VIDEO We Declare – Happy Fourth of July! – America’s Christian Foundation – Some Americans Know Nothing About the 4th of July

Reading the Declaration of Independence to the Troops
reading declaration of independence
July 4, 1776

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness……….
Happy Fourth of July!
you can't handle the truth
July 4, 2015 by findsenlaw

I think we can handle it today, right

Oh, and incidentally, I know you know this, but we now realize, recognize and interpret “all men” to mean “all people,” including women, and people of all colors, creeds, and religion. That is the real face of America. This cuts against how literally certain people want to interpret old documents that were intended to be living documents, e.g. Decl. of Ind., the Constitution, religious texts (ahem, J. Scalia), or at least when the literal interpretation suits them.

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Happy 4th of July From Christian Video Channel – America’s Spiritual Foundation
American History 101: The Star-Spangled Banner
July 3, 2015 by Adask’s law

“The thing that separates the American Christian from all the other peoples on earth is that he will die on his feet, before he’ll live on his knees.”–Francis Scott Key

“The price was paid.”

P.S. If you’d like to read a little more about those who signed “The Declaration of Independence,” here’s an email I received today:

The 4th of July!!

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the
British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton , Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid.

Liberty is a blessing that flows from our Father YHWH ha Elohiym but, in this world, that blessing is never free.


And for those of you who can’t get enough of the Star Spangled Banner, here’s one more version by Faith Hill from Super Bowl 34. It’s worth your time. She makes me believe we could do it again.

Happy 4th of July From Christian Video Channel

A Great America, Happy July 4th – Some Americans Know Nothing About the 4th of July
Jun 15, 2006

Stills from various wed sites, music by Celine Dion

Happy Birthday, America! I pray we have the courage and maturity to move from Independence to Interdependence, as a nation truly blessed by God is meant to be. May we grow up and learn to get along and become a new people whom God has called and needs to serve Him after the way of Jesus. Amen! Fr. Bob Cushing

Some Americans Know Nothing About the 4th of July
Are college students aware of Independence Day’s significance?
July 3, 2015

Infowars takes to the streets in front of the University of Texas, Austin, to find out how much people know about the holiday they’re preparing to celebrate.

pray for america kristiann
flag declaration of independence
Veterans-Day-Pic FlagVets

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Why Trump is resonating – Wins Battle Against PC – SF’s Illegal Alien Murderer Proves ‘American People Deserve a Wall’

Trump wins battle against Political Correctness
trump donald
07/04/15 By Mark Hensch

He may be an object of derision to many followers of the 2016 presidential race, but advocates for tougher border laws are cheering Donald Trump’s controversial statements on immigration.

While they say Trump’s rhetoric could be improved, groups opposed to illegal immigration are hoping Trump’s recent headlines will force other Republican candidates to take firmer stances on border security.

“The first point to make is that Trump is resonating with a lot of people,” Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Hill.

“It’s not just Republicans, but a lot of ordinary Americans,” he said. “It’s precisely because regular politicians aren’t addressing the issues they are concerned about.”

“When you’re looking at the whole country – the Democratic and the Republican electorates both – they’re almost screaming for alternatives to what they’ve been presented.”

Trump sparked outrage by sharply criticizing Hispanic immigrants and Mexico during his formal campaign launch June 16.

“They’re sending people who have a lot of problems,” he said during his announcement speech at New York’s Trump Tower.

“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” he said. “And some, I assume, are good people.”

Trump has seen a barrage of business entities terminate relationships with him since the remarks. Macy’s, NBC and Univision have each cut ties with the outspoken billionaire in the wake of his diatribe.

But despite the bad press, Trump’s campaign is surging. He placed in second in two recent national polls of the 2016 Republican White House field, and has seen a particular surge in the early-voting state of New Hampshire.

Conservative radio host Steve Deace argued Trump’s words are ringing true with conservatives who are tired of how they’ve been treated by the establishment Republican Party.

“Trump is simply saying what a lot of average Americans who could care less what people inside the 202 and 212 area code thinks to some extent,” Deace told the Hill.

“The idea of this hurting the GOP brand is laughable,” he said. “What brand?”

“They already lie to their conservative base repeatedly,” Deace said of mainstream Republicans.

“Most of the GOP’s base is looking for reasons to revolt,” he added. “The brand here isn’t just damaged – it needs an exorcism.”

Krikorian said the attention Trump’s rhetoric is getting shows Americans are still concerned with border security and illegal immigration.

“When people aren’t having their concerns addressed, they’ll listen to the clown,” he said.

But Krikorian sees a path for Trump to change the GOP’s approach to border security even if he doesn’t win the nomination.

“On the very positive side, if he leads the more conventional candidates to address our feckless immigration policies in a way most of them have tried to avoid, then that could be helpful,” he said.

“Trump could impact every Republican candidate to come closer to his position.”

Republicans are not unified behind Trump’s controversial rhetoric, though. Some worry he may hurt the GOP’s credibility as it tries to reclaim the White House in 2016.

With many Latinos up in arms over remarks some see as bigoted and racist towards Hispanic immigrants, Republicans risk alienating a growing voting bloc.

Other Republican White House hopefuls have rebuked Trump’s language on the 2016 campaign trail.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former New York Gov. George Pataki each criticized Trump earlier this week, as did New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Immigration reform advocate Ira Mehlman said Trump’s remarks inelegantly addressed an issue of real concern for voters.

Border security and illegal immigration are legitimate worries for many Americans, he said.

“Trump did draw attention to the fact that the border is out of control,” said Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

“The problem is that the border itself is a symptom, not the problem,” Mehlman said.

“People understand that if they can get into the United States illegally, they’re probably home-free,” he added.

“As long as you keep incentivizing illegal immigration, you’ll never get the border under control.”

NumbersUSA President Roy Beck, meanwhile, said Trump’s blame is misplaced when he focuses on immigrants instead of policy decisions.

“In our view, Trump has focused the debate on the wrong place — the character of the people who break our immigration laws,” Beck said.

“Our view is that most illegal aliens are decent people who mean no harm to Americans and who view our country’s carelessness about enforcement as something of an invitation to break our immigration laws,” he said.

“In our view, it is counterproductive to focus on the illegal aliens themselves when the true villains are our elected officials, especially our last four presidents.”
San Francisco’s Illegal Alien Murderer Proves ‘American People Deserve a Wall’
4 Jul 2015 by Robert Wilde

Donald Trump asserted on Friday that the random murder of a woman Wednesday in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant reinforces the notion that America needs a border fence.

“This senseless and totally preventable act of violence committed by an illegal immigrant is yet another example of why we must secure our border immediately,” the billionaire Presidential aspirant said in a statement.

Kathryn Steinle, 32, of Pleasanton, was gunned down Wednesday evening on Pier 14 near the Embarcadero and Mission Street in San Francisco’s South Beach neighborhood.

Trump called the situation “absolutely disgraceful” and denigrated his fellow nominees for lacking the “guts to even talk about it.” He added, “The American people deserve a wall to protect our jobs, economy and our safety… I am the only candidate who would build it. I will make America great again!”

NBC News reported that the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency identified Francisco Sanchez, with nearly a dozen aliases and a long criminal history, as the prime suspect for the fatal shooting.

DHS acknowledged that illegal immigrant Sanchez had been deported to Mexico five times.

Trump has been criticized by the main stream media, and other 2016 presidential hopefuls, for making candid remarks about immigrants who illegally cross over America’s southern border.

“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems,” the construction tycoon asserted when he announced his candidacy in June. “And these aren’t the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…they’re sending people that have lots of problems…they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Trump wins battle against Political Correctness
July 4, 2015 By Jeff Crouere

When Donald Trump announced for President, he made some strong statements about the immigration problems facing our nation. He said that Mexico was “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.” In essence, Trump noted that Mexico was not sending their scientists and scholars to America.

In his speech, he mentioned that while immigrants are taking jobs in this country; corporations like Ford are setting up plants in Mexico. To deal with the crisis, Trump vowed to build a border fence and have Mexico pay for it.

This kind of tough talk resonated with millions of Americans who have seen no action on illegal immigration for decades. In the latest New Hampshire, Iowa and national GOP polls, Trump has rocketed to second place. This shows that Americans are tired of the influx of illegal immigrants and the non-existent border security. They are tired of illegal aliens committing crimes, receiving federal benefits and taking jobs away from law abiding citizens.

It is an outrage that our borders are not secure. In fact, no other nation in the world has both wide open borders coupled with generous benefits for illegal aliens. Donald Trump wants this giveaway of American jobs and federal incentives to end. He wants to secure our border and improve our national security. These are goals that all Americans should applaud; however, in our politically correct society, such goals are too controversial.

In the aftermath of Trump’s comments, Macy’s dropped his clothing line; NBC “fired” him from the show “Celebrity Apprentice” and said they would not air the Miss USA or Miss Universe pageants. The illegal immigration comments were also too controversial for Univision, another leftist network which dropped the beauty pageants from their broadcast schedule. Fortunately, the Miss USA pageant was picked up by the Reelz channel, so Americans will still be able to watch a show with a 64-year broadcasting tradition.

Sadly, Macy’s and the networks succumbed to the pressure of Hispanic groups and the insidious influence of political correctness. Clearly, Trump did not lie about the border problems, but, these businesses and the special interests that control our politicians do not want to address the immigration crisis. Democrats benefit from the cheap votes and the crony capitalists who control the GOP benefit from the cheap labor. The ones who are the casualties of the open border policy are the Americans who lose their jobs or become victims to the criminal activity of illegal aliens.

The good news is that Trump is not like other politicians who would have apologized or backed away from the controversy. Instead, he doubled down and sued Univision for $500 million. In a priceless statement, Trump also blasted NBC as the network that “will stand behind lying Brian Williams, but won’t stand behind people that tell it like it is, as unpleasant as that may be.”

How true, America today is replete with cowards who are afraid to “tell it like it is.” Fortunately, one of the rare truth tellers is running for President. Let’s see if the American people want the truth or if they want to maintain their belief in fiction, supported only by politically correct lies.

Hopefully, as the campaign progresses, Trump will stand firm with this strong message. If so, he will continue to find support from Americans who have been ignored for decades.

Today our problems are so severe it is time for not only tough talk, but, more importantly, strong action. Political correctness is a very serious affliction that has done incredible damage to our country. It will eventually destroy America if it is not pulled up by the roots and finally eradicated.
Immigration Overload Flashpoint

Related previous post on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

VIDEO If The General Lee Is Racist, What About This? – Examining the racist past of the Democratic Party…

-The Dems want to pin the Confederate Flag, KKK, Great Depression, urban decay, and harsh marriage laws on the GOP… pin the tale on the Donkey instead!
-Confederate Flag Debate: What They’re Not Telling You
Vote Democrate Race
July 3, 2015

In the newest edition of Afterburner, Bill Whittle sets the historic record straight on the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to racism.

The Republican Party was founded to end slavery while Democrats sought secession to preserve the practice. The Confederate flag, which is a big problem all of a sudden, was created by Democrats.

Walk up to any person in the street and ask them which of the two major parties created the KKK. The correct answer is the Democratic Party but sadly, I’d bet against the public answering that question correctly every time.

Have you ever been told the progressive myth that the parties “switched” at some point?

Whittle gets into all of this and walks you through history right up to the present day.

It’s thirteen minutes long, but you should watch the whole thing and please comment.
If The General Lee Is Racist, What About This?
Americans debate over what is and isn’t racist
July 4, 2015 by Lee Ann McAdoo reporter Lee Ann McAdoo hit the streets of Austin to get citizens’ reactions to the Confederate Flag in different photos from the General Lee to rappers Ludacris and Kanye West.
Confederate Flag Debate: What They’re Not Telling You
Here’s the real agenda they don’t want you to know
July 4, 2015 by Kit Daniels

What’s the real agenda behind the government’s push to eradicate the Confederate flag?

Here’s what they don’t want you to know:
pc speech freedom tfernandez
truth hate speech

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

VIDEO Sunday’s Vote Will Determine Liberty Or Serfdom – Declaration of Fear & Dependence – Orchestrated Collapse

One Heretic, And Not-So-Simple, View On The Greek Referendum
greek flag
Sunday’s Vote Will Determine Liberty Or Serfdom – Declaration of Fear & Dependence
July 4, 2015 by Paul Craig Roberts,

According to history books, democracy originated in Greece. Of course, historians could be mistaken, but this is the prevailing view among Western populations with enough awareness to be interested to know.

What we are witnessing today, July 2, 2015, is that after 2,500 years in the Western World only the current Greek government is interested in democracy. The Greek government, to the surprise and consternation of every other European government, has called a referendum for the Greek people to decide the fate of Greece. For resorting to democracy, the Greek government has been universally denounced in the Western World.

So much for Western democracy.

The greatest and most successful propaganda scam in history is the one that convinces the world that they are nobody if they are not part of The West: the indispensable peoples, the exceptional peoples. If you are not part of The West you are nobody, nonexistent, a nothing.

This prevailing propaganda might prevail in Greece on Sunday, in which case a fearful and intimidated Greek population might vote against the only government that, instead of accepting a payoff from Greece’s enemies, fought for the welfare of the Greek people.

If the Greeks vote for their oppressors and against their own government, democracy in the EU will cease to exist.

2,500 years ago Greeks saved their independence from the Persian Empire. Sunday’s vote will tell us whether Greeks have again served liberty or whether they have succumbed to Washington’s Empire.

The fate of all Europeans and of Americans themselves will be settled on Sunday.

One Heretic, And Not-So-Simple, View On The Greek Referendum
07/04/2015 by George Kintis of Alcimos

Conventional wisdom has it as follows: Tsipras is a hardline communist, who overplayed his hand with the troika (or “the three institutions”, as he calls them). The referendum was a last-ditch play to retain power by stoking a nationalistic response to the standoff with creditors.

We believe the current stand-off with Greece’s creditors is just part of the ongoing tug-of-war between Germany and the IMF on a possible haircut on Greek debt. The background of this conflict is as follows: the US (which exerts substantial influence on the IMF) is “pro Keynesian” while Germany is “pro austerity”. The two different viewpoints are summarized in two articles in the New York Times: one by Wolfgang Schäuble, and a riposte to it by Paul Krugman.

The slowdown in the European economy is obviously affecting the US economy as well; hence the US interest is clearly justified. The USA has been nudging Europe to engage in some good-old Keynesian deficit-spending. Obviously, the deficit spending does not need to happen in Germany, whose economy is doing very well, thank you. It needs to happen in places like Greece, but then the question arises, how could this deficit be financed? Well, the markets are certainly not willing to finance Greece, so that leaves few people in the room able to do this. Rich Germany obviously comes to mind, but then this is a major no-no for German voters and politicians. (West) Germany engaged in the mother of all expansionary policies (and fiscal transfers) at the time of reunification with East Germany, when it set a 1:1 conversion rate of the East German mark into the DEM, while the exchange rate applicable for East German exports had been at 1 to 4.3. Rightly or wrongly, it is widely accepted in Germany that the dismal performance of Germany during the rest of nineties is due to those very policies— justifiable perhaps at the time by a duty of solidarity. Quite understandably, the German public doesn’t feel such a strong duty of solidarity vis-à-vis Greece. Any German politician suggesting a large-scale fiscal transfer to Greece would be skewered. Any haircut on Greek official-sector debt would be seen as (and be) just that: a fiscal transfer to Greece.

One last background note: the German public seems convinced that Germany has already paid its dues when it comes to Greece. This is only partially true: the restructuring of Greek debt was at its heart an effort to convert private unsustainable debt into official unsustainable debt –saving major European banks in the process (including Deutsche Bank, which managed to stay afloat by engineering achieving a risk-weight asset density of 14% in 2008).

Now on to a few somewhat overlooked facts relating the Greek crisis, which should raise an eyebrow—or a few million:

i. What’s being put to the Yes or No vote on Sunday is two documents: the first one is entitled “Reforms For The Completion Of The Current Program And Beyond” and essentially contains the “sacrifices” which are requested of the Greek side. The second one is called “Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis”. But hold on a second: this is just math, projections on the servicing of Greece’s debt based on certain assumptions relating to economic and fiscal performance. Why on earth would one put a spreadsheet on a referendum?

The plot thickens if one actually bothers to read the document. It is not even conclusive: under the first two scenarios (“full implementation of program reforms” and “partial reform compliance”) Greek debt is deemed to be sustainable. As to the third scenario, which “reflects the IMF’s baseline” “significant reprofiling of the stock of debt and concessional lending terms would improve sustainability. Reprofiling of payment flows does not imply nominal haircut or budgetary costs for creditors. This would also entail further NPV gains for Greece, and strengthen the sustainability of the Greek public debt in the long-run”.

Things get even more bizarre, as the document states that “[f]urther work is under way to reconcile the scenarios”. This work was obviously never completed, as the IMF came out a few days later with its own version of the debt sustainability analysis, which carries a date of 26 June (just a day later from the date of the draft Greeks are asked to vote on) but was only published on 2 July. In no uncertain terms, it labels Greek debt unsustainable, and considers it can become sustainable if the grace period on existing EU loans is extended to 20 years and the amortization period to 40 years—assuming of course Greece runs primary surpluses of 3.5% of GDP, has real GDP growth of 1½% in steady state, and achieves privatization proceeds of about €½ billion annually. However “[a] lower medium-term primary surplus of 2½% of GDP and lower real GDP growth of 1% per year would [also] require […] a significant haircut of debt, for instance, full write-off of the stock outstanding in the GLF facility (€53.1 billion)”. Let’s translate that: the GLF facility consists of the bilateral loans to Greece. Under this not-too-unlikely turn-of-events, Germany would need to kiss its entire direct exposure to Greece goodbye—the dreaded “fiscal transfer” we spoke about earlier.

Now back to the referendum: Greeks are asked to accept-or-reject an analysis which is inconclusive, work-in-progress, while the IMF flatly rejects as well. Funny, no?

ii. Now let’s go back to the first document—the one containing the creditors’ demands. But hasn’t Tsipras conceded on most of these demands already, by sending the letter to the troika which was immediately leaked to the FT? Hasn’t Juncker claimed that “[w]e were so close, in fact, we were so close that it was just €60 million that we were arguing over?” Hasn’t Varoufakis said that ”the only remaining difference between us and our creditors is debt sustainability”? Let’s get this right then: Greeks are going to the polls over sixty million and a document which is inconclusive and which needs “[f]urther work [currently] under way to reconcile the scenarios”. What on earth? Couldn’t they have done this work before asking people to vote on it? Quite irresponsible, isn’t it? Surely the bank closure must have cost more than sixty million?

iii. Which brings us to the bank closures. If one looks at the ELA procedures, as published by the ECB, ELA is extended to “solvent financial institution, or group of solvent financial institutions, that is facing temporary liquidity problems, without such operation being part of the single monetary policy. Responsibility for the provision of ELA lies with the National Central Banks concerned” which can happily go on extending ELA unless “the Governing Council of the ECB [with a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast] considers that these operations interfere with the objectives and tasks of the Eurosystem”.

But didn’t Draghi say as recently as 15 April that “[w]e approved ELA and we’ll continue to do so, extend the liquidity to the Greek banks while they are solvent and they have adequate collateral”. Didn’t he say on 5 March that “the ECB is a rules-based institution […] and […] the decision about determining an ELA, are all the outcome of rules, not our political decisions. ELA is a decision of the National Central Bank of Greece, to which the Governing Council may decide to object with a very special and demanding majority requirement, if certain conditions are not in place. One condition is that ELA can be given to solvent banks with adequate collateral. The Greek banks at the present time are solvent. Their capital levels are well above the minimum requirements, and that’s positive news. [T]oday, the Greek banking system is solvent”. Let’s look at his response on 3 June, when asked “Mr. President, maybe you could elaborate again on your decision not to tighten the haircut rules for collateral used by Greek banks. The situation, the financial situation in Greece has deteriorated considerably since December when you took a lighter stance on this issue. So the whole thing looks like you’re — you said you are a rules-based institution and it looks like you’re making political considerations; not willing to interfere in the ongoing political process. How would you comment on that?”

What Draghi said was: “I would comment that it’s not true. Simply said, we are not either interfering or in any way taking a stance with respect to the current negotiations. We are a rules-based institution. But you have to understand that there are two different sets of rules: one is for collateral posted against monetary policy instruments, and the other one is the collateral posted against ELA”.

Granted, Draghi also said “We do assess how the developments in the markets affect the quality of our collateral, namely the quality of the Greek government bonds that have been posted as collateral. So were the conditions to change, we would certainly go through a series of things. Yes, we would have to revisit our previous decisions”.

Reality is, there are no rules for ELA collateral policy, as a report requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs flatly states—and the ECB has played fast-and-loose with this non-existent rulebook in the past. There is a difference now, however: as of November 2014, the ECB (through the SSM) is also the regulator of most major European banks.

Let’s get real now—Greek banks had total assets of €391bn as at May 2015. One would think these assets should be enough to support €89bn+€6bn=€95bn of ELA. If these €391bn are not worth even €96bn, then Greek banks, with liabilities of around €322bn, should probably be just a tiny bit insolvent, no?

Are Greek banks insolvent then? The institution which determines this is the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and the SSM is part of the ECB. Let’s then look at the response of the head of the SSM, Danièle Nouy, when asked as recently as 7 June whether “she may perhaps have slight doubts about [her] earlier statement that Greek banks were absolutely solvent and liquid”:

“No, I don’t: these banks continue to be solvent and liquid. The Greek supervisors have done good work over the past years in order to recapitalise and restructure the financial sector. That was also visible in the outcome of our stress test. The Greek institutions have experienced difficult phases in the past. But they have never before been so well prepared for them”. If her views had changed in less than three weeks, wouldn’t she have said something about this—if only to the banks themselves, which would then have to disclose it? Wouldn’t she have asked Greek banks for a capital increase perhaps? After all, the exposure of Greek banks to the Greek sovereign stands at under 6% of total assets—and this exposure also includes T-bills and loans.

Could it be then, that the €89bn of Greek ELA already extended did not “interfere with the objectives and tasks of the Eurosystem”, but the extra €6bn requested on Sunday would?

Didn’t Draghi say four times in his press-conference of 5 March that the ECB is a “rules-based institution”? Didn’t he repeat that twice in his 3 June press conference? Wouldn’t they feel the need to spell out to us which rule forced them to send millions of Greeks to queue in front of ATMs?

And if Draghi is a stooge of Angela Merkel (admittedly, not highly likely, but humour me for a second) who decided to do “whatever it takes” to make sure those Greeks take heed, what was the response of the Greek side? Did Greece ask for (and publicize) the rationale of the ECB Governing Council decision? Did we find out what the vote tally was? All that Greece needed to get the extra ELA was eight votes, including the Greek and the Cypriot ones. How many votes did Greece get? Wouldn’t that be of interest, so that we can see who our allies are, in this hour of need? And why hasn’t Varoufakis followed through on what he said on 29 June: “The Greek government will make use of all our legal rights. We are taking advice and will certainly consider an injunction at the European Court of Justice”. Oh well, probably not on the top of his list; he may have been busy giving an interview to his friend Phillip Adams on (Australian) ABC News.

iv. In the midst of all this, Tsipras requested a third bailout for Greece from the ESM—a granting of which would exclude the IMF from the financing of Greece. Slightly odd timing, as Peter Spiegel notes: “Eurozone finance ministers have already rejected a request for an extension, and Donald Tusk, the European Council president, [the day before] rejected it a second time. It is highly unlikely finance ministers, who are to hold a conference call again Tuesday night, will agree to this now”. Why on earth would one send out this letter—ahead of a referendum and in full knowledge of the fact that it has zero chances of being entertained?

v. The last curious fact is that Greek TV broadcasters have so far not ordered any public opinion polls on the referendum. This is quite astounding, as on general elections we have at least a couple of polls published a day.

All these somewhat bizarre events may be due to the incompetence of Messrs. Tsipras, Varoufakis and Co. They may just be savages, or may simply be hostage to Syriza’s leftist factions (none of which, by the way, threated to unseat the government in April, when it awarded a $500m contract to Lockheed for the upgrade of five P-3B Orion planes from the 1960s—at a time when, according to Syriza at least, Greece was going through a humanitarian crisis). Under this scenario, Tsipras & Co. will have fooled such ivory-tower academics, like Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, but not the likes of Adonis Georgiadis or Kyriacos Mitsotakis (you won’t get this unless you’re Greek).

Or something else may be going on…

Let’s just look at the most likely-turn-of-events from this point on, and see if we can make sense of the curiosities just enumerated.

Greek voters, fearing that banks may not reopen in the event of a No vote (and not knowing whether the Yes vote leads by a safe margin) are highly likely to turn out in droves for Yes.

Varoufakis has already said that “[i]f [the people] say Yes, we will do whatever it takes to make sure that this agreement is signed exactly as the troika […] is demanding of us”. The head of the Greek negotiating team , Euclid Tsakalotos, has said: “We see the referendum as part of the negotiation process, not in lieu of it”. Monday, therefore, Tsipras is likely to pay a visit to Ms. Merkel, with the results of the referendum at hand. He will tell Ms. Merkel, all your requests have been granted, now show us the money—save Greece. Now, Ms. Merkel will have no option but to oblige—how on earth can one say no to a nation which has overwhelmingly accepted everything requested of it?

However, Ms. Merkel has repeatedly insisted that there is no deal without the IMF. She always wanted this, as she is afraid that a political decision at EU-level may force Germany to provide financing on concessionary terms to Greece and other potential laggards. But, horror-of-horrors, the IMF in so many words asks for the dreaded haircut. Can you kick out of the Eurozone (assuming, for a moment, this can happen) a country which has just yielded to all your demands? Can you accept a haircut, thus setting a precedent that, whenever a Eurozone country can’t service its debt, Germany will pay up? Ms. Merkel would be cornered, no?

Under this scenario, Tsipras would be likely to get his debt relief. He would be a hero in Greece, as he would have confronted Germany and won. Other laggards, such as the Italians, wouldn’t be too displeased, either: a precedent will have been set, whereby if a Eurozone member screws up, the Germans pay up (would you believe? Mario Draghi happens to be an Italian!).

Let us also give short shrift to the unlikely outcome of a No vote, assuming for a moment that Tsipras were in cahoots with the IMF (and the US) to box in Germany. All that Greece would need is a €1.5bn loan from a friend (the US perhaps?) to make good on the IMF. The IMF could provide the entire €52bn that Greece needs over the medium term. Add that to the €32bn already lent by the IMF (and a bit more to support the banks, if needed) and now the IMF’s exposure to Greece becomes eminently serviceable—or “sustainable”, as they say. Why? Because the IMF has super-senior status, which means it gets repaid before anyone else—including the European bilateral loans of around €53bn, the €142bn lent by the EFSF, the €27bn in bonds held by the ECB and the €39bn in private debt. In other words, Germany would risk seeing its entire exposure to Greece subordinated to that of the IMF, with little leverage in case Greece does not pay up. Talking about being caught between a rock and a hard place…

In other words, Varoufakis may not be widely off the mark, when saying that there is “100% chance of success”—whether Greeks vote yes or no. Tsipras, when saying that Merkel and Gabriel are “uneasy and confused”, may have a point, too.

If anyone cares about what I am voting for: I am going to drive my kids to my mother in northern Greece, so no time for that. I wouldn’t bother to vote even if the referendum was on whether to exit the euro or not.

Neither Greece’s ailment, nor its cure, is its currency, be it the euro or the drachma, or its pensions—whether too low or too high. Greece’s cancer is the purely domestic cleptocracy which has been sucking the country dry for at least thirty-five years (that’s as far back as I can remember, older people may argue this may have been going on for much longer).

You think I’m exaggerating? Let’s look at a couple of interesting statistics, then. According to the UN comtrade database, supplies of bunker fuel to ships in Greece went from $25m in 2008 to $1.72bn in 2014. Exports of fuel to Turkey went from $204m in 2007 to $3.2bn in 2014. Exports of fuel to FYR of Macedonia in the same timeframe went from $72m to $614m (for comparison purposes, Greece’s GDP in 2014 was $238bn). Either Greek refineries got very efficient during the crisis, or other refineries in the region got very inefficient. Or it could be that the cleptocrats, hit by the crisis in their other half-way legit businesses, had to supplement their income with other, far more lucrative ventures.

Well, according to the New York Times “Organized crime […]dominates the black market for oil in Greece; perhaps three billion euros (about $3.8 billion) a year of contraband fuel courses through the country. Shipping is Greece’s premier industry, and the price of shipping fuel is set by law at one-third the price of fuel for cars and homes. So traffickers turn shipping fuel into more expensive home and automobile fuel. It is estimated that 20 percent of the gasoline sold in Greece is from the black market. The trafficking not only results in higher prices but also deprives the government of desperately needed revenue”.

According to the FT “George Papandreou, the former socialist premier who resigned in 2011, also claimed he was brought down by oligarchs after a finance ministry campaign to tackle widespread fuel smuggling revealed a Balkanwide scam that cost Greece €3bn a year in lost taxes”.

Its’ not as if these smugglers are thousands. They’re a handful of people, whom practically every Greek knows by name. Unlike Escobar, they are not in hiding. They’re feted by the press as “successful businessmen” and are being sat next to prime ministers.

There are similar tales to be told in natural gas, energy and practically every sector that has to do with the state.

If that’s not fixed, irrespective of whether the currency of Greece is the euro, the drachma or the rupiah, there can be no end to Greece’s plight. Is Tsipras likely to fix that? I’ll give you a hint: most Greek oligarchs voiced their support for Tsipras ahead of the general election in January. Before him, they of course supported his predecessor.

What I think, is that Greeks should be united in their fight for the rule of law and against the cleptocracy, and not divided over a referendum on an absurd question. That division, however, serves the cleptocrats well—they can go about their usual ways unnoticed. Whoever said “divide and rule” knew what they were talking about.
Declaration of Fear & Dependence
Jul 3, 2015

The illusion of freedom has always been important for the US government to maintain. But now the illusion of danger, the manufacturing of fear is much, much more important. Can established power overcome the cognitive dissonance of fear & freedom and get the public to “DoubleThink”: clamor for the “protection” of the police state while seeing themselves as free?

The Orchestrated Collapse

Jun 30, 2015

On the Tuesday, June 30 broadcast of the Alex Jones Show, Greeks fear civil war and martial law may break out amid the country’s latest debt default. And a new study reveals US law enforcement agencies are more concerned about “anti-government extremists” than al-Qaeda or ISIS inspired terrorism.

On today’s show, investigative journalist, former Goldman Sachs director and author of All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power, Nomi Prins, breaks down the Clinton and Bush’s bankrolled financial portfolios, the fed’s bubble problem and what Greece’s insolvency means for the rest of Europe. Natural health expert Anthony Gucciardi also joins today’s show explaining how what you eat affects the processes of the body’s central processing unit – the brain.

protect assets

Look for Soros puppet MB Obama and his minions to push the Plunder of Greece, as he has in this and other counties.

Anyone who has a Bank Account or Property should protect their assets from Creditors, ex spouses, children’s ex spouses, and litigious parties.


happy fourth dependence
Related previous posts on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Texas wants its gold back inside the state’s borders

Physical access to gold demanded as economy weakens
abbott texas gold
July 4, 2015 by WILL WEISSERT

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) – Forget Fort Knox or the Federal Reserve. Texas has decided to start keeping its gold holdings within in its own borders. But what makes sense politically in such a sovereignty-loving place is creating a logistical conundrum.

Texas is the only state that owns an actual stockpile of gold, according to public sector and financial industry experts – not just gold futures or investment positions, but approximately 5,600 gold bars worth around $650 million. The holdings, stored at a New York bank, for some harken back to century-old fears about the security of currency not backed by shiny bullion.

The Legislature’s decision this summer to bring its gold cache home was hailed by many conservatives, and even some on the far left, who are suspicious of national government.

“There will always be the exact same amount of gold in there as the amount that was put in,” no matter what happens to the financial system, said Republican state Rep. Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, a former tea party organizer from the Dallas suburbs who authored the gold bill.

But for the Texas comptroller’s office, which has to implement the policy, the catch is that the new Texas Bullion Depository exists in name but not reality.

The law doesn’t say where the depository would be or how it should be built or secured. No funding was provided for those purposes or for leasing space elsewhere. Further complicating matters is a provision allowing ordinary people to check their own gold or silver bullion into the facility.

“We are honestly at the phase where the questions we are answering are creating more questions that we have to answer,” said Chris Bryan, a comptroller’s office spokesman.

Charged with figuring everything out is a four-member task force within the comptroller’s office, which recently dispatched an official to a precious metals conference to study up.

One immediate concern is the possible cost. When Fort Knox was completed in 1936 it cost $560,000 – or roughly $9.2 million in today’s dollars. When Capriglione first introduced his bill in 2013 it had an estimated cost of $23 million.

But Capriglione now thinks private companies would bid to create a depository in exchange for charging storage and service fees.

The plan has kicked up chatter outside of Texas that it’s a step toward secession, an idea raised now and then on the state’s farthest political fringe.

“Just moving it would be pretty expensive and, unless Texas is anticipating withdrawing from the union, which I suspect is some peoples’ want, I don’t see what advantage it is…,” said Edwin Truman, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics who has written about gold and monetary policy. “What are you getting for what you’re paying for?”

But Capriglione says he’s just convinced that gold is safer, especially close at hand.

After the bill sailed through the Legislature, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed it and tweeted: “California may be the golden state, but Texans deserve to keep their gold in-state!”

Texas’ state-owned gold is held by the University of Texas Investment Management Company, the nation’s second largest academic endowment behind Harvard. It began gradually amassing gold futures in 2009 as a hedge against currency weakness in the recession. It eventually transitioned to physical bullion, and by 2011 had $1 billion worth.

The price of gold has since mostly slumped amid a soaring stock market. Today, the fund’s gold bars represent about 2.5 percent of its $25.4 billion in holdings, said Chief Executive Officer Bruce Zimmerman.

Asked about the new depository, Zimmerman said, “We don’t do politics. We’re just investors.”

The Fed declined comment on the new Texas depository, as did HSBC bank, which currently stores the gold bars in an underground vault in Manhattan.

Stacked together, the state’s gold occupies about 20 square feet. It’s unclear whether repatriating it could be done with an electronic transfer or would require a fleet of planes or armored cars.

One possible effect of the new depository might be more attention to the idea of returning to the gold standard, long a cause of former Texas Rep. Ron Paul. The Federal Reserve was founded more than a century ago so that the value of the U.S. dollar no longer had to be anchored to gold, and Richard Nixon formally scrapped the gold standard in 1971.

“I think Texas is once again showing they’re ahead of the curve,” said James Rickards, author of the 2014 book “The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System.” `’They’re not waiting for the disaster, but preparing for it.”

© 2015 The Associated Press

protect assets

Look for Soros puppet MB Obama and his minions to push the Plunder of the USA, as he has in Greece and other counties.

Anyone who has a Bank Account or Property should protect their assets from Creditors, ex spouses, children’s ex spouses, and litigious parties.

Related previous posts on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

VIDEO Mandatory vaccination: CA is ordering genetic alteration – Pro-SB277 Senator Hospitalized after Vaccine

Pro-SB277 Senator Hospitalized after Vaccine
john berchielli
7 year volunteer for Senator Pan bedridden after Tdap vaccine
July 4, 2015 by Telly Blackwood

A close friend of mine is struggling for his life after mysteriously coming down with Guillain-Barre Syndrome and a stroke after receiving a Tdap vaccine.

He is a former 7-year volunteer and nemesis of Dr. Richard Pan. In this video we venture to Sutter Roseville to hear what John has to say about Dr. Pan and SB277.
Mandatory vaccination: California is ordering genetic alteration
June 30, 2015 by Jon Rappoport

Mandatory vaccination: California is ordering genetic alteration

Vaccination = generation-to-generation genetic changes

Therefore, California is mandating genetic changes

Governor Jerry Brown just signed SB277 into law in California. No more religious or philosophical exemption from vaccination.

Now only a medical doctor’s note stating a person should not be vaccinated will provide an exemption—and you can be sure doctors who sign a number of these notes will be tracked, scrutinized, harassed, and attacked by the State.

SB277 requires all children who attend public and private schools to receive the full schedule of vaccines.

Home-schooled children can opt out of vaccination. Pay attention, parents.

I’ve written many articles about vaccines, about their dangers, their undeserved reputation for having eliminated contagious diseases in the West, and the absurdity of so-called herd immunity.

Here, first, I want to underline the obvious: freedom is under egregious attack. It has been replaced in the public mind by “safety and protection.”

This is a conscious formula for so much of what now passes for “culture” in America and other countries:

New, broader and more vague definitions of terrorist threats; pressure to conform to politically correct speech; the need to spy on everybody all the time; these are the signs of the times.

“We will protect you on every level. Just give up freedom.”

From the caves of 100,000 years ago, all the way forward to the Modern State, that assertion has been used to exert more and more control over the people.

At higher levels of political power, beyond direct medical issues, mandatory vaccination is being used as yet another hammer, in order to elicit compliance from citizens.

“We say do X; therefore, you must do X.”

In this case, X involves the injection of toxic substances like aluminum, formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80 and numerous other harmful chemicals into the body.

A Mother Jones article (6/12/2012), “Can Exposure to Toxins Change your DNA,” reports on the damaging effects of environmental chemicals. The connection to toxins in vaccines, though not mentioned, is an obvious parallel. Here are quotes from the MJ piece:

“The presumed mechanism of this unfortunate inheritance [generation-to-generation damage from toxic chemicals] is not a mutation in the DNA itself but rather changes in the biochemical on-off switches that determine whether or not specific genes get activated—a field of study known as epigenetics…

“Most recently, researchers from Washington State University, led by biology professor Michael Skinner, reported last month that short-term exposure of pregnant rats to several kinds of chemicals caused ovarian disease not just in their daughters but also in two subsequent generations of females. Symptoms that paralleled those found in human polycystic ovarian disease and primary ovarian insufficiency, both of which can reduce fertility, were identified in the descendants of rats exposed to a fungicide, pesticides, dioxin, jet fuel, and a mixture of plastics, but not among descendants of controls [given a placebo].”

We are talking about lasting genetic changes, from parents to children, down the line.

There is every reason to believe that injecting chemical toxins (in vaccines) would have a still greater permanent effect than, say, breathing pesticides.

But don’t worry. The State is here to protect you and your children. Just obey, and all will be well.

power outside the matrix

And now, a look at the future of vaccines. See the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine”:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Not just a “visit.” “Permanent residence.”

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

This is where vaccination has been going since its inception, and this is where it’s going in the future: the restructuring of human DNA, under conditions sufficiently random to rule out any reliable predictions of the outcome.

And the State of California has just stamped its seal of approval to genetic alteration, by making vaccination mandatory.

Thank you, Governor Brown.

You’ll be remembered for your decision.

Make no mistake about it: the entire human race has been, is, and will be (unless resistance builds to a very high roar) the subject of a vast, multi-century genetic experiment.

Jon Rappoport The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Man Gets 8 MONTHS in Federal Prison For Driving Away From Internal Checkpoint

Border Agents found “anti-government propaganda” in his car
July 3, 2015 by Steve Watson

A man from Florida has been sentenced to eight months in prison after he calmly refused to answer questions at an internal border patrol checkpoint, and drove away.

The incident, which occurred in October last year, was captured on video, from both CCTV, and a dashcam within Michael Sophin’s car.

The footage shows Mr Sophin approaching a checkpoint approximately 20 miles from the border of Mexico on I-10 near Sierra Blanca, Texas. When the Border Patrol Agent asked Sophin if he is an American citizen, he replied with a dry comment.

“You know, I was going to tell you that I wasn’t going to take any questions today, and then I realized that… if Obama is letting everybody in the country, what difference does it make?” Sophin said.

The agent wasn’t playing games and replied that it “makes all the difference.”

At that point, Sophin refused to cooperate any further, calmly stating “I don’t want to answer any questions, O.K.? Thanks. Have a good night” as he drove away, at regular speed, from the checkpoint.

The agent is heard yelling “Hey, you’re not free to go!” as Sophin drives away.

Agents drove after Sophin and eventually flagged him down and ordered him out of his vehicle at gunpoint.

Sophin was arrested and taken back to the checkpoint, where his vehicle was searched without a warrant or probable cause.

In addition to Sophin’s legally owned firearms, and shooting accessories, the agents found what they described as “anti-government propaganda”. The two items given this description were a copy of The New American Magazine, a freedom and Constitution oriented publication owned by The John Birch Society, and a copy of a book called “Freedom”, written by journalist and activist Adam Kokesh.


Sophin was thrown in jail in El Paso for a whole 18 DAYS before he was released on bond.

He was first charged with “High speed flight from immigration checkpoint”, a felony which carries a sentence of up to 5 years in prison. However, this charge was dropped as it became clear that Sophin never broke the speed limit, only agents chasing him were guilty of that.

So, with one charge dismissed, the state tried a fresh approach, by charging Sophin with “Assault on a Federal Agent.”

Sophin’s firearms were also confiscated by the BATF, under the agency’s asset forfeiture program.

Eventually, when the case came to trial, Sophin was sentenced to eight months in federal prison with credit for time served. He is currently out on bond pending appeal.

During the trial, a juror explained why the decision was made to convict Sophin, despite the clear evidence that no crime was committed. “He should have to answer questions just like the rest of us,” the juror said. In other words, because he decided to stand up for his Constitutional rights, Sophin had to be made an example of.

The website Photography is Not A Crime contacted both The New American and Adam Kokesh to get their thoughts on the case and the description of their literature by the state as “anti-government propaganda” – here’s what they had to say.

The New American

“Classifying ‘The New American’ magazine as anti-government propaganda demonstrates either ignorance or complicity. ‘The New American’ is published by American Opinion Publishing Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society.

The mission of The John Birch Society is ‘To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles‘…

…Let’s remember that many agencies in the federal government, especially the Department of Homeland Security, and many left-wing advocates, especially the Southern Poverty Law Center, have taken a dangerous tact of classifying law-abiding constitutional advocates (many returning military veterans) as potential domestic terrorists. See ‘Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008′ (2012), ‘Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment’ (2009), and ‘MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement’ (2009) for further details. If an agency of the federal government is claiming ‘The New American’ magazine is ‘anti-government propaganda,’ then this demonstrates it continuing down an unconstitutional and un-American path that tramples the freedom of speech.”

Adam Kokesh on Freedom

“FREEDOM! is only anti-government propaganda if government is anti-freedom, which it is. This is why my book is also banned in US prisons. By banning my book, government has again revealed itself to be intellectually and morally bankrupt, nothing more than an elaborate scheme to steal for the super-rich. Freedom is a good idea, and good ideas don’t require force. Government, on the other hand, uses force to prevent the free flow of ideas because good ideas are a threat to all who profit from bad ideas. Fortunately, the more that agents of government declare themselves so clearly anti-freedom, the more people will hear the message.”

The case serves as a reminder of how the rights of everyday Americans are being violated en mass every day.

Using the excuse of attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants, Border Patrol agents have set up a network of internal checkpoints inside the United States. As InfoWars has documented, in some cases the checkpoints are as much as 100-200 miles from the border.

Despite what a Supreme Court ruling says, since the checkpoints are situated far away from the Mexican border, they are clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Of course, the Supreme Court also once ruled that black people in America were slaves.

The ACLU has dubbed the area in which the checkpoints have been positioned as the “Constitution-free Zone,” noting that 2 out of 3 Americans live within this buffer zone – around 190 million people in total.

There is no law that says refusing to comply with Border agents and/or police at such checkpoints gives probable cause to search an individual’s vehicle. It certainly does not provide probable cause for agents to force their way into vehicles, particularly if the occupants are not being aggressive or confrontational in any way.

This is just the latest in a series of confrontations caught on video showing Americans standing up to the checkpoints.

In this video, Border Patrol agents in California forcefully pull a man out of his car and drive off with his distressed wife and 4-year-old son simply because he refused to tell them where he was driving to.

Being routinely stopped at a permanent checkpoint close to 200 miles away from the border by Homeland Security agents, another freedom loving American decided enough was enough recently and stood up to them on video. The self declared “free roamer” was laughed at by the agents before being sent on his way.

Last year, a man in Texas was dragged from his vehicle by border patrol agents who smashed through his window after he refused to answer their questions at a checkpoint more than 50 miles away from the Southern border.

(The exchange with the agents begins at around 6 mins into the video)

InfoWars previously reported on the case of Steven Anderson, who refused to show his papers at another Border Patrol checkpoint while traveling through California.

Anderson provided a sterling example of how to stand up for your rights in such a situation. When Border Patrol agents attempted to detain him for questioning, Anderson refused, citing his right as an American citizen to “go free on my way.”

In another incident in 2012, a truck driver who passed through a checkpoint in Texas, 30 miles from the Mexican border, stood up for his Fourth Amendment rights by refusing to answer questions and eventually driving away.

These videos and hundreds of others like them accentuate the fact that Americans are not required to answer Border agents’ questions (usually starting with “Are you a United States citizen?”). Nor are Americans required to consent to any searches at such checkpoints.

Visit to learn more about this program. By actively “flexing” their rights, these brave citizens expose the techniques DHS and Border Patrol agents (and police in general) use to trick and intimidate citizens into compliance.

Not all Americans who refuse to have their rights violated have been as successful as those in the videos above. In 2008, retired San Diego social worker Vince Peppard and his wife had their car ransacked after refusing to consent to being searched.

Alex Jones has also encountered similar “interior checkpoints” on numerous occasions, including the incident documented in the video below.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments