect in the highest councils of state.

Unfortunately, there are relatively few persons today who can recall those happy times. In his devastatingly prophetic book. Nineteen Eighty-Four, (2) George Orwell points out that one reason why it is possible for those in authority to maintain the barbarities of the police state is that nobody is able to recall the many blessings of the period which preceded that type of society. In a general way this is also true of the peoples of the Western world today.

The great majority of them have known only a world ravaged by war, depressions, international intrigues and meddling, vast debts and crushing taxation, the encroachments of the police state, and the control of public opinion and government by ruthless and irresponsible propaganda. A major reason why there is no revolt against such a state of society as that in which we are living today is that many have come to accept it as a normal matter of course, having known nothing else during their lifetimes....
CONTINUE READING 

 
CHAPTER 8
[Many of FDR's strategies to get us into war were eerily exact copies of schemes used by Lincoln to invade the South...Ed.]

I. Lying Us into War

According to his own official statements, repeated on many occasions, and with special emphasis when the presidential election of 1940 was at stake, Franklin D. Roosevelt's policy after the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1939 was dominated by one overriding thought: how to keep the United States at peace. One of the President's first actions after the beginning of hostilities was to call Congress into special session and ask for the repeal of the embargo on the sales of arms to belligerent powers, which was part of the existing neutrality legislation.

He based his appeal on the argument that this move would help to keep the United States at peace. His words on the subject were:

"Let no group assume the exclusive label of the "peace bloc." We all belong to it. ... I give you my deep and unalterable conviction, based on years of experience as a worker in the field of international peace, that by the repeal of the embargo the United States will more probably remain at peace than if the law remains as it stands today. . . . Our acts must be guided by one single, hardheaded thought of ”keeping America out of the war."

This statement was made after the President had opened up a secret correspondence
with Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty and later Prime Minister in the
British government. What has been revealed of this correspondence, even in Churchill's own memoirs, inspires considerable doubt as to whether its main purpose was keeping America out of the war.

Roosevelt kept up his pose as the devoted champion of peace even after the fall of
France, when Great Britain was committed to a war which, given the balance of power in manpower and industrial resources, it could not hope to win without the involvement of other great powers, such as the United States and the Soviet Union. The President's pledges of pursuing a policy designed to keep the United States at peace reached a shrill crescendo during the last days of the 1940 campaign.

Mr. Roosevelt said at Boston on October 30: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

The same thought was expressed in a speech at Brooklyn on November 1: "I am
fighting to keep our people out of foreign wars. And I will keep on fighting."

The President told his audience at Rochester, New York, on November 2: "Your
national government ... is equally a government of peace-a government that intends to retain peace for the American people."

On the same day the voters of Buffalo were assured: "Your President says this country is not going to war."

And he declared at Cleveland on November 3: "The first purpose of our foreign policy is to keep our country out of war."

So much for presidential words. What about presidential actions? American
involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps, not one of
which could reasonably be represented as conducive to the achievement of the
President's professed ideal of keeping the United States out of foreign wars. The
more important of these steps may be briefly stated as follows:

1. The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in
Newfoundland in September, 1940.

This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this-country into the war, legally and morally.

2. The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941.

In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which
remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world.

3. The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January-March, 1941.

Extraordinary care was taken to conceal not only the contents of these talks but the very fact that they were taking place from the knowledge of Congress. At the time when administration spokesmen were offering assurances that there were no warlike implications in the Lend-Lease Act, this staff conference used the revealing phrase, "when the United States becomes involved in war with Germany."

4. The inauguration of so-called naval patrols, the purpose of which was to report the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941

5. The dispatch of American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base.
obviously with the needs of an American expeditionary force in mind.

6. The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941.

This was going rather far afield for a government which professed as its main concern the keeping of the United States out of foreign wars.

7. The Atlantic Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12,1941

Besides committing America as a partner in a virtual declaration of war aims, this
conference considered the presentation of an ultimatum to Japan and the occupation of the Cape Verde Islands, a Portuguese possession, by United States troops.

8. The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, formally
announced on September 1 1 .

The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated from this time rather than from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor.

9. The authorization for the arming of merchant ships and the sending of these ships into war zones in November, 1941.

10. The freezing of Japanese assets in the United States on July 25,1941.

This step, which was followed by similar action on the part of Great Britain and the Netherlands East Indies, amounted to a commercial blockade of Japan. The war-making potentialities of this decision had been recognized by Roosevelt himself shortly before it was taken. Addressing a delegation and explaining why oil exports to Japan had not been stopped previously, he said:

"It was very essential, from our own selfish point of view of defense, to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out down there. . . . Now, if we cut the oil off, they [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Netherlands East Indies a year ago, and we would have had war."(l)

11. When the Japanese Prime Minister, Prince Fumimaro Konoye, appealed for a
personal meeting with Roosevelt to discuss an amicable settlement in the Pacific, this appeal was rejected, despite the strong favorable recommendations of the American ambassador to Japan, Joseph C. Grew.

12. Final step on the road to war in the Pacific was Secretary of State Hull's note to the
Japanese government of November 26. Before sending this communication Hull had
considered proposing a compromise formula which would have relaxed the blockade of
Japan in return for Japanese withdrawal from southern Indochina and a limitation of
Japanese forces in northern Indochina.

However, Hull dropped this idea under pressure from British and Chinese sources. He
dispatched a veritable ultimatum on November 26, which demanded unconditional
Japanese withdrawal from China and from Indochina and insisted that there should be
"no support of any government in China other than the National Government [Chiang
Kai-shek]." Hull admitted that this note took Japanese- American relations out of the
realm of diplomacy and placed them in the hands of the military authorities. The negative
Japanese reply to this note was delivered almost simultaneously with the attack on Pearl
Harbor. There was a strange and as yet unexplained failure to prepare for this attack by
giving General Short and Admiral Kimmel, commanders on the spot, a clear picture of
the imminent danger. As Secretary of War Stimson explained the American policy, it was
to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot, and it may have been feared that
openly precautionary and defensive moves on the part of Kimmel and Short would scare
off the impending attack by the Japanese task force which was known to be on its way to
some American outpost.

Here is the factual record of the presidential words and the presidential deeds. No
convinced believer in American nonintervention in wars outside this hemisphere could
have given the American people more specific promises than Roosevelt gave during the,
campaign of 1940. And it is hard to see how any President, given the constitutional
limitations of the office, could have done more to precipitate the United States into war
with Germany and Japan than Roosevelt accomplished during the fifteen months
between, the destroyer-for-bases deal and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Former Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce found the right expression when she
charged Roosevelt with having lied us into war. Even a sympathizer with Roosevelt's
policies, Professor Thomas A. Bailey, in his book The Man in the Street, admits the
charge of deception, but tries to justify it on the following grounds:



"Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period
before Pearl Harbor. ... He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the
patient's own good. . . . The country was overwhelmingly ' non-interventionist to the very
day of Pearl Harbor, and an overt attempt to lead the people into war would have resulted
in certain failure and an almost certain ousting of Roosevelt in 1940, with a complete
defeat of his ultimate aims. "(2)

Professor Bailey continues his apologetics with the following argument, which leaves
very little indeed of the historical American conception of a government responsible to
the people and morally obligated to abide by the popular will:

"A president who cannot entrust the people with the truth betrays a certain lack of
faith in the basic tenets of democracy. But because the masses are notoriously
shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are
forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. This is clearly
what Roosevelt had to do, and who shall say that posterity will not thank him for it? (3)

Presidential pledges to "keep our country out of war," with which Roosevelt was so
profuse in the summer and autumn of 1940, could reasonably be regarded as canceled by
some new development in the international situation involving a real and urgent threat to
the security of the United States and the Western Hemisphere.

But there was no such new development to justify Roosevelt's moves along the road to
war in 1941. The British Isles were not invaded in 1940, at the height of Hitler's military
success on the Continent. They were much more secure against invasion in 1941.
Contrast the scare predictions of Secretary Stimson, Secretary Knox, and General
Marshall, about the impending invasion of Britain in the first months of 1941, with the
testimony of Winston Churchill, as set down in his memoirs: "I did not regard invasion as
a serious danger in April, 1941, since proper preparations had been made against it."

Moreover, both the American and British governments knew at this time that Hitler
was contemplating an early attack upon the Soviet Union. Such an attack was bound to
swallow up much the greater part of Germany's military resources.

It is with this background that one must judge the sincerity and realism of Roosevelt's
alarmist speech of May 27, 1941, with its assertion: "The war is approaching the brink of
the western hemisphere itself. It is coming very close to home." The President spoke of
the Nazi "book of world conquest" and declared there was a Nazi plan to treat the Latin
American countries as they had treated the Balkans. Then Canada and the United States
would be strangled.

Not a single serious bit of evidence in proof of these sensational allegations has ever
been found, not even when the archives of the Nazi government were at the disposal of
the victorious powers. The threat to the security of Great Britain was less serious in 1941
than it was in 1940. There is no concrete evidence of Nazi intention to invade the
American hemisphere in either year, or at any predictable period.

One is left, therefore, with the inescapable conclusion that the promises to "keep
America out of foreign wars" was a deliberate hoax on the American people, perpetrated
for the purpose of insuring Roosevelt's re-election and thereby enabling him to proceed
with his plan of gradually edging the United States into war. What aim was this
involvement in global war supposed to achieve?

II. The War Aims Proclaimed by Roosevelt-
Read more online>>