Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO)

Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO) | surveillance | Civil Rights Government Government Control Losing Rights Multimedia National Security Agency Society Surveillance

“If You Have Nothing To Hide You Have Nothing to Fear”, said once Joseph Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda. We all know what happened while the Nazis and their American collaborators were in power. Yet, the quote cited above is exactly what the handlers of the U.S.S.A. use to justify its existence.

The same quote was used by William Hague and pretty much every other law enforcement official who believes in the need to have a worldwide Surveillance State. Even lay people who are interviewed on the streets of America and Europe often repeat the words of the former Nazi Propaganda Minister.

However, since not everyone agrees with Goebbels, many politicians and bureaucrats need to create reason for them to believe. The best reasons to make people believe what would be otherwise un-believable, is the typical ‘little known outside threat’ and the premise is always the same: we all need to surrender something we hold dear in order to do away with the threat.

For instance, in spite of what many western politicians say about Russia and how its actions supposedly resemble the U.S.S.R., the fact is that Russia is not the USSR. It is not even close to it being the U.S.S.R..

Ad-hominem attacks on Russia and its leaders, of whom I am not a fan of, are attempts to distract people from a greater global threat: the U.S.S.A..

The U.S.S.A. has been in the works for decades and its power has been expanded based on false premises, such as the Russian menace, the ISIS threat or the Al-Qaeda rising tide of global terrorism.

The United Surveillance States of America (U.S.S.A.) and its branches in Europe, Asia and Oceania are the threat we have all been distracted from by way of unfounded fear, misinformation, propaganda and outright ignorance.

This entity is not only charged with spying on billions of people worldwide, but also with carrying out offensive cyber attacks on infrastructure at home and abroad.

It collects billions of bytes of metadata whose associated content is later used, when possible, as a tool to blackmail anyone who may become an obstacle to the advancement of the U.S.S.A..

The U.S.S.A. is not only composed by American and allied monitoring agencies, but also by global communication networks and media conglomerates that, either voluntarily or by way of force (inter-connectedness, built-in back doors, direct and indirect threats, etc) serve as bridges to the larger U.S.S.A. infrastructure to capture, filter and direct information on everything and everyone that is somehow making use of digital resources almost anywhere on the planet.

Although much of the blame on the existence and operation of the United Surveillance States of America has been rightfully placed on the United States National Security Agency (NSA), as its name describes it, the existence of such a massive surveillance infrastructure would not be possible without the collaboration of similar entities in Europe, Asia and Oceania, to cite a few.

It is true, America is the central command of the U.S.S.A., but this globally operating multi-headed cyber beast could not do the work it does without the collaboration of partner organizations in other parts of the world.

A documentary titled “America’s Surveillance State”, whose content is based on declassified and leaked documents as well as testimony from former ‘intelligence gatherers’ such as Thomas Drake, Russ Tice and Edward Snowden, unveiled details about the strength and reach of the U.S.S.A. and how, despite political rhetoric from seating presidents and congressmen about its despotic existence, it continues to grow out of control.

The following is the six part documentary which shows how the U.S.S.A and not the U.S.S.R. is the most significant threat to all of us. This is so not only because it is out there sniffing it all, but also because people have become accustomed to it. It is part of their lives and most of them do not even see it as an inconvenience, much less as a threat.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism

The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism | feudal-society | Civil Rights Globalism Government Control Illuminati Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News

By: Jon Rappoport |

There is a direct line from Adam Weishaupt’s secret society, the Illuminati, which he formed in Bavaria in 1776, to Karl Marx, and onward to the modern Globalist agenda.

One of the key shared ideas: the abolition of private property.

Many people hold a negative view of Weishaupt, the Illuminati, and especially Marx, and so it fell to Globalists to couch their ideas about property in more acceptable terms.

That feat (one of many attempted) was expressed, in 1976, by Carla Hills, US Trade Representative and a key member of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Hills is credited as the principal architect of the Globalist NAFTA Treaty, which has destructively affected the US and Mexican economies.

Patrick Wood, author of the classic, Technocracy Rising, unearthed Hills’ brief statement on private property. I’ve broken it up into three parts, so I can comment after each mind-bending point.

Carla Hills: “Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.”

Her use of the term “human settlements” is curious, as is her reference to “crucial role it [land] plays.” Is she trying to take us back to an ancient period in human history, when people were first abandoning nomadic existence and turning to agriculture and fixed communities? It appears so. She wants us to think of land in terms of “oh, look, we can stop wandering and live here, and this space of soil will play ‘a crucial role’ in our future.” It’s been centuries since private ownership of land became a reality. But Hills doesn’t like acknowledging that. And through her use of “human settlements,” she also wants us to believe that the ancient concept of an entire community moving on to land to live is the only valid view. An individual staking a claim to land or buying it is verboten. It’s a corruption of the natural order. I assume Hills wasn’t living on a kibbutz or in a commune when she wrote her statement, but we’ll leave that problem for another time.

Hills asserts that private ownership of property isn’t ordinary and can’t be thought of that way. Individuals shouldn’t “control it.” And the free market causes problems. Well, of course, the free market causes problems, if you assume that no one should own more land than anyone else. And yes, private ownership, based on hard work, is inefficient, if that means some super-government can’t take land away “for the public good.”

Hills stops short of saying government should own all land, but that’s where she’s going.

She continues: “Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”

Social injustice, that familiar theme. Some people might own more land than others. That’s not right. That’s unjust. There should be no reward for hard work and intelligence. No. Instead, there is only planning from above. The wise demi-golds, who have our best interests at heart, can decide all the uses to which land is put. They can own huge tracts of land themselves, because they are gods. But the rest of us must submit to the development schemes they lay out. Only bitter clingers, who actually work for a living and strive and make their own way in the world, believe in private property. They’re for social injustice. They don’t want to give way to Greater Sharing.

Finally, Hills states: “Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”

Kinder and gentler vision. Just launch a plan to give EVERYONE a decent dwelling and healthy conditions. That’s how land should be used and thought of. No more private property. EVERYONE, of course, includes people (in unlimited numbers—no ceiling) who come here from anywhere in the world. And they come because here they get justice. They should get free housing. They should get “healthy conditions.” No problem. Everyone gets a 20-foot by 20-foot square box to live in.

What could go wrong?

Carla Hills is couching her statement to avoid the heavy philosophy and militant threat and totalitarian thrust of the Illuminati and Marx, but she’s on the same page. She’s “sustainable” and “green” and “kind” and “thoughtful” and “caring.” She’s perfect for self-styled liberals and the virtue-signaling Clueless.

She’s part of the tradition that wants to take down the individual spirit and stuff it in the collective.

I know many people (and I’m sure you do, too) who have worked hard, bought land, built a home, raised children, who would nevertheless applaud Carla Hills’ statement. They’ve succeeded in compartmentalizing their minds. It never occurs to them that if the Globalist dream came true, they would wake up one day with their homes and property ripped out from under them. If they think about it at all, they think they can have it both ways. They can continue to live as they’ve been living, but somehow, at the same time, social justice will be served.

They’re in a dream. It’s so pretty.

There is no iron hand, no Lenin, no Marx, no Stalin. All 400 million or so people in the US have lovely little free cottages nestled in valleys, and it’s spring, and the trees are flowering.

Down a country road, in his wheelchair, comes arch-Globalist George Soros, cackling and humming and talking on the phone to his broker. He’s flanked by bodyguards. Perched on nearby hills, snipers are in position, just in case a threat develops.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All?

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-vs-minarchy | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Anarchy vs. minarchy: which is better? Can we be free with a limited government? Can we be safe in a stateless society? Is voluntaryism the answer?

Anarchy vs minarchy is the contrast between the idea of a society with no government (anarchy) or a small, limited government (minarchy). For many awake and aware people, the current state of the world is so dysfunctional that they have gone beyond the point of trying to justify our current governmental structures. For this growing number of people of all nations and cultures, it’s no longer about left vs right, Democrat vs Republican, socialism vs conservatism or all the other false dichotomies that abound on the political spectrum. For many of us, there’s simply no point in investing time and energy into an illusion – the political illusion – while pretending it actually makes a difference. Why argue who is going to be the better slavemaster or the lesser of 2 evils? We are really only left with 2 choices: between having a small government or having no government. So which would be better for humanity, minarchy or anarchy?

Definitions of Anarchy, Minarchy and Voluntaryism

First of all, the words anarchy and minarchy come from the Greek words “an-” (meaning without), “arkhos” (meaning rule, chief or ruler) and the Latin prefix “min-” (meaning small). Thus, anarchy is a society or nation with no rules (i.e. government-sanctioned law), rulers or a ruling class, whereas minarchy is one with a minimal amount of rules, rulers and a ruling class. Care must be taken not to confuse minarchy with monarchy! Also, instead of the term anarchy, it may be more apt to use the word voluntaryism, which describes a stateless society where all human interactions are voluntary and where no central authority exists to make or enforce laws.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-voluntaryism-479x240 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Can we set up a society where every interaction is voluntary? That is the goal of anarchy or voluntaryism.

Anarchy ≠ Chaos

Before we begin, it’s important to address a common misconception, that anarchy = chaos. Anarchy does not equal chaos! You can still have organization, cooperation, harmony and trust in a society where there is no central authority. It is up to the individual members to act in such a way to create that society. You can even have hierarchy in a voluntary society, where members voluntarily choose to structure an organization like that (e.g. for purposes of speed, coherence and efficiency). However, such hierarchy would never be forced on anyone, because the organizations containing it would be voluntary associations.

Likewise, it’s important to stress that anarchy does not mean utopia either. It’s naive to think that everyone will just magically get along and there will be no criminals or evil if we just remove government. However, as I will get to later, the point is about humanity evolving in terms of responsibility so that we can face these problems in a different way.

The Pros of Minarchism: Arguments For a Small, Limited Government

Many people who become anarchists or voluntaryists first become minarchists, because the idea of imagining the abolition of all government in a single step is very daunting for most. Minarchists believe that we can’t do away with government altogether, because it’s necessary and fulfills too many vital, essential roles that would be difficult or impossible to otherwise fulfill. These are the top reasons and justifications usually proposed for minarchy:

– Need for a central register in society (e.g. to be the one “official” list of titles to property, which plays a key part in dispute resolution);

– Need for central planning and centralized authority for good organization;

– Need to have some mechanism to control and offset other power gangs in society, such as the Mafia and the Corporatocracy;

– Criminal justice (i.e. catching criminals, providing the arena and the judge for trials of suspects); and

– Health safety protection (e.g. forcing quarantine in case of an outbreak).

Some people also advance the claim that government (and governmentally-approved corporate structures) are the reason that Western nations evolved faster than other nations. In this entertaining debate at Anarchapulco, Mark Skousen makes the points that we need minarchy to force a criminal suspect to actually come to the courtroom and stand trial, to ensure quarantine in emergency situations, and to enforce eminent domain (the right government takes upon itself to be able to force buy anyone’s property for national and municipal organizational purposes).

The Cons of Minarchy: Arguments Against a Small, Limited Government

His opponent, Larken Rose, vehemently denies that minarchy is a good idea. He points out the following reasons why:

– Minarchists advocate the “arch” or the existence of a ruling class. All monarchists are statists. They still believe in external authority. They still advocate some kind of government; they just think or want that such a government only do what they want it to do;

– Who decides what the “minimum” amount of power is that a government is allowed to wield? It will always be arbitrary;

– The constitutional limits written down to supposedly restrain minarchy governments don’t work. No one pays attention to the limits, and it’s ultimately not possible to enforce them;

– A constitution almost always provides for its own amendment, so anyone can “legally” and “constitutionally” change the entire constitution piece by piece. Look at how the Weimar Republic “legally” gave Hitler massive power and became the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany;

– Practically speaking, has minarchism ever done what it was promised to do? Like communism, it may be good in theory, but has a government EVER existed that only protected individual rights and never grew larger or out-of-control? Look at the US experiment: it was based on the theory of limited government, but has now grown to become the biggest empire in the history of the world (far more tyrannical than King George ever was), engaging in routine tyranny such as mass surveillance, theft via mandatory and excessive taxation, torture, assassination, foreign intervention and continuous imperialistic war around the world;

– Morally speaking, it’s fundamentally wrong (and impossible) to delegate rights you don’t have. How can a government claim any moral right to do what people cannot morally do? Where did government get its supposed right to steal, punish, imprison and kill, when it’s only made up of people, and no single person has that right himself or herself? Why does “government” suddenly have magical and extraordinary moral rights?

But We “Need” Government … Don’t We?

The usual knee-jerk response from people is that we “need” government and we can’t possibly do away with it completely. But does this stand up to closer scrutiny? Do we really need government to perform all the functions it currently does, or could we open a market for various businesses to compete? For example, could we have a free market for garbage collection? Utilities? Road-building? Dispute resolution? In all cases, there’s no logical reason why we couldn’t allow private businesses to perform these functions and services. Sure, it some cases it’s easier to have competing business (utilities) than others where central planning makes it more efficient (road-building), but couldn’t people find a fair way to get together and pay for these voluntarily in groups, neighborhoods and associations? Anarchists such as Stefan Molyneux have developed the idea of a free market of DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) who function as private defense agencies and arbitrators, and whom people employ when they go into contract with each other as a trusted 3rd party. Indeed, big corporations such as PayPal, eBay and Visa already have such private arbitrators anyway, preferring to use them than governmental courts.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | tyrant-appears-as-protector-plato-479x225 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Without Government, Who Would Protect Us From Evil?

As stated above, anarchy does not mean an automatic utopia. From a voluntaryist point of view, removing government is a great step towards freedom, but many will be scared of the idea. “Who will protect us from evil?” they ask. The answer is, quite simply, that we all have to face it regardless of the existence of government or not. There will still be people and groups trying to trick, steal from and control others. Anarchy can’t protect against all evil. Nothing can. We have government right now, and such conniving people and groups still exist! The big problem is that all too often government becomes the vehicle for such evil rather than a protector against it. As Plato said, when the authoritarian comes on the scene, he appeals to people’s fears and base needs for safety and security. At first, he’s a savior and a protector; later, he’s a tyrant.

When you create a center of power, you create an incentive and invitation for dark forces to seize control of that center of power – then they can magnify and “force multiply” (to use a military term) their dark agenda. Has there ever been a governmental situation where this did not happen? As I discussed in the article The Top 3 Reasons Why the System Keeps Perpetuating Itself, you can use the analogy of the ring of power from the Lord of the Rings. Creating a ring of power (a metaphor for a ruling class, a government and a belief in authority) is dangerous in and of itself, because you are creating an artificial construct which you can never guarantee will be always used for good. We all know the famous phrase that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There’s no way around it!

We all know that politicians are puppets of a darker force. Put simply, the dark force behind government uses government to carry out its plans. What we see in practice, time and time again, is that government ends up enabling the very thing it was supposedly created to stop or protect against! So many insiders have told us this is exactly how the game works. For example, remember the story of Smedley Butler, who exposed how corporations try to win over the centralized coercive power of government to sanction their crimes, and wrote how he regretted becoming a “high class muscle man” for the corporatocracy.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | who-will-guard-the-guards-juvenal-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Who will guard the guards or guardians? It’s a problem as old as time itself. A quote from the ancient Roman author Juvenal.

Government has shown itself to be a vehicle for an astonishing amount of evil. Government is an idea – nothing more – yet the practical implementation of this idea has caused untold death and destruction. The term democide was (according to Wikipedia“revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932–2014) as ‘the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder’”. In other words, democide means death by government. Democide was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century, responsible for around 262 million victims according to Rummel, including genocides like Stalin’s Great Purges, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward and the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State. Yes, communist and fascist governments may be a worse flavor of evil, but so-called liberal democracies like the UK and US have been drenched in blood for centuries now.

Can the Free Market “Guard the Guardians” Better?

Of course, there is no guarantee that anarchy will stop all evil, but perhaps the free market can do a better job than a minarchist system. First off, people so inclined would be happy to take charge of their own defense (by owning and using guns, by taking self-defense courses, etc.). But the defense of your person, your property and your family could also be outsourced to a private group or organization that you trusted. One idea is that, in a free market, DROs could just be like private defense agencies who are vying for your business. The first thing they would have to do would be to convince you that they aren’t a threat themselves and that they are not going to try to seize power over everyone. They would have to have grand guarantees and promises (e.g. Molyneux suggests something like they have to give all their money to charity and close down business if they are caught lying). They would be subject to the scrutiny of the market. If they were found to have deceived people, their business would suffer. People would have the choice to use or not use them.

It has been pointed out that the weakness of libertarianism as a philosophy is that is strong on big bullies (centralized government) but weak on small bullies (local gangs, abusive parents/spouses, etc.). For instance, how would a voluntary society deal with domestic abuse within a family? One answer is that DROs could be called just as cops are now, and while they wouldn’t have the “legal authority” to attack or imprison the abuser (because there would be no such thing as legal authority in an anarchist society), they could certainly use force in self-defense just as any other person would, regardless of if they have a badge and uniform or not. People would have to participate more in forming local groups to resolve conflict and achieve justice for victims. While this may sound scary to some, remember this: as much as government may help some victims of abuse, government also shields and covers up the perpetrators of massive abuse (a great example is how government members participate in pedophilia at the highest levels all across the world).

Again we are left with the awkward realization: government commits and encourages more evil than it stops, or to put it more accurately, the concept and creation of government allow evil and evildoers to amplify their influence and control people more than if government simply did not exist.

Government Creates and Protects Mafia and Corporate Monopolies

Even if you ignore the egregious evils of governmental democide, which some may try to explain away by saying it’s government gone bad, the fact remains that government itself often protects the “bad guys” rather than the “good guys”. By having the power to make law for an entire area, government can create monopolies (e.g. money issuance) and black markets (e.g. prohibition on alcohol). The international banking cartel led by the Rothschilds has prospered mostly because the government has given away its own power to create currency, and has made it legal and mandatory for everyone to accept fiat currency or paper money. Without that governmental decree, the banksters would face more serious competition in the forms of alternative currencies, and people would have more options against them. This is a classic case where government serves and encourages evil rather than protects us from it.

Government itself is a monopoly. It can be defined as the organization within a given geographical area that claims the sole right to rule and the sole right to initiate violence against others who do not obey its decrees. It sets itself up as the sole authority. Once you have a monopoly, you remove the power of the free market and competition. The end user or consumer no longer has options. New World Order conspirator John D. Rockefeller once said, “Competition is a sin”. As a monopoly, government removes itself from the normal pressures that companies face in an economic environment where companies have to perform well or else risk going out of business – and therefore has no real incentive to do its job properly.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-government-is-not-reason-eloquence-force-washington-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

When an organization gains a monopoly, it shields itself from ostracism – a great tool of anarchy. Ostracism is the technique by which citizens in a free and voluntary society can make their preferences known, and a kind of way that they “vote” by who they associate with, what products they buy and with whom they do business. Collectively, it forms a network of economic checks and balances which are far better than anything the Constitution could ever protect against (and after all, the US Constitution is just “a goddamn piece of paper”

 in the eyes of tyrants).

Government is not a servant; that’s the lie fed to us. Government is a violent master. Government is first and foremost violence, and secondarily an organizational tool. The above quote is attributed to first US president George Washington.

Removing the Belief in Authority and Taking Responsibility

True anarchy or true voluntaryism takes place first inside your mind, not in the outside world. It all comes down to the belief in authority, to the notion that we have to have a ruling class, or that any ruler can be legitimate in a world where we are all born equal. A careful analysis shows that government cannot justify its political authority, no matter whether you use the arguments of social contract, implicit consent, explicit consent or consequentialism. All of these arguments can be overturned with logic to show that government is simply force masquerading in a variety of disguises such as consent, duty or so-called benevolent dictatorship (an oxymoron). Believing out of fear that we have to have government (no matter what) is a symptom of mind control.

True anarchy is not chaos or disorder, but rather removing the belief in authority, and keeping the rest. It’s overturning the idea that politicians and government get an exemption from morality. There is no need to do away with organization and cooperation; there is a need to do away with the initiation of violence.

Underneath it all, there is a general tendency in some people to be lazy and scared. We want a final arbiter or decider because we don’t want to have to work out things ourselves. Yes, it can be tricky, complicated and difficult to resolve disputes and conflicts, especially when they go into grey ares. It takes responsibility, effort and skill in dispute resolution. But can we justify outsourcing this just because we don’t feel like being more responsible? Or putting out too much effort? Or because we imagine we don’t have the skills and we don’t want to push ourselves to develop them? Can we really justify creating this fictitious seat of power, this morality-free zone, just because we feel too uncomfortable trying to work these things out ourselves? My answer is that we cannot justify it, nor can we even possibly outsource it, for every government necessarily has within it the seed of power, corruption and violence; otherwise, without the power to coerce, it would not be government.

Conclusion: Trust Our Cooperative Tendencies

In closely comparing anarchy and minarchy, it is difficult to justify the minarchist position. When you put them under the microscope, government and political authority are not legitimate; they are force. The terms limited government and government by consent are oxymorons, because there are no good examples in the real world of a government that stays limited forever, and a government never really has the consent of all its citizens, most of whom are simply born into an existing system of coercion by coincidence of birth (and taught through indoctrination to never question it).

The stateless society trusts the inherent tendency among humans (and Nature) to cooperate. Yes, there is competition in life, but the greater part is cooperation, symbiosis, trust and harmony. It is possible to find win/win solutions that don’t require the need for an outside authority, and to take that model and apply it to a whole society. To continue to believe in authority is to create a game where you may win or you may lose; it’s creating a throne or seat of power which “bad guys” can overtake. It’s well nigh time for humanity to grapple with the question of anarchy vs minarchy, to move beyond the fears which are holding us back from creating a more free society.

Sources:

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUjwmC7byCM

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/system-perpetuation-top-3-reasons/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/political-authority-no-real-basis/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/satanic-pedophilia-network-exposed-australia/


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Internet Privacy Protections Gone

Internet Privacy Protections Gone | internet-privacy | Government Losing Rights

(image: © Images.com/Corbis)

Last Thursday, majority Senate Republican members passed SJ Res. 34, a joint resolution, rescinding FCC broadband privacy rules.

On Tuesday, House members followed suit, Trump sure to sign the measure into law, letting telecommunications and cable companies sell private customer information for profit without their permission – an infringement of their privacy rights.

Free Press Action Fund head Craig Aaron said the following:

“Ignoring calls from thousands of their constituents, House Republicans just joined their colleagues in the Senate in violating internet users’ privacy rights.”

“Apparently they see no problem with cable and phone companies snooping on your private medical and financial information, your religious activities or your sex life.”

“They voted to take away the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Americans just so a few giant companies could pad their already considerable profits. Facing a growing public outcry, they rushed through this vote before more people could find out what was at stake.”

Essential online protections are gone, with no prospect for replacing them by this Congress and administration. Personal information is now a commodity to be sold for profit. Our private lives don’t matter.

Congress and the administration side with predatory profiteers, ignoring the rights of ordinary people.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) blasted the move, saying telecommunications and cable companies “will have free rein to hijack your (online) searches, sell your data, and hammer you with unwanted advertisements.”

“Worst yet, consumers will now have to pay a privacy tax by relying on VPNs to safeguard their information. That is a poor substitute for legal protections.”

ISPs will have “new powers to harvest your personal information…” They’ll monitor customers online, create personal/sensitive profiles, selling them for profit.

EFF vowed to contest the new measure in court, along with preparations to demand a future Congress reverse what this one passed.

On March 28, a White House office of the press secretary statement said “(t)he administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34.”

When presented to Trump, “his advisors (will) recommend that he sign the bill into law.”

Public sentiment opposing it doesn’t matter. Business prioritizes override it.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Internet Privacy Protections Gone appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO)

New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO) | medical-doctor | Civil Rights General Health Government Government Control Government Corruption Losing Rights Medical & Health Multimedia Parental Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

A new law quietly passed last December contains a waiver of informed consent that eliminates the requirement of pharmaceutical companies to let you know if a medication or vaccine given to you or your child is experimental.

Wow. One last Christmas surprise from President Obama.

This is according to Section 3024, “Informed Consent Waiver for Clinical Investigations” of H.R. 32, the “21st Century Cures Act.” Here’s the wording of the text:

Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.

“Clinical testing” is not clearly defined. Furthermore, who the heck gets to decide what “minimal risk” is? The pharmaceutical companies? The FDA? Medical professionals? How incredibly patronizing.

I don’t know about you, but before taking medication or allowing my children to, I want to know all of the details. What are the risks? What are the potential side effects? What is the worst thing that could happen if we don’t take it?

I want to be fully informed and make my own decision, and anything less than that is a type of condescension that makes my blood boil. My children and I are not Big Pharma’s lab rats.

I hadn’t heard a thing about this until my friend Melissa from Truthstream Media send me the horrifying video below and I knew that I had to let you folks know right away.  Sign up here to stay up to date with the latest news and information that relates to your freedom and well-being.

This video is a must-watch and explains it in far more detail.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Lost Privacy Rights in America

Lost Privacy Rights in America | surveillance | Civil Rights Government Control Losing Rights Surveillance US News

America is a total surveillance society. Big Brother is no longer fiction. Sophisticated technologies make total monitoring possible, everyone vulnerable, including presidents.

All our moves, transactions and communications can be recorded, compiled and stored for easy access. Anything we say or do can be used against us.

Bill of Rights protections no longer apply. Collecting meta-data communications on Americans is unrelated to national security.

Judicial oversight is absent. Congressional members are told little about what goes on. The CIA, NSA, FBI and other US spy agencies operate ad libitum, doing whatever they wish unaccountably.

Cable and phone companies want online privacy made illegal. They require permission to use personal information about their subscribers.

They want congressional legislation removing this protection. Senator Jeff Flake (R. AZ) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R. TN) support the campaign by cable and phone companies to abolish online privacy.

They intend using Congressional Review Act (1996) authority. It lets Congress review, by expedited legislative procedures, federal regulations issued by government agencies.

They can be rescinded by a joint House and Senate resolution. Once repealed, CRA prohibits reissuing the rule in substantially similar form or issuing a new regulation, substantially the same  – “unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.”

Phone and cable companies want online privacy restrictions removed so they can sell consumer information secretly for profit, without requiring permission to do it.

Privacy rights in America are fast disappearing. If phone and cable companies get their way, they’ll be dealt another severe body blow – congressional members serving them at the expense of consumer and constitutional rights.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Lost Privacy Rights in America appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

General Petraeus: Approves of Revoking Military Veterans 2nd Amendment (VIDEO)

General Petraeus: Approves of Revoking Military Veterans 2nd Amendment (VIDEO) | military-veterans-2nd-amendment-gun-control | Government Government Control Losing Rights Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests Veterans

By: The Voice of Reason |

The philosophy of the authoritarian government is that citizens don’t know what’s good for them, which is why the all-knowing government has to step in to ‘guide’ them. And when it comes to the issue of personal ownership of firearms, the federal government has for years been trying to restrict the constitutionally protected right to bear arms of its own citizens. For their own safety, of course.

In the following video, Right Wing News looks at the continuing battle surrounding our Second Amendment rights, this time surrounding the issue of military veterans – the very people who have been trained in their proper use and handling. Currently, if/when military veterans become arbitrarily labeled with the mental health moniker of ‘mentally incompetent,’ they become banned from exercising their Second Amendment rights. One of the reasons for the attempted repeal has a lot to do with the fact that the term‘mentally incompetent’ is loosely defined. Let me give you an example:

A military veteran that cannot balance his checkbook can be deemed “mentally incompetent,” and looses his Second Amendment rights.

President Obama doubles our nation’s debt from the time of the country’s inception until the day he leaves office in merely EIGHT years, and somehow Obama retains his Second Amendment Rights, and still gets to be called Mr. President, rather than Inmate #$456344?

I DON’T THINK SO!

Sadly, the repeal is being seriously challenged by none other than General David Petraeus. When will the continuous assault of our constitutionally-protected rights end?

Breitbart reports:

On March 13 Breitbart News reported that House Republicans were eyeing a repeal of the gun ban for military veterans. On March 14 retired Army General David Petraeus and his gun control group blasted the proposed repeal as “irresponsible and dangerous.”

The gun ban for military veterans works similarly to the recently repealed Social Security gun ban, in that it allows investigations to be opened on military disability recipients who require help managing their finances. Recipients who are declared mentally “incompetent” then face a prohibition on purchasing or possessing guns.

The NRA-ILA reports that a military veteran labeled with a mental health moniker would actually face “a lifetime ban on the acquisition and possession of firearms, unless he or she successfully petitions for ‘relief from disabilities.’”

House Committee on Veteran Affairs chairman Phil Roe (R-TN-1) put forward the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act to repeal this ban, but Petraeus opposes the repeal.

According to USA Today, Petraeus and the gun control group he formed with Mark Kelly–Veterans Coalition for Common Sense–sent a letter to House Republican leaders, saying, “When vulnerable veterans have access to firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies is felt in communities across our nation.”

But the NRA supports repealing the ban, viewing the ban itself as bureaucratic overreach which targets those who can quietly be stripped of their Second Amendment rights even as their Due Process rights are ignored. The NRA-ILA’s Chris Cox said, “Receiving assistance to handle personal finances does not mean an individual is unable to safely own a firearm. Our brave men and women in the military should not be stripped of their constitutional rights without due process of law.”

Roe’s Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act is expected to be taken up by the full House as early as this week.

HERE ARE THEIR PHONE NUMBERS: GIVE THEM HELL!

NUMBER FOR EVERY PERSON IN THE U.S. SENATE

NUMBER FOR EVERY PERSON IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

General Petraeus: Approves of Revoking Military Veterans 2nd Amendment (VIDEO) | MADISON-768x361 | Government Government Control Losing Rights Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests Veterans
In the following video, meet John Arnold, a veteran that has been shown a lot of love from the Sheriff and other community members after the VA threatened to confiscate his weapons on Aug. 6, 2015. 

Paperwork that Arnold believes was improperly filed states that Arnold isn’t fit to care for his own finances, which prompted the government to try and confiscate his weapons. The community, as well as Two Idaho representatives, came out to show their support for the 70 year old veteran when he needed help.


THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.

 


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post General Petraeus: Approves of Revoking Military Veterans 2nd Amendment (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Homeschool Mom Arrested, Children Seized by CPS for “Educational Neglect”

Homeschool Mom Arrested, Children Seized by CPS for "Educational Neglect" | kiarre-harris | Government Control Losing Rights Parental Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News

By: Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., The New American |

The government values education; in fact, they value it so much that they’re willing to go to great lengths to exercise control over curricula in every school district in every state so as to ensure that children receive the education that they deserve.

That’s what Kiarre Harris (shown) discovered when her two children were snatched away from her because the government deemed her teaching to be inadequate.

A single mother currently residing in Buffalo, New York, Harris had enrolled her children in public school. However, displeased with the teaching methods being used in the public schools attended by her children, she opted to remove her children from those schools and to register them as homeschooled, thereby freeing her to teach her own children principles she believed to be important and to have been absent from the public schools’ curriculum.

“I felt that the district was failing my children,” she stated, “and that’s when I made the decision to homeschool.”

As mandated by the laws of the state of New York, parents choosing to homeschool their children must cut their way through rolls and rolls of regulatory red tape. According to the New York State Education Department (NYSED), one must first inform their school of their intent to homeschool two weeks prior to the student’s departure. Once that has been completed, the parent’s homeschooling methods must be reviewed and approved by the school board, and then submitted for additional approval by the homeschooling commissioner in that county. If and only if these requirements are met are parents in New York free to teach their children as they deem fit.

Harris claims she carefully adhered to the guidelines set by NYSED by studying the somewhat complicated legal processes so that she wouldn’t make a misstep. She insists that she believed herself compliant with the demands of the law after she received acknowledgement from one of the homeschooling directors of the issuing of a license by the state to begin homeschooling her children. “I spoke directly to the homeschool coordinator and she told me from this point on my children were officially un-enrolled from school,” Harris told local media.

Nearly a week after receiving the state’s stamp of approval, Harris received a phone call from Child Protective Services (CPS) enquiring as to the whereabouts of her children, and why they hadn’t shown up to school for nearly two weeks. After explaining the situation to CPS, Harris then offered to provide legal documents for CPS directors to review. “I told them that my kids were homeschooled now and that I could furnish the documents if they need to see them,” said Harris.

CPS seemed satisfied with Harris’ responses to their questions and ended the conversation, leaving Harris to think that everything was resolved favorably.

Nearly a month went by without incident. Then, on January 13, 2017, a large group of CPS case workers and police officers descended on Harris’ home, informing her that they had a court order to remove her children from her custody due to “educational neglect.”

At this point, Harris demanded they produce warrants or other legal documents justifying such severe action. The police and the CPS agents refused that request and Harris accordingly refused to hand over her children.

In response, the police officers arrested Harris, impounded her car, and forcibly removed her children from her home.

More than a month has passed since Harris has been allowed to see her children and neither CPS nor the police department has provided adequate legal justification for seizing her children and placing them in the foster care system.

Harris adamantly insists she followed the proper procedures for removing her children from public school, and furthermore, that she was approved by the appointed government apparatchik to begin homeschooling her children. What’s more, Harris produced all the requisite legal documentation of the legitimacy of her claim, including the license to homeschool issued by the district where she lives.

How was this apparently appalling miscarriage of justice and assault on the sanctity of the family allowed to happen?

CPS claims that in order to homeschool, one must have full custody over their children, and the agency insists that such a status is impossible in Harris’ case as she is a  single mother. Harris claims to the contrary that she has had full legal custody over her children for many years now and can demonstrate such through production of court orders and other legal documents.

Another point pressed by CPS, the police department, and the family court had nothing to do with Harris’ alleged failure to comply with the protocol for applying for a homeschooling license. In fact, the proximate cause of Harris’ children being forcibly removed from her home was not her ineffective compliance with education regulations, but it was the statements she posted about public schools on her social media accounts.

“Respondent recently posted a comment on social media ridiculing the school system and people who attend school or graduate from school,” the court stated in its upholding of CPS decision to remove her children from Harris’ home and to place them in a foster home.

In other words, Harris’ children would have been seized by the government regardless of her compliance with regulatory processes, and their true intent was to punish a single mom trying to homeschool her children for publicly criticizing public schools. This is the very definition of the chilling effect and will likely persuade other parents planning to homeschool their children to leave them in the public school system for fear that removing them would subject their children to seizure by the state and placement in foster care.

Equally disturbing is the fact that advocates of homeschooling — particularly in Buffalo, New York — will be afraid to exercise the full scope of their right to speak freely, fearing arrest and the loss of custody of their own children as punishment for the public position on school choice.

City Council member Ulysees Wingo is currently fighting the court over Harris’ treatment, pointing out the discrepancies that resulted from the state’s lack of communication between its own agencies. He also pointed out that the charges have actually become more severe against Harris after the confiscation of her children. “This is utterly unacceptable“ Wingo stated. “We need to ensure this never happens again.”

Sadly, as long as we allow the government at any level to exercise monopolistic control over the education of our children and as long as we allow “law” to trump the parents’ plans for the education of their children, this tragic tale will be told again and again across this once-free country.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post Homeschool Mom Arrested, Children Seized by CPS for “Educational Neglect” appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Deep State’s Message: Prepare For Totalitarianism (VIDEO)

Deep State’s Message: Prepare For Totalitarianism (VIDEO) | police-state-surveillance | Civil Rights Economy & Business Government Government Control Losing Rights Multimedia Special Interests Surveillance Tyranny & Police State

I find the current political situation to be as bad as I thought it would be when I forecasted it about ten years ago. The worst is yet to come. The corruption in the system is becoming much more apparent. The extreme biases in the mainstream media in favor of their particular owner’s faction is fairly obvious…The moneyed class turned the law and the thought leaders framing to their own benefit, and would now do anything they can to keep their ill-gotten gains. – “Jesse,” from Jesse’s Cafe Americain

Were you aware that the Government is starting to implement eye-scanners as part of the airport security protocol? If you doubt that, then read this:  U.S. Marshals Scanned My Retina. The TSA circus is all for show. It’s a way for the Government to get us used to following its orders and a way for the manufacturers of the technology used to make billions from selling that technology to the Government. It also is an excuse for the Government to create employment for those who lack the competency to find a job in the private sector.

Ben Franklin said, to paraphrase, those who are willing to give up some freedom in exchange for security will end up with neither. That’s where we are today, America. The Patriot Act was written well over a year before 9/11. The blueprint for the Department of Homeland Security was crafted in the mid-1990’s, during Clinton’s presidency.

It’s all stunningly Orwellian. Even the terms used to describe newly created Government functions are right out of “Animal Farm” and “1984.” The totalitarian control, confiscation of wealth by those in a position to confiscate and the use of technology to invade and regulate our private lives was prophesied by Orwell, Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged”) and Aldous Huxley (“Brave New World”). The technology that we take for granted as making our lives better is being used to remove our rights and freedoms.

Ironically, it all starts with the control of the monetary system. Those who control a nation’s currency need not be concerned about who or what makes the laws (Mayer Rothschild). A few unelected “officials” control the United States’ creation of currency, which is then used as a tool to confiscate wealth – at first slowly and soon it will happen all at once.

In today’s episode of the Shadow of Truth, we discuss the Orwellian fog that is enveloping the nation and connect the political control our lives to the control of interest rates and gold:


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Deep State’s Message: Prepare For Totalitarianism (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Facebook’s Zuckerberg Quotes Lincoln, Quietly Declares War On America! (VIDEO)

Facebook's Zuckerberg Quotes Lincoln, Quietly Declares War On America! (VIDEO) | zuckerberg-civil-war | Agenda 21 Globalism Government Government Control Losing Rights Multimedia New World Order Sleuth Journal Society United Nations

For several years now I’ve been tracking the increasingly bold actions and statements being put out by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and warning Americans of a pattern (of actions) that looked mighty suspicious to me. Well, here we are past February of 2017 and everything I’ve been suspecting about Zuckerberg is all coming to pass. In fact, it’s much worse than I thought.

Most Americans and people across the world forget that it wasn’t very long ago when Facebook didn’t even exist. Founded in 2004, back then no one had ever heard of Mark Zuckerberg. So given the developments of today we have to wonder who exactly is he, what country is he loyal to and who has assured him that he is above the rule of law. The reason I pose these questions is because Zuckerberg doesn’t seem loyal to any country. Or is he? This seemingly stateless young man is unique in that he exists to push for the ruling elite’s one world government. So apparently he DOES have a loyalty to a country. The one world so called new world order country.

That’s right. For anyone who wants to solve the Mark Zuckerberg conundrum, don’t kill yourself trying to figure this out. Instead, think of the globalist new world order plans as a separate nation run by civilians (think Obama’s private civilian “army”). This global “country” run by corrupt technocrats, banksters and bureaucrats as a whole thinks they have figured out a way to fool the planet into buying into their lies and eventually submitting to their unchallenged eternal global power.

The biggest threat to their plan is anyone who believes in freedom of the individual and anyone who believes in responsible small government or simply anyone who believes in the identity of their own country especially America. If you do believe in this know that Zuckerberg calls this “global isolationism“. In this shocking video (below) I demonstrate how Zuckerberg is now speaking and acting like a man ushering in an era of civil war against nation states, particularly America. He boldly pronounces America to be a thing of the past and in the way of the rising new world order.

WARNING: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Declares War On America!


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Facebook’s Zuckerberg Quotes Lincoln, Quietly Declares War On America! (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS